Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, the Senate gave its consent to protocols providing for the accession of seven new members to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have supported Slovakia's admission to NATO and am heartened that the post-1998 democratic and human rights progress in Slovakia made the Senate vote possible.

Slovak leaders continue to demonstrate in many concrete ways their commitment to the oftcited but not always visible ``shared values'' that are central to the trans-Atlantic community. I was moved to read that several Slovak leaders, including Speaker of the Parliament, Pavol Hrusovsky, with whom I met last year, Laszlo Nagy, Chairman of the Parliament's human rights committee, and the Foreign Ministry have spoken out so clearly and strongly on behalf of the Cuban dissidents victimized by Castro's recent sweeping crackdown on human rights activists.

At the same time, I have continuing concerns about the Slovak Government's ongoing investigation into allegations that Romani women were sterilized without proper informed consent.

Mr. Speaker, I know these allegations are of concern to many members of the Helsinki Commission, one of whom recently sponsored a Capitol Hill briefing concerning the sterilizations. I also discussed the issue with Slovak Ambassador Martin Butora and Deputy Minister Ivan Korcok in March. Eight Helsinki Commissioners joined me in writing to Prime Minister Dzurinda to express our concern, and U.S. Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor, Lome Craner, commented on this abhorrent practice at his hearing on the State Department's annual human rights report.

I was encouraged by the Prime Minister's substantive and sympathetic response, and I commend his commitment to improve respect for the human rights of Slovakia's Romani minority.

At the same time, I am deeply troubled by one particular aspect of the government's response to the reports documenting that sterilizations occurred without proper informed consent.

Shortly after the release in January of a lengthy report on sterilization of Romani women, a spokesperson for the ministry responsible for human rights was quoted in The New York Times as saying: ``If we confirm this information, we will expand our charges to the report's authors, that they knew about a crime for a year and did not report it to a prosecutor. And if we prove it is not true, they will be charged with spreading false information and damaging the good name of Slovakia.''

In other words, if the government's investigation does not find evidence of coerced sterilization, they intend to make those who dared make the allegation pay a price. And if the government's investigation does confirm the allegation, they will still make those who made the allegation pay a price. I believe this is what is meant by the old expression, ``Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.'' This is really an outrageous threat, and it's hard to believe that an official responsible for human rights would have made it.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this was an unfortunate misstatement and not really reflective of the Slovak Government's policies. I had hoped that the fact that almost every newspaper article, from Los Angeles to Moscow, about coerced sterilization in Slovakia has mentioned this threat would lead the Slovak Government to issue some kind of clarification or retraction. Unfortunately, not only has there been no such clarification or retraction, but the threat has now been repeated--not once, but at least twice.

First, in mid-March, the Ministry of Health issued a report based on its own investigation into the allegations. (A separate government investigation continues.) Naming a particular Slovak human rights advocate by name, the ministry complained that she had refused to cooperate with police investigators and this could be considered covering up a crime. Essentially the same point was made by Slovakia's Ambassador to the OSCE in early April, ironically during a meeting on Romani human rights issues.

Mr. Speaker, these threats raise serious doubts about the breadth and depth of the Slovak Government's commitment to get at the truth in this disturbing matter. Can the Slovak Government really expect women who may have been sterilized without consent to come forward and cooperate with an investigation with a threat like this hanging over them? A few brave souls may, but I believe these threats have had a substantial chilling effect on the investigative process.

In fact, it is not unusual for those whose rights have been violated to confide their stories only upon condition of anonymity. And while I realize there has been a very serious effort in Slovakia to improve the professionalism of the police and to address past police abuses against Roma, I certainly can't blame Romani women if they are unwilling to pour their hearts out to their local constables. Simply put, the police have not yet earned that trust.

I hope the Slovak Government will set the record straight on this and remove any doubt that the days when human rights activists could be sent to jail for their reports is over. Doing so is critical for the credibility of the government's ongoing investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation, H.R. 1298, a truly historic piece of legislation authored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). The compassion, tenacity and vision of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has always been inspirational to so many of us, but on this piece of legislation Chairman Hyde's leadership was extraordinary. In astoniship speed, Mr. Hyde has now shepherded through the House and Senate a bill that will soon be signed by President Bush that is absolutely landmark in that it will help save the lives of millions and mitigate suffering in the lives of many more. Many particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, who are suffering from this disease, will be aided by this bill.

The number of deaths due to the AIDS epidemic is horrifying. It is estimated that 25 million people have died from AIDS thus far, and another 30 million are infected, and approximately 8,500 people die every day. Thankfully, we are acting swiftly; and the sooner this legislation and the appropriations that will follow are passed, we can mitigate some of this disaster. Because if we do not, there will be as many as 80 million deaths by 2010, and 40 million AIDS orphans can be expected.

Mr. Speaker, statistics about specific countries and age groups are also staggering. In Botswana, for example, nearly 40 percent of the adult population is infected. In Africa, there are 3 million children under the age of 15 living with HIV-AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, today in sub-Saharan Africa it is estimated that only 50,000 out of 4 million people in need of drug treatment are receiving it. This legislation puts us on track to get that very important drug treatment to these individuals.

This is an outstanding piece of legislation. Again, on behalf of all of us, we thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his tremendous leadership, courage and compassion.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his outstanding leadership on this issue.

Madam Chairman, nine out of ten hospitals in the United States adamantly refuse to abort unborn children, and the trend is for hospitals to divest themselves of abortion.

It is outrageous that, as hospitals in our country repudiate abortion, the Sanchez amendment seeks to turn our overseas military hospitals into abortion mills. With all due respect to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the amendment she offers will result in babies being brutally killed by abortion and will force pro- life Americans to facilitate and to subsidize the slaughter of innocent children.

We do not want any part of that carnage, and when President Clinton in the previous administration sought to impose this kind of activity upon our military not a single military doctor in our overseas hospitals wanted to be a part of it. They had to look outside the system because they were pro-life, and they wanted to nurture and care for, provide maternal health care, prenatal health care, not the killing of those babies.

Madam Chairman, let us be clear. Abortion is violence against children. Some abortion methods dismember and rip apart the fragile bodies of children. Other methods chemically poison children. Abortionists turn children's bodies into burned corpses, a direct result of the caustic effect of salt poisoning and other methods of chemical abortions.

I would say to my colleagues, there is absolutely nothing benign or curing or nurturing about abortion. It is violence. It is gruesome. And yet the apologists sanitize the awful deed with soothing, misleading rhetoric. Abortion methods are particularly ugly because, under the guise of choice, they turn baby girls and baby boys into dead baby girls and dead baby boys.

We have had enough loss of innocent life. Reject the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding time. I will not take the 5 minutes because this bill has been very adequately explained by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), and, of course, the author of the bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our ranking member and a very close partner on all veterans issues. I want to commend him for this legislation. At a time when there is some partisanship when it comes to veterans issues, as I just made very clear at a press briefing that we had, the gentleman from Illinois and several members of the committee have always gone out of their way to keep the committee as nonpartisan as humanly possible. We do work in a very cooperative way. The bill under consideration really builds on the whole total-force concept that whether you be Selected Reserve or active Army or active military, we should not permit any distinction when it comes to home loan fees. This is a very important piece of legislation. I am very proud to be supporting it. I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois on his authorship of this fine bill.

Mr. Speaker, the European Roma Rights Center, ERRC, and Greek Helsinki Monitor, GHM, have just published a report on the human rights situation of Roma in Greece. ``Cleaning Operations: Excluding Roma in Greece'' documents the plight of the inhabitants of the Romani settlement of Aspropyrgos, outside Athens, and details the problems of Roma across the country. Illustrated with stark scenes of bulldozed homes and marginalized and neglected Romani communities, a picture disturbing in more ways than one has been painted.

In particular, the report supports the accusation that the Government of Greece has used preparations for the 2004 Olympics as justification for the campaign to uproot Roma. Ironically, Greece currently holds the presidency of the European Union.

The Helsinki Commission, which I cochair, held hearings in 1998, 2000, and in 2002 focused on the human rights problems faced by Roma with the intent of raising the awareness of these problems amongst the governments of the OSCE participating States. The plight of the Roma has also been addressed in specific

hearings or briefings covering Greece, Russia, Serbia, Kosovo, and Romania, as well as the OSCE process.

Members of the Commission have also sent several letters to Greek leaders in recent years addressing longstanding human rights concerns in the Hellenic Republic, including those affecting the Romani community. These expressions of concern have specifically addressed forced evacuations of Roma from numerous villages, the abusive application of the use of national identity cards issued to Roma, the inability of Roma children to have access to schools on a nondiscriminatory basis and other matters of blatant racial discrimination.

This newly released report on Roma clearly indicates that the Greek Government has failed to properly address many of these ongoing concerns. At a June 2002 Commission hearing on Greece, in fact, I raised the specter of an intensified campaign targeting Roma to obtain land for use as venues for the 2004 Olympics. This campaign is well documented in this report.

Notwithstanding the assertions of Greek officials at the Commission hearing that ``everything is done (concerning the relocation) in consultation with, and with the consent of, the Roma involved,'' numerous non-governmental organizations have raised such issues with Athens. Greek human rights activists have stepped forward.

As an original signatory to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, Greece has accepted numerous commitments pertaining to the treatment of Roma and joined in condemning discrimination against Roma, a provision found in the 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit Document. Regrettably, the Greek Government has failed to fulfill these commitments, as documented in the new ERRC/GHM report on Roma in Greece.

The ERRC and GHM conducted intensive field missions that revealed several patterns of human rights abuse against Roma in Greece: cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment of Roma in housing; police violence against Roma; exclusion of Roma from the educational system; and, barriers to access to health care and other social support services for Roma.

Based on the facts in this report and the discussions I have had over the years in my leadership capacity with the Helsinki Commission, I urge the Government of Greece to take corrective measures, without delay, along the lines recommended by the ERRC and the GHM:

1. Facilitate access to Greek citizenship for those Roma residing in Greece who are stateless and provide the necessary legal documents, such as identity cards, to all Roma.

2. Use all appropriate means to guarantee protection against forced evictions outside the rule of law and without due process.

3. Bring to justice public officials and private individuals responsible for forced evictions of Roma in breach of Greek law.

4. Carry out thorough and timely investigations into all alleged instances of police abuse.

5. Undertake effective measures to ensure that local authorities register all persons factually residing in a given municipality, without regard to ethnicity.

6. Ensure that Romani schoolchildren have equal access to education in a desegregated school environment.

7. Without delay, adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, as called for in the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit Document.

8. Conduct public information campaigns on human rights and remedies available to victims of human rights abuse, and distribute in both the Greek and Romani languages.

9. Conduct comprehensive human rights and anti-racism training for national and local administrators, members of the police force, and the judiciary.

10. At the highest levels, speak out against racial discrimination against Roma and others, and make clear that racism will not be tolerated.

The Helsinki Commission will continue to monitor the situation of Roma in the Hellenic Republic with the aim of encouraging the Government of Greece to implement commitments it has agreed to within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Commission will also work to ensure that the plight of Roma in Greece is raised at the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting to be held this Fall in Warsaw.

Mr. Speaker, last year I met a courageous woman named Tracy Marciniak who had been beaten by her husband when she was 9 months pregnant. She survived, but her baby Zachariah died from the beating. Her attacker was convicted of the assault on Tracy, and he did minimal time. No charges were brought against him for the murder of Zachariah.

Tracy wrote: ``Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Opponents of the bill have put forth a counterproposal known as the Lofgren amendment. I have read it,'' she goes on to say, ``and it is offensive to me, because it says that there is only one victim in such a crime; the woman who is pregnant.

``Please hear me on this: On the night of February 8, 1992, there were two victims. I was nearly killed, but I survived. Little Zachariah died.''

Mr. Speaker, in a recent Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll, 84 percent said that homicide charges are appropriate in the deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son Connor in the much-publicized Peterson murder case in California; only 7 percent said that a single homicide charge would be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, Congress must pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Connor's Law.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 192) to amend the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to increase assistance for the poorest people in developing countries under microenterprise assistance programs under those Acts, 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 the bill currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 192, the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act. I introduced this bill at the beginning of the 108th Congress, along with 66 cosponsors. And this, frankly, Mr. Speaker, is the final product representing a culmination of months of hard work and discussions by Republicans and Democrats alike in both the House and the Senate, members of the microenterprise community, and USAID. We are trying, with this legislation, to build upon one of the most progressive and successful foreign aid programs that this country offers.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and our leadership for scheduling this bill. We know that the House has been considering numerous important pieces of foreign affairs legislation in recent weeks and months, from the global AIDS bill to legislation relating to the war on terrorism, and I am grateful that this bill has been posted for today's consideration.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) who has very strong support for this bill, and seeing it through every step of the way. We moved it at the very first markup of our committee. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has been a great friend and supporter of microenterprise initiatives, as well as many other very important foreign policy and human rights initiatives that are considered by this House. I also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) who is a cosponsor.

I would also like to thank my friend and colleague, Tim Roemer, former colleague, who worked very hard with us last year in developing this legislation. We had a very good broad coalition of Members trying to make this legislation a reality.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 192 will expand our existing microenterprise program so that more people can share in the hope of microlending that has already proved so fruitful to so many. H.R. 192 puts a priority on microenterprise funding, which is currently authorized at $155 million, by authorizing $175 million in fiscal year 2003, and $200 million in fiscal year 2004.

H.R. 192 establishes a new framework to ensure that more funds go to the poorest of the poor through the development and implementation of easy-to-use and cost-effective poverty assessment programs and techniques. Identifying and targeting the poorest potential clients who would stand to benefit the most from microenterprise loans has proven to be more difficult than originally anticipated. I am hopeful that once developed, these poverty assessment techniques may prove more useful not only for microenterprise, but also in other areas of foreign aid as well.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation builds upon and complements the principles that President Bush has outlined for a more effective foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Account. Business owners assisted by microlending are not only able to increase their own incomes, but through their efforts, they create jobs and help economies to go, and person by person, job by job, they help to eliminate poverty.

It is important to note that over 2 million clients are currently benefiting from USAID-assisted programs that provide the necessary capital through these small loans, sometimes through $200, $300, maybe $400, but these loans are the lifeblood to these individuals to make it and to begin to develop their own businesses, build their own homes, and to care for themselves.

It is estimated that 97 percent of microenterprise loans are successfully repaid. I repeat that: 97 percent of the loans are repaid. That is astonishing. About 70 percent of those loans go to women who are very often the most vulnerable in these societies, sometimes subjected to abuse and the need of economic opportunities in the developing world. This is a women's empowerment bill, to ensure that more women get out of poverty so they are not prey for the traffickers and the others who would exploit them.

Finally, just let me say again, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of hard work went into this. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I hope it will have the full support of the body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a former staff member of the committee and now a member of the Committee on International Relations, who has worked on these issues for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time. In conclusion, I would like to thank Walker Roberts on our staff, and the other unsung heroes of this legislation and other bills that come before this body. The staff who painstakingly work on the details. I thank Peter Smith, who worked very hard on this bill, and George Phillips on my personal staff who has been a real honcho, pushing this bill through to final passage.

Thank you to all of our staff and the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as well who have worked very hard. It has been a great product of cooperation, and the poorest of the poor will benefit when this is enacted in the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have followed with particular concern both the deadly climate in Chechnya and the deterioration of human rights in Belarus. Such violations of basic human rights deserve focused criticism, and it is appropriate that the agenda of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights included resolutions on each situation.

On April 17, the U.N. Commission voted 23-14 with 16 abstentions to approve a U.S.-cosponsored resolution urging the Belarusian authorities to investigate ``fully and impartially'' credible reports that senior government officials were involved in the disappearances in 1999 and 2000 of leading opposition figures and a journalist.

I have followed these cases closely and have become increasingly frustrated at the Belarusian regime's intransigence in meaningfully investigating these disappearances. Here in Washington and at OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meetings in Paris and Berlin, I have had occasion to meet with the wives of the disappeared. These meetings have been heart-wrenching. The cases of their husbands--who disappeared in 1999 and 2000 and are presumed to have been murdered--offer a chilling glimpse into the nature of the regime of Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenka, a regime that has the worst human rights record in Europe today. In February, I introduced H.R. 854, the Belarus Democracy Act, designed to bolster democratic development in that beleaguered country, and I am pleased that the State Department authorization bill approved yesterday by the House International Relations Committee includes key provisions of the Belarus Democracy Act. This bill encourages sanctions against the Belarusian regime until certain conditions are met, including a full accounting of these tragic disappearances.

The Belarusian people deserve to live in a society where democratic principles and human rights are respected and the rule of law is paramount, and I believe that the passage of the U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution is an important step towards that end.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could report that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights had acted with equal conscience on the issue of Chechnya. We all know the desperate human rights situation in that war-torn region of the Russian Federation. Since the Chechen war reignited in 1999, international and domestic Russian human rights organizations have documented the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by elements of the Russian military, as well as extrajudicial killings, abuse of prisoners, kidnaping, rape, and extortion of civilians. According to official statistics, 2,800 persons are missing in Chechnya; mutilated bodies of young Chechen males turn up almost daily. A representative of the respected human rights organization Memorial reported at a recent Helsinki Commission briefing that ``one of the recent tendencies is to explode the corpses'' in order to prevent identification. Needless to say, all of this is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and the OSCE Code of Conduct during internal conflicts.

What's left of the Chechen capital of Grozny after Russian artillery shelling has been compared to the ruins of Stalingrad in 1943. According to the U.N., there are 92,000 internally displaced persons forced to flee from the fighting, with around 17,000 living in tent camps in neighboring Ingushetia.

Chechen forces are not entirely blameless. There are credible reports of their executing prisoners and using non-combatants as human shields. They have also assassinated pro-Moscow Chechen officials. The U.S. Government has placed three militant groups involved in the Chechen resistance on its list of terrorist groups.

Still, is this an excuse for Russia's savage war against the civilian population?

Despite all the documentation and eyewitness testimony on egregious human rights violations committed in Chechnya, the Commission on Human Rights rejected by a vote of 15-21 an even-handed European Union resolution expressing deep concern at the reported ongoing violations of international law in Chechnya. I note that the U.S. delegation did not cosponsor the resolution, though it did support it when the measure came to a vote. We should not be surprised that China, Sudan and Zimbabwe voted against the resolution. I do find it disconcerting, though, that the delegations of Armenia and Ukraine are in that less than distinguished company.

Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Commission noted: ``The United States believes it important that the Commission address the serious human rights abuses that have occurred in Chechnya. We recognize Russia's right to defend its territorial integrity and itself against terrorism. The broader conflict in Chechnya cannot be resolved militarily and requires a political solution. Human rights violations by Russian forces in Chechnya need to be curtailed, and abusers held accountable.''

So the people of Chechnya continue to suffer, and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights looks the other way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the consolidation of democracy in Romania. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--the Helsinki Commission--I have followed events in Romania for many years. The Romanian people have survived the repression of a brutal communist dictatorship and, in the years since the fall of that regime, have made great strides in building democratic institutions and the rule of law. However, much remains to be done to overcome the legacy of the past.

Romania is a good friend and strong ally of the United States. I appreciate and thank the Government of Romania for its steadfast support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, where a battalion serves on the ground, and for its support of the U.S.-led military action in Iraq. Romania has been offered the much sought after admission to NATO, and today the Senate began debate on the Protocols of Accession. Romania is also an accession candidate to the EU.

It is in the spirit of friendship that I continue to follow the human rights issues there, based on a belief that Romania will be a stronger democracy, and therefore a stronger partner, when respect for human rights is strengthened. Frankly, I am concerned that, following Romania's invitation to join NATO, the reform momentum in Bucharest may have dissipated.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is no greater barometer of democracy than free speech and freedom of the press. While there is no doubt that the Romanian people have access to a broad range of print and electronic media, 13 years after the fall of Ceausescu, Romanian law still includes communist-era criminal defamation provisions which impose prison terms for offenses such as ``insult'' or ``offense against authority.'' These laws cause a chilling effect on independent and investigative journalism and should be repealed.

Today, I received a letter from Foreign Minister Geoana, informing me that a new draft Penal Code would do exactly that. This is encouraging news, and I will follow this process closely with the hope that articles 205, 206, 236, 236(1), 238, and 239 of the Romanian Penal Code will actually be repealed and not just modified.

Mr. Speaker, there is no international requirement that countries must make property restitution or provide compensation for confiscated properties. However, if a legal process for property restitution or compensation is established, international law requires that it be nondiscriminatory and be implemented under the rule of law. Property restitution in Romania since the fall of communism has been slow and ineffective, and the laws--which the government has enacted to address the problem--lack transparency, are complex, and have not been effectively implemented.

Restitution of communal property--for example churches or synagogues--is especially

difficult. In 1948, Romania's communist government banned the Greek Catholic (Uniate) Church and ordered the incorporation of the Greek Catholic Church into the Orthodox Church. More than 2,500 churches and other buildings seized from the Uniates were given to Orthodox parishes. The government decree that dismantled the Greek Catholic Church was abrogated in 1989, however, of the thousands of properties confiscated from Greek Catholics, fewer than 200 have been returned nearly 15 years later. The status of thousands of properties belonging to the historic Hungarian faiths (Roman Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran and Unitarian), and the Jewish community, as well as other non- traditional religions has not been resolved, despite the enactment of a communal property restitution law in July of 2002.

The restitution of private property in Romania is equally as murky. In February 2001, the Romanian Parliament enacted Law 10/2001, the express purpose of which, according to Article 1 (1) of the Law, is to make restitution in-kind of nationalized real property and, whenever such in-kind restitution is not possible, to make restitution in an equivalent consisting of cash for residential properties and vouchers to be used in exchange for shares of state-owned companies or services. This clearly stated principle has been undermined by so many exceptions that it becomes virtually meaningless. Those claimants who have overcome the numerous exceptions contained in the law have then been stymied by government recalcitrance when they have attempted to obtain the necessary documentation to support their claims. Many title deeds were purposely destroyed by the former communist regime. State archives, having been deluged with a significant volume of requests, complicate the process with chronic bureaucratic delays in processing property records, and seeming indifference to the urgency of those requests. The Government of Romania cannot expect claimants to file within prescribed deadlines, and then not provide them with the means to obtain the proof of their claims from the government's own records.

Further, I am disappointed by the ineffective and inadequate attempts of the Romanian Government to register the Jehovah's Witnesses as an official religion. The inability of the government to make this happen is a serious concern, as it is more than an issue of legal personality, but also of rule of law, religious freedom and discrimination. In October 2001, I received personal assurances from Foreign Minister Geoana that this longstanding matter would be resolved; it has not despite a ruling by Romania's highest court dating back to 2000. The Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs seemed to provide a fix in October of last year, but it proved faulty and failed to bring closure to this matter. Mr. Speaker, I urge the competent Romanian authorities to remove this issue from the agenda by facilitating the recognition of the Jehovah's Witnesses as an official religion without further delay.

Another matter which I hope the Government of Romania will bring to closure is the rehabilitation and honoring of World War II dictator, Marshall Ion Antonescu, Hitler ally and war criminal condemned for the mass murder of Jews. Last year government officials publicly condemned efforts to honor Antonescu and removed from public land three statues that had been erected in his honor. One statue remains on public land in Jilava, the site of Antonescu's execution, and important streets in the cities of Timisoara and Oradea continue to be named after him. I urge the Government of Romania to remove these remaining vestiges honoring the former dictator.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my continuing concern about the Romani minority in Romania. I appreciate that Romania was the first country in Central Europe to adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. This was an extremely important and positive step. But there appears to be a rising tide of intolerance against Roma, manifested by scapegoating of Roma in the media and in the statements of some public officials. In all likelihood, this climate contributed to the tragic events in Buhusi last December, when a number of Roma were shot during a police raid, including a 14-year-old boy who was reportedly shot in the back. I hope the Romanian Government will play a leadership role in countering prejudice against Roma and will continue to implement programs to address discrimination against them.

Protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as commitment to the Helsinki Final Act and respect for Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe norms and principles, are requirements for NATO membership. As a participating State of the OSCE, and as a candidate for admission to NATO, Romania has made that commitment. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Romania will use this opportunity to strengthen its democracy, not retreat from it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 100) to restate, clarify, and revise the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the first day of this session the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and I introduced, along with now more than three dozen of our distinguished colleagues, H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, as a top legislative priority of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. With the war on terrorism and hundreds of thousands of our servicemembers on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world, it is important that we lessen the burdens that they and their loved ones may face at home as a direct result of their service.

H.R. 100 will strengthen the rights and protections afforded U.S. military personnel called to active duty so that they are not harmed in civil, financial or legal proceedings. I am pleased that this bipartisan legislation has attracted broad support from veterans groups, military associations and the legal community. H.R. 100 is a complete restatement of the law known as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. A ``restatement'' of a law has long been understood to mean a law that has been updated, clarified and strengthened, including a gathering of the relevant judicial interpretations and a measured casting aside of those few interpretations that do not comport with the author's understanding of the law's intent.

This revision of the act has been in the works for a number of years. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs originally held hearings on a similarly intended measure, H.R. 4763, in the 102nd

Congress. Last year, the Subcommittee on Benefits held 2 days of hearings on an almost identical measure, H.R. 5111.

The need for a Federal law such as the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act goes back to at least the Civil War, and a State law in Louisiana was passed as far back as the War of 1812. The first modern relief law was enacted in 1918. While H.R. 100, the bill before us, retains the time-tested basic rights and protections of the 1940 version of the law and its 1942 amendments, it also reflects the evolution of our legal processes during the past 60 years. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has filed a bill report which contains a detailed explanation of the restatement. I recommend the bill report to those who seek a more detailed understanding of H.R. 100, as amended.

The current law is potentially applicable to a large number of personal transactions and any civil legal proceeding involving a servicemember. The courts have generally been understanding of the situation of the servicemembers who invoke its protections. They understand that these servicemembers are absent because they are doing the most important work of all, defending our national interests, our freedoms and our way of life.

In explaining the act, countless authors have been quick to remind us that the act is intended to give a temporary reprieve to a servicemember and that it reflects the need to be fair to all parties by relying upon the courts to determine whether the servicemember's ability to protect his or her rights or to meet obligations has been materially affected by military service. Those purposes are faithfully carried forward in this restatement.

Many of the provisions in the act and in H.R. 100 would only be of interest to persons involved in legal proceedings. Let me outline some that apply more generally to all servicemembers. For example, servicemembers would be protected against what amounts to a clever evasion of the prohibition against double taxation of a servicemember's military income when they must live outside the State where they are legal residents. What is happening is that some States where nonresident military personnel are stationed are counting a servicemember's military pay on which income taxes are paid elsewhere for determining the service- member's graduated tax rate on family income earned within the State. This is an outrageous exploitation of servicemembers who cannot even vote against the politicians who are doing it, and H.R. 100 would put a stop to it.

Any servicemember whose military service materially affects his or her ability to pay a debt incurred before entering military service is entitled to have the interest rate on this debt reduced to 6 percent. There has been dispute whether interest in excess of the 6 percent was deferred or forgiven and whether the lender must reduce the monthly payment. H.R. 100 makes it clear that such interest is forgiven and the monthly payment is reduced in keeping with the act's policy objective of reducing monthly obligations at a time when mobilized National Guard or Reserve members are likely to have a reduced income.

Active duty servicemembers who have permanent change of station orders or who are being deployed for more than 90 days would be allowed to terminate housing leases. Right now, servicemembers can be forced to pay rent for housing they cannot live in because our government sent them somewhere else.

An eviction proceeding against a servicemember could be delayed for at least 90 days if he or she invokes the act.

Eviction protection would be updated to reflect the increase in the cost of rental housing. The current act only applies to leases of less than $1,200 per month. H.R. 100 would increase that amount to $1,700 per month, and the amount would increase each year in accordance with a housing rental index.

The act protects against the lapse of life insurance policies when an individual enters military service. The act's life insurance coverage would be raised from $10,000 to $250,000, or the SGLI maximum, whichever is greater.

All motor vehicles and other property would be included in the act's installment contract provisions so that in the case of a service member who, for example, has fallen behind on car lease payments, the lessor must obtain a court order before repossessing the car.

The current act does not clearly apply to simple administrative proceedings, which are far more common today than they were in 1940. H.R. 100 would include administrative proceedings, such as license and zoning manners, under the act's rights and protections.

There are, Mr. Speaker, many other provisions which affect particular rights or particular statutes such as Federal mining and reclamation acts. Many of the other changes in language and terms merely reflect the language of the law as it is practiced today.

Mr. Speaker, the actual preparation of this bill was a collaborative effort between our committee counsel, the Office of Legislative Counsel, and, most importantly, representatives of the judge advocates general of the military departments. The JAG officers played a crucial role in relating how the current law is understood by their fellow JAG advisors, who must often counsel servicemembers on their rights and obligations under the law and who have direct experience with the issues and the problems that arise under it.

I want to commend, Mr. Speaker, all of the dedicated and capable members of the various staffs who worked so hard to prepare this legislation. Beginning with H.R. 4763 back in 1992, the JAG officers who provided the technical services for the very important initial draft of H.R. 4763 were Commander Christopher Gentile, U.S. Naval Reserve; Lieutenant Colonel Amy J. Griese, U.S. Air Force Reserve; Gregory M. Huckabee, U.S. Army; and Major Teresa J. Wright, U.S. Marine Corps.

The JAG officers who provided the excellent technical services for the updated draft for H.R. 5111 were Lieutenant Colonel Patrick W. Lindemann, U.S. Air Force; Major Eugene J. Martin, U.S. Army; Mr. Eric C. Stamets, civilian employee from the U.S. Army. Lieutenant Colonel Griese returned to the restatement effort by providing extensive technical services on the bill report for H.R. 100. Colonel Steven T. Strong, U.S. Army; and Colonel Wanda Good, U.S. Army also provided highly effective services on H.R. 5111 and H.R. 100, the bill before the committee and the Department of the Defense.

The Committee on Veterans Affairs counsel who prepared the hearings in 1992 and 2000 and were the lead staff members on H.R. 4763, 5111, and the bill before us today, H.R. 100, are Patrick Ryan and Kingston Smith. Minority committee counsel also worked very hard in drafting these bills, Mary Ellen McCarthy and Geoffrey Collver. Committee staff assistants who helped with research and proofreading are Summer Larson and Devon Seibert. Also Robert Cover of the Office of Legislative Counsel performed invaluable drafting services on each of these three bills and the final product that is before the body today.

Most especially I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). My good friend and colleague is the committee's ranking Democrat who has been my active partner on this legislation and many other bills that we have brought before the House and who proposed coverage for the act for certain National Guard members that became part of the law last year.

Although the revision of this law has been in preparation for more than 10 years, I cannot think of a better time for this body to be considering it than today. I urge all Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, owing to the fact that I have a markup at the Committee on International Relations and I would like to get to it, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of our time be controlled by the gentleman from the great State of Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 1949, the Vendee Loan Restoration Act. This legislation, which is cosponsored by my friend Lane Evans of Illinois, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will re-establish the Department of Veterans Affairs' highly effective loan program, which VA terminated administratively on January 23, 2003.

When a purchaser agrees to buy a foreclosed VA home, VA may offer to finance it through a ``vendee'' loan to encourage the prompt sale of the property. Vendee loans are made at market interest rates and often require a down payment. Borrowers are assessed a 2.25 percent funding fee that is paid in cash.

I view vendee loans as an important tool to obtain a higher return on property sales, which reduces the overall cost of program operations. In the past, VA made, and subsequently sold, $800 million to $1.2 billion in such loans each fiscal year. There is an ample body of empirical data indicating that offering vendee financing is cost effective. In March 2002, Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, Inc., independently analyzed the cost effectiveness of vendee loan financing. Their report indicated a savings to the Government of $16 million in fiscal year 1999 due to vendee financing. We believe the vendee loan program is based on sound business principals and should be re- established.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay special tribute on the 10th anniversary of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. During the past decade, the institution and its dedicated staff members have worked tirelessly to promote remembrance of the Holocaust and to draw lessons for the future from this very dark chapter of mankind's recent history. When the Museum was dedicated and formally opened in late April 1993, this event culminated over 10 years of preparation that started in 1980 with the chartering of the institution by a unanimous Act of Congress. Recognizing the work of the Museum this week is very fitting, as it is the week of Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time for honoring the millions of Jews who died almost 60 years ago under Nazi tyranny.

As set forth in its mission statement, the Holocaust Memorial Museum has become America's national institution for the documentation, study, and interpretation of Holocaust history, and is this country's memorial to the millions of people murdered during the Holocaust. The Museum and its International Archives Project focuses on all individuals who suffered during the Holocaust, in addition to the six million executed Jews, the horrific Nazi treatment of millions of Roma, disabled, religious and political prisoners, and prisoners of war. The Museum plays a critical role in advancing and disseminating information, documenting the historicity of the Holocaust, while also preserving the memory of individuals who suffered.

While insuring that the lessons of the past will not be forgotten, the Museum has actively and creatively developed ways to work towards a better future. The institution's dedication to dealing with the horrors of genocide, whether in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Rwanda or Cambodia is a critical part of the effort to mobilize international action against this plague on all humanity. The Committee on Conscience plays a particularly significant role in bringing timely attention to acts of genocide or related crimes against humanity.

The Museum has rightfully become one of Washington's most revered attractions. The hundreds of thousands of visitors who have toured the Museum since its opening have left with an unforgettable experience and the opportunity to reflect on the deep moral questions stemming from the tragedy of the Holocaust. The Museum's research center has served as a critical resource for scholars who try to help us better understand the lessons of this terrible chapter of human history. The creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has also encouraged other countries to move to establish comparable institutions including, most significantly, in Berlin, Germany.

The U.S. Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, has worked with the Museum on several occasions, from pushing for the release of documents from the Romani concentration camp in Lety, Czech Republic, to urging Romania to give greater meaning to its stated commitment of rejecting anti-Semitism by removing Antonescu statues from public lands. In response to the alarming spike of anti-Semitic incidents found last summer in Europe, myself and other Members of the Commission have been very active in urging governments and elected officials to denounce the violence and ensure their laws are enabled to prosecute the perpetrators. In support of this effort, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 49, urging, among other things, European states to ``promote the creation of educational efforts throughout the region encompassing the participating States of the OSCE to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people, increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the necessary resources to accomplish this goal.'' It is my hope that other countries will copy the unique and effective model of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Congress has designated April 27th to May 4th as ``Days of Remembrance,'' when our nation will commemorate again the victims of the Holocaust. May we use this time of reflection that will reinforce our common determination to learn from history's harsh lessons.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First of all, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our chairman, for the extraordinary job he as done in this legislation. This has been a work in progress as we all know for several months, over last year and into this year. This legislation, in the end, is something that will save millions of lives and something we can be proud of.

I have an amendment that is co-sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) that I think is a critical clarification needed to make sure that the many successful and compassionate organizations are not inadvertently disqualified from participating in our international HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment efforts.

The amendment is a one-phrase all-important clarification of the existing language in the bill. It will ensure that a qualified grantee that does not want to participate in all aspects of a treatment or prevention strategy is not disqualified from participating in our HIV/ AIDS efforts. For example, if a Muslim or Catholic organization is excellent in abstinence education or

AIDS testing, they should not be disqualified from U.S. funding because they have a moral objection to condoms.

The bill already says, I would point out, that organizations shall not be required as a condition of receiving the assistance to endorse or utilize a multi-sectorial approach to combatting HIV/AIDS. While this language is intended to protect organizations that are qualified in one phase of prevention or treatment from being disqualified if they have a moral or religious objection, the concern is that the language might be too vague. The word ``multi-sectorial'' has many meanings and might not protect organizations. That ambiguity--that infirmity--in the underlying bill is remedial by our amendment.

Thus the amendment which we are offering today would clarify, according to the original intent of the bill, that organizations should not be disqualified if they have moral or religious objections to one part of a treatment or prevention strategy. The one phrase that would be added is this: ``To endorse, utilize or participate in a prevention method or treatment program to which the organization has a religious or moral objection.''

It could not be more clear. It could not be more transparent.

Some of my colleagues may say faith-based organizations do not need this protection, but I assure them that the problem is real. In one case, a Catholic doctor who worked in sub-Saharan Africa for 31 years, caring for thousands of young people suffering from AIDS, was approached by USAID in Uganda and asked to draw up a program to prevent HIV/AIDS. Her group presented a project proposal which involved AIDS awareness and behavior change programs. In the project proposal, the emphasis was on abstinence and faithfulness as a way of preventing the spread of HIV and was for people of all faiths. USAID, however, responded by asking them to put in a component of promoting and distributing condoms. When this organization said they were not prepared to do so because of a religious objection, they were denied funding.

This is one of many stories. And the ones who are harmed when this kind of action takes place are those who are suffering the most and are at greatest risk and need services. This provision would not require, I would say to my colleagues, a change in the overall strategy to fight HIV/AIDS. The overall strategy would stay the same even if certain groups only worked on parts of that strategy where they are qualified and successful.

Let me say, finally, the Catholic Church, today, cares for one out of every four AIDS patients. One out of every four. If the bill remains unclear, this could potentially prohibit, could proscribe the funding of many of the initiatives of the Church, and I said earlier Muslim groups or Catholic Relief Services, which today cares for about 2 million people who are at risk or perhaps have been affected by AIDS, mostly in Africa but around the world as well. Two million by one Catholic agency alone

We want inclusion. We want more people involved. I ask that this amendment be approved. This conscience protection is real and it would be impossible for anyone, at anytime to misconstrue Congressional intent.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, and with all due respect, and I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I would have to respectfully decline.

Earlier we had spoken, and the gentleman had indicated he wanted to do a colloquy on identical language. The problem is the word ``undermine.'' If a group opposes a certain type of prevention such as condom use that could be construed in the eyes of someone who is making a grant or letting a grant, that organization should not get funded. The proposed Lantos language nullifies any conscience clause so I must reject it.

Our hope with our amendment is that we empower the maximum army of volunteers and professional people to care and assist people who are at risk of HIV/AIDS as well as people who have already contracted this horrific disease. We should not limit our response to this crisis; we need to have a more flexible response. Be reminded, we are talking about grant money. So it is still up to the grantor--the United States Government--to decide whether or not the grant request that we are in receipt of meets the criteria in terms of what the project is all about, whether it be dealing with actual treatment of AIDS patients or hospice care or some prevention strategy or mother to child transmission initiatives.

So with all due respect, I would have to decline.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I just want to make it very clear, and I wish the gentlewoman had not gone the route of saying there is another motive here. The motive--my motive--is to say that there are a vast array of other people who are very competent in mitigating this crisis called AIDS, and maybe even ending it some day who are on the ground providing essential services as we speak. Others--if the wherewithal exists--will soon join them.

I mentioned Catholic Relief Services earlier in the debate. Catholic Relief Services, today, provides HIV/AIDS services to 2 million people. They do it without a brass band or self promoting press releases and are very much underheralded. These saints who care for the afflicted are on the ground, village after village, heavily embedded in Africa, helping people with this horrible scourge and helping the people who are trying to cope with it and prevent it. Catholic Relief Services is made up of the most caring and compassionate people on earth. Let's hope they apply for more funding.

I mentioned earlier the one case of a diocese, five dioceses in Uganda in the 1990s that had hoped to develop an AIDS plan with some funding augmented by the United States Government. And because the organization said they did not want to embrace the condom part, they were precluded from U.S. funding. So there is a real world tragedy and dark consequence as a direct result of not having an air-tight conscience clause.

Again, we can fund condoms till the cows come home in this bill; but we are saying there are providers among the best an earth--the CRS--who are deeply respected in the community, with access to the at risk populations, yet who would not get funding without real conscience clause protection. Catholic and Muslim groups are the ones we are mostly talking about, and it seems to me that it is counterproductive in the extreme to everything we are trying to do here--to prevent their full participation.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to close debate on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce H.R. 1716, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act. Joining me as original cosponsors are Ranking Member Lane Evans, and the chairman and ranking member of the Benefits Subcommittee, Henry Brown and Michael Michaud, respectively.

Mr. Speaker, along with Mr. Evans of Illinois, the Committee's Ranking Member, I am introducing a bill to strengthen the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) rights under law to recover the costs of providing medical care to veterans and other persons from certain third parties. A number of public health plans either refuse to reimburse VA, or are prohibited from doing so by current law. This bill would correct this problem by eliminating barriers to reimbursement for VA care. It is identical to a bill I introduced in the 107th Congress, H.R. 5530. That bill was referred exclusively to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

H.R. 1715 is based upon the simple principle that acknowledges when VA provides medical care to an insured or Medicare-eligible veteran, VA should receive payment for the services it provides. This principle is not new. Since 1986, VA has had statutory authority to collect from traditional insurers such as Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Aetna, Mutual of Omaha and many others. These funds are used by VA to supplement appropriated funds to maintain high quality health care. VA also collects from so called ``Medi-gap policies'' that are an important adjunct to the Medicare program.

But VA is unable to collect from the massive managed care sector, accounting now for over two-thirds of all health plans in the United States, including the managed care plans within Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. Nor can VA collect from the Medicare program. RAND Corporation has estimated that over 2 million Medicare-eligible veterans were enrolled in VA health care in fiscal year 2000, with that number increasing each fiscal year since then.

My legislation would require these federal programs to pay VA for care it provides to covered beneficiaries. This would increase the amount of money VA could collect by hundreds of millions of dollars each year--providing funds that are desperately needed to reduce these intolerable waiting lists and promote better use of all available health care resources.

This legislation will not limit the choices available to veterans in Medicare or any other federal health care plan, and I do believe it will create a modest incentive for veterans to remain enrolled in the VA rather than move back and forth between systems as they do now. This bill will also provide an important supplement to the VA health care system for the services it renders in caring for many of our nation's heroes.

I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense approach to improving veterans' health care, reducing waiting times for VA health care, and helping Medicare-eligible and other federally insured veterans gain better health care coverage from the Department of Veterans Affairs.