Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill to repeal the four-year terms specified by law for certain officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and to add a provision that addresses the appointment of directors of principal geographic service areas.

Fourteen years ago, when the Veterans Administration was established as an executive department and redesignated the Department of Veterans Affairs, Public Law 100-527 also established a Chief Medical Director (CMD), a Chief Benefits Director (CBD) and a Director of the National Cemetery Services (the Director). The CMD and the CBD were to be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, while the Director was to report to the Office of the Secretary.

Subsequent laws further restated and reorganized the three key executive positions in the Department as the Under Secretaries for Health, Benefits and Memorial Affairs. Under current law, the Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits are appointed for four-year terms, with reappointment permissible for successive-like periods. There is no such restriction or term provision established in law for the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs.

I am introducing H.R. 1718 to repeal term appointments for the Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits. This bill will align all three Under Secretary positions as Presidential appointments, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and allow the President maximum flexibility in the appointment of these primary executive positions. Current incumbents would not be affected by the enactment of this legislation. The President would also be required to notify Congress concerning the reasons for removal if the President should choose to terminate or remove one of the Under Secretaries of the Department.

These term appointments likewise would be repealed for key officials assigned to the Office of the Under Secretary for Health, who are appointed by the Secretary subject to reassignment at the Secretary's discretion. With this bill, the designation of directors of principal geographic service areas are added to the group of key agency officials appointed by the Secretary and serving at the Secretary's discretion without term restrictions.

As with the three under secretaries, H.R. 1718 requires that the Secretary notify the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House and Senate when one of these key officials is removed from one of these subsidiary positions. These officials may be entitled to reassignment, if they held a previous career position within the Department.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would allow the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs maximum flexibility to hold senior officials accountable and to align the agency's top leadership with the vision and goals of the Secretary and the Administration. I urge prompt House action on this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 165, a resolution that calls for the rights of Greek Cypriots and

Turkish Cypriots to be protected. Most importantly, the resolution urges that steps be taken to resolve the longest unresolved conflict in Europe--the division of Cyprus.

The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I co- chair, has held several briefings over the last 18 months on the evolution of a hoped-for solution to the Cyprus impasse. The tone of these briefings varied from optimistic to skeptical. Those concerned about this problem were hopeful when United Nations Secretary General Koffi Annan put forth a proposed plan last November.

After further discussions, Mr. Annan adapted the plan to encompass the concerns voiced by both sides of the conflict. Unfortunately, Mr. Rauf Denktash, leader of the Turkish Cypriots, failed to accept either the comprehensive settlement or the proposed referendum advanced by the Secretary General. Denktash's inability to find common ground with his fellow Cypriots from the Greek side keeps Cyprus divided.

H. Res. 165 calls for the most logical resolution of the problem--let the people of Cyprus, whether they be Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots, determine their own fate at the ballot box. Tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots have demonstrated their support for this proposal in massive public marches. Many Turkish Cypriots are obtaining Republic of Cyprus passports in an attempt to move this process ahead.

Mr. Denktash must heed the call of these times. The time for a single man to stand in the way of progress for an entire people, for an entire country, is past. I call on you, Mr. Denktash, to allow the referendum to be held now or step aside in the interest of your people and the prospect of reconciliation on the divided island nation of Cyprus!

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce H.R. 1683, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2003. Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lane Evans, as well as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Benefits Subcommittee, Henry Brown and Michael Michaud, respectively, join me as original cosponsors of the bill. H.R. 1683 would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to veterans' benefits, effective December 1, 2003.

The VA Committee periodically reviews the service-connected disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) programs to ensure that the benefits provide reasonable and adequate compensation for disabled veterans and their families. Based on this review, Congress acts annually to provide a cost-of-living adjustment in compensation and DIC benefits.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has provided increases in these rates for every fiscal year since 1976. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget submission, as well as the House Budget Resolution, includes funding for an increase that is currently estimated to be 2.0 percent.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

First of all, I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and all those Members who supported our efforts to provide higher funding for veterans benefits and services. It is important to note that the Nussle budget reflects an agreement on veterans spending that was reached before the House voted on the budget last March 21.

Chairman Nussle honored his commitment, and he delivered. The budget includes new budget authority for veterans in fiscal year 2004 of $63.8 billion, a $6.2 billion increase in budget authority over 2003. Of that, $3.4 billion, or 12.9 percent, will be devoted to discretionary spending, the bulk of which is for medical care.

It is important to note that every penny of that increase is justified by the compelling needs, the medical needs of our veterans.

I would point out to my friend that, in a hearing I chaired earlier this year, Dr. Robert Roswell, who is the Under Secretary for Health, testified that we needed about 13 percent to take care of our core veteran population. This budget hits that number right on the mark. My colleagues can laugh all they want. It hits it right on the mark.

I am also happy to point out that this budget, pursuant to the agreement before we voted on March 21, requires no cuts whatsoever in mandatory spending. Let me just remind my colleagues that the budget offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was $1.6 billion less in budget authority than the budget being presented on this floor today.

So when I hear about veterans, I have been on that committee for 23 years, and this budget is good for veterans. And I would hope that Members would look at this and stop the rhetoric that is distortion and misrepresentation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, since mid-March the Castro dictatorship has carried out a massive crackdown on human rights defenders, independent journalists, and trade unionists and other brave and noble pro-democracy activists throughout Cuba.

Not satisfied with the ongoing torture and mistreatment and incarceration of approximately 400 political prisoners, Castro has begun a new, ominous, and shameful attack on another 80 of the best and brightest and most courageous of Cuba. Now, as we meet here today, his people and his thugs are beating, victimizing, and sentencing to very long prison sentences those who are the cream of the crop in Cuba, who believe in freedom and democracy.

Castro, with all eyes diverted on Iraq and the war in Iraq, is trying to silence dissent with violence, ``show'' trials, and incarceration. This latest manifestation, Mr. Speaker, of cruelty by the Castro dictatorship is but another, but a highly significant other, reminder of the true character of this regime. It is cruel, brutal and an egregious violator of human rights.

Mr. Speaker, Castro's brutal actions hopefully will serve as a wake- up call to those in the United States, especially those in the United States Congress who argue that it is time to lift the travel ban and sanctions against Cuba. I especially want to focus, Mr. Speaker, on those in the European Union who have been trading with the island country of Cuba for so many years without any linkage whatsoever to human rights. Trade, trade, trade, while this barbaric dictatorship gets worse and worse and worse.

In previous Congresses, Mr. Speaker, I have offered an amendment to lift the travel ban, if and only if political prisoners are freed and felons who have committed acts of violence in the United States against U.S. police, including a trooper from the State of New Jersey, are brought to the U.S. in order to be held accountable. That amendment, sadly, lost.

Now, today on the floor we are united in rhetoric and sentiment for those who are being incarcerated and mistreated. But we also need linkage, Mr. Speaker. We need to recognize that actions, and particularly those that are linked to trade and travel bans, can be very efficacious--actions always speak louder than our words. I call upon the European Union, Mr. Speaker, to engage the human rights abuses of Castro with something more than rhetoric. Members of the EU have been trading, as has Canada, for so many years. What have they gotten for it? Maybe they made a few bucks or a few Euros or a few Canadian dollars, but they have,

however unwittingly, aided and abetted this brutal tyrant in horrific repression against his people.

I urge strong support for the gentlewoman from Florida's (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) resolution, and I hope this is a wake-up call about what this regime is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time and for his great work on behalf of this legislation, and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for his superb leadership in crafting this bill.

I rise in strong support, Mr. Speaker, of the Clean Diamond Trade Act, a long overdue measure that will restore the U.S. in a leadership position in the fight against the trade in conflict diamonds. For too long, the international community has looked the other way as rebel groups have trafficked in the sale of lethal military weapons using the profits from the sale of these diamonds to finance efforts to overthrow legitimate governments.

This bill will put in place the required laws and regulations designed to monitor and control the import and export of the trade in conflict diamonds so they can no longer be used to support instability and armed conflict throughout much of Africa and other parts of the world.

By all accounts, they are aptly named conflict diamonds. During the past decade, more than 6 million people from Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been driven from their homes by wars waged in large part for control for diamond mining areas.

I have met on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, with David Crane, the Sierra Leone Special War Crimes Prosecutor, who told me about ghastly war crimes committed in the name of diamond profits. Not only has the illegitimate trade of diamonds led to systematic and gross human rights violations and civil unrest, so too it has hurt the trade in legitimate diamonds, which makes a critical contribution to the economies of many developing countries.

Numerous resolutions, Mr. Speaker, of the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, including resolutions 1173, 1295, 1306, and 1343, as well as a United Nations General Assembly resolution in 2000 have laid the groundwork for devising an international regime to stop the flow of these conflict diamonds.

The first meeting, as I think Members know, to discuss this took place in Kimberly, South Africa, in May of 2000 at the initiative of the African producing countries. Many technical and working group meetings took place subsequent to that throughout Africa and Europe, culminating in the November 2002 meeting in Interlaken, Switzerland, finalizing the so-called Kimberly Process.

This historic meeting committed all 48 participants, including the United States, to the rapid implementation of its diamond certification scheme for rough diamonds consistent with international trade rules. Fully consistent with the work of the diamond industry, including the World Diamond Council, numerous civil society representatives and key NGOs, the voluntary self-regulating initiatives from many producing importing countries have now been melded through the Kimberly Process into a global system of mutually recognized certificates for legitimate diamonds.

Our own Nation's extensive participation in this effort, under the auspices of the State Department's special negotiator for conflict diamonds, is reflected in the measure before us today. The bill implements our obligations to prohibit the import or export of rough diamonds not controlled by the Kimberly Process.

The bill specifies that the exporting authority under the bill will be the Bureau of the Census, and their role will be to issue the required regulations and guidelines to ensure that any proposed exports of rough diamonds be made through the automated export system. Any efforts to fully evaluate and enforce this system validating Kimberly Process Certificates would be undertaken by the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

I would also point out to my colleagues that the legislation gives the State Department a lead role, together with the Treasury, in implementing the legislation. In this regard, the existing special negotiator for conflict diamonds in the Bureau for Economic and Business Affairs should continue to play a key role in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, it is the expectation of the Committee on International Relations that it will be fully consulted by the Department to the extent it decides to take any action to modify this position in any way. It has been brought to my attention that a number of nongovernmental organizations who are taking an active role in monitoring the implementation of the Kimberly Process have expressed concerns that several countries, including the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe and the

Central African Republic, have been admitted as participants in the certification scheme despite evidence of continued illegal trade in rough diamonds.

I would ask the Department to examine this evidence and take any and all appropriate actions necessary to mitigate and stop this illegal activity. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to acknowledge and welcome the March 14th statement of the President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, pledging his commitment to religious freedom for all Georgians and promising the punishment of individuals complicit in mob attacks on religious minorities. (I am submitting the statement for the Record below.) President Shevardnadze made this pledge during an ecumenical service in Tbilisi's Evangelist-Baptist Cathedral Church, attended by leaders of the Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Baptist churches and many individuals from the diplomatic community. The U.S. Ambassador to Georgia, Richard Miles, also attended and addressed the gathering. Reportedly, so many people came that hundreds had to listen via loudspeakers in the churchyard.

The service was initially planned for late January, but defrocked priest Basil Mkalavishvili and his crowd of thugs assaulted worshipers and clergy an hour before it was scheduled to begin--as they have been doing with impunity since 1999. Individuals were beaten as they tried to leave, with rocks and stones being reportedly thrown. While President Shevardnadze quickly condemned that attack, ordering the Interior Minister, the Prosecutor General, State Chancellery Head, and the Security Council Secretary to investigate and punish the perpetrators, no arrests or prosecutions followed.

Despite Georgia's appalling record on religious tolerance for the last few years, I hope President Shevardnadze's speech at the Baptist church signals a new determination to arrest and aggressively prosecute the mob leaders and their henchmen. He promised that ``as the President of Georgia and a believer, I shall not restrict myself only to a mere expression of resentment. I do promise that the President and the Authorities of Georgia will do their utmost to grant every person freedom of expression of faith.'' Driving home the point further, Mr. Shevardnadze declared, ``the state will exert its pressure on whoever comes in defiance of this principle. You may stand assured that the aggressors will be brought to justice.''

As Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, over the past three years I have watched with increasing alarm the escalation of mob violence. On September 24th I chaired a Commission hearing focused on this disturbing pattern. The Jehovah's Witnesses have borne the brunt of attacks, along with Baptists, Pentecostals, Adventists and Catholics. Most disheartening has been the government's indifference; victims throughout the country have filed approximately 800 criminal complaints, without one criminal conviction.

Despite a series of statements by President Shevardnadze, Georgia's Minister of Interior

and Prosecutor General appear unwilling to effectively enforce the rule of law, refusing to arrest mob leaders like Mkalavishvili and Paata Bluashvili and not attempting serious prosecutions. For example, the trial of Mkalavishvili has dragged on for more than a year, without a single piece of evidence considered yet. I would hope the provision of adequate and visible security, which took months to organize, will continue and that the prosecutor will begin his case shortly. Also, the inauguration of trial proceedings against Bluashvili in Rustavi is positive; I trust the delays and shenanigans seen in Mkalavishvili's trial will not be repeated there. I also urge the Government of Georgia to arrest and detain Mkalavishvili, Bluashvili and other indicted persons who continue to perpetrate violent criminal acts against religious minorities.

Undoubtedly, President Shevardnadze's presence at the March 14th service and his statement illustrate his personal commitment to religious tolerance and basic law and order. Yet, while I appreciate his gesture, it is time for real action. If the attacks are allowed to continue, it will only become more difficult to rein in this mob violence. If presidential orders are repeatedly ignored, it will only further weaken the government's ability to enforce the rule of law. And, of course, we must not forget the plight of minority religious communities that continue to live in a state of siege, without any real protection from their government. Ironically, it appears that minorities religious communities are freer to profess and practice their faith in regions of Georgia not under the control of President Shevardnadze's government.

In closing, I urge President Shevardnadze to fulfill his most recent commitment to punish the aggressors, thereby restoring Georgia's international reputation and upholding its international commitments as a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

I and other Members of Congress are acutely interested in seeing whether the Government of Georgia will actually arrest the perpetrators of violence and vigorously prosecute them.

Representatives of all Religions and Nations have to Raise Prayers for

Peace Together

My dear friends, Christians, dear Ambassadors: I am here to

give utterance to my contentment and admiration, which

derives from seeing you, all Christians, or, to be more

precise, representatives of all Christian folds, assembled

here, under the same roof of this temple, in the capital

of Georgia famed as the Virgin's lot.

I am happy to be a witness to this occurrence. I am happy

because you are together, because we are together. But all of

us have our own faith.

I am an Orthodox believer, but we are all Christians. It is

what we should always bear in mind and keep intact this

wholeness and unity.

Georgia is one of those countries on the planet whose roots

go back the farthest in history. Tolerance has become

particularly entrenched in its history and nature since the

days we embraced Christianity.

Christ granted that we be together. And more than this:

Georgia is a multinational country, where Muslims and

followers of other confessions have dwelt along with

Christians in the course of centuries.

We live presently in a world of stark contradictions. It

remains anybody's guess when a bomb may blast. You probably

understand what I mean. Therefore, we should pray for peace,

and these prayers should be raised by all of us: Christians,

Muslims, representatives of every religion, confession and

nation.

But prayers alone will not keep us together. We have also

to struggle, in order that, through our benevolence, faith,

love and respect to one another, we may put up resistence to

the eradicating processes of which I already made a mention.

As was customary with my great ancestors, I go to an

Orthodox church. But nor do I keep distance from synagogues,

mosques or churches of different Christian confessions.

I feel respect for all who have confident belief in

kindness and its victory.

I am happy to see, along with Georgian citizens, the

attendance of the distinguished ambassadors and diplomats

accredited in Georgia, who have come this evening to share

our happiness.

I cannot but express a deep sense of regret, even

resentment at the gross infringement of our unity, mutual

respect and freedom of faith by some of the aggressors.

As the President of Georgia and a believer, I shall not

restrict myself only to a mere expression of resentment. I do

promise that the President and the Authorities of Georgia

will do their utmost to grant every person freedom of

expression of faith.

The state will exert its pressure on whoever comes in

defiance of this principle. You may stand assured that the

aggressors will be brought to justice.

I would like to greet you once more and wish you happiness

and advancement of goals. So as with Georgia, a multinational

country of various religious confessions, my wishes are for

joy, happiness and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1208) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 of United States contributions to the International Fund for Ireland, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

General Leave

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.R. 1208, the bill that is now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me begin by thanking our leadership, beginning with the leadership on the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and for the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for scheduling this very, very important piece of legislation for House consideration.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1208, the Northern Ireland Peace and Reconciliation Act of 2003, reauthorizes U.S. contributions to the International Fund for Ireland and reaffirms our government's commitment to fostering peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

Historically, the United States has helped advance the peace process in Northern Ireland through several avenues. Since 1997, for example, we have had hearings in the Committee on International Relations, as well as in the Helsinki Commission; as a matter of fact, I chaired seven of those hearings, examining the root causes of the violence in Northern Ireland and the need to secure due process rights and fundamental freedoms for both sides of the divide. The Congress has also adopted several bills promoting human rights, police reform, and the elimination of job discrimination in Northern Ireland.

In addition, we have provided critical economic support through the International Fund for Ireland. Created in 1986 by the British and Irish Governments, the IFI is an independent, international organization with two primary objectives: First, it is designed to promote economic and social advance in Northern Ireland; and secondly, the IFI is charged with fostering contact, dialogue, and reconciliation between Unionists and Nationalists throughout Ireland.

I would point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that the United States, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand are all donor countries to the fund. To date, the United States has provided more than $380 million to the fund, and the economic results have been impressive.

A recent report conducted by a consortium of independent consultants led by KPMG catalogued the following achievements of the IFI:

One, 4,400 business projects have been supported, helping to create more than 37,500 jobs.

Secondly, more than 10,000 young people from the most disadvantaged parts and areas of North and South have participated in the Wider Horizons Program, which brings people together, ages 18 to 28, to work camps where they receive training and improvement in their employment prospects.

Overall, 91 percent of the fund's commitments have been to projects in designated disadvantaged areas, and more

than 120 strategic alliances have been supported between businesses in Northern Ireland and the border counties and businesses elsewhere in Europe and North America, Australia, and New Zealand.

Mr. Speaker, these statistics are impressive, they are tangible, but there is much more to the success of the International Fund for Ireland. It is called the peace dividend.

Each day, in disadvantaged and troubled areas of Northern Ireland, the IFI is at work bringing Catholics and Protestants together at jobs and job training sites. Working side by side, people who traditionally had no contact with each other are now communicating and learning a little bit more about who their neighbors are. They share an interest and investment in their community and new bonds have been developed where they never existed before.

It is also important to note that when people have solid jobs, they are less likely to get caught up in the sectarian strife that has tragically plagued this region. By focusing on the regeneration of impoverished neighborhoods where unemployment is the highest, the fund helps direct young Catholics and Protestants to job training and employment opportunities instead of gangs and paramilitary organizations.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I believe, and Members of this Congress believe that justice and sustainable peace will come about in Northern Ireland not merely through the political discussions of a few leaders, but the efforts to change the hearts and minds of individuals. This is a core part of the mission and underlying purpose of the International Fund for Ireland, bringing about peace by bringing together men and women from disparate backgrounds and disparate religious denominations and a successful economic environment. Indeed, the future is brighter in Northern Ireland in large part because of a new working relationship that has been forged with the economic help of the IFI.

Mr. Speaker, on the political side, progress indeed is being made in Northern Ireland. We all know it and celebrate it. I recently returned from a human rights mission to Belfast and to Northern Ireland and I am pleased to report that much has changed from my last trip in 1997 and much significant change, dramatic change has occurred over the last decade. There are now many signs of hope. Sections of Northern Ireland have experienced substantial economic growth and, as a result of the restored cease-fire of 1997 and the Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998, both communities in the North are working hard to obtain a just and lasting peace and to secure local democratic government.

Regrettably, the process is not without obstacles. Last October, the British Government suspended the Northern Ireland Assembly. Policing reform and criminal justice review, demilitarization, and the completion of decommissioning are among the issues that still need to be resolved.

However, in recent weeks, let me point out to my colleagues, there has been a renewed and concerted effort by the British and Irish Governments to address these issues, to bring the major political parties together, and to find a way forward before new elections are held in May.

H.R. 1208 ensures that the IFI will continue to benefit from U.S. contributions and continue to do its good work for peace and for reconciliation. The bill provides a $50 million amount over the next 2 years.

It also encourages the IFI to develop new ways to promote reconciliation in the North. In particular, we are hoping that the IFI will look even more closely at programs aimed at enhancing intercommunity relations, community relations with the new police service, and programs that promote and ensure fundamental human rights.

For example, the legislation specifically urges the IFI to do more work to enhance relations between the police and the communities they serve through promoting human rights training and enhancing the new district police partnership police boards recommended by the Patten Commission. It also encourages a fund to assist in the transition of former British military sites into venues for housing, retail, and other community-supported uses.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues who helped work for and support the final passage of this legislation, especially the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) from the Committee on International Relations who have all lent their strong support to this legislation, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). All are longtime supporters of the Northern Ireland peace process and are true friends of the people of Northern Ireland and of Ireland itself.

I would like to note that the text we are considering today contains a technical amendment to reflect progress the IFI is making towards using funds for specific reconciliation projects and, again, I hope that Members will support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his longstanding leadership on behalf of peace and justice and fairness in Northern Ireland. He has been indefatigable over these many years, and he continues to be. I would thank him for his leadership and remind my colleagues of the importance of trying to get the IFI to look further into reconciliation projects and police reform projects.

As I indicated earlier, we have had seven hearings on police reform in Northern Ireland with a focus on what the United States can do to try to foster that, so there is total transparency, and the best type of methods used by police with human rights training being part of that. It has become very clear that this would help to advance that kind of understanding between the two communities. Those barriers need to be broken down. We do it by getting both communities working together.

We are, I think, or many of us, very encouraged that Hugh Orde is the new chief constable. He replaces a man that many of us had very serious disagreements with in the past, and our hope is that he will continue and even accelerate the pace of reform. This helps to build under him additional strong Earth and concrete, and a base for him to go forward.

This bill has worked; this law has worked; and the IFI, the International Fund for Ireland, has worked for many years to foster reconciliation. This bill gives it an additional push and would provide $25 million authorization for each of the next 2 years.

Again, I want to thank all Members for their support. It is a bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, while the world's eyes were focused on the momentous events taking place in Iraq, a constitutional referendum was held in the war-torn region of Chechnya. The referendum was held as part of the Russian Government's attempt to ``normalize'' the situation in that tortured part of Russia's North Caucasus.

For the last ten years, Chechnya has been the scene of a bloody war between armed Chechen rebels and Russian military forces. Hostilities were precipitated in late 1994 when, in the wake of Chechnya's attempt to secede from the Russian Federation, Russian military forces launched a fullscale assault on the Chechen capital of Grozny. There was a restive peace from 1996 until the summer of 1999, when the armed clashes erupted anew. The roots of this conflict go back to Tsarist conquests in the 19th century and Stalin's brutal deportation of the Chechen people to Central Asia during World War II. Unfortunately, certain radical Islamic militant elements linked to international terrorism have become involved on the Chechen side, though the State Department has stressed that not all Chechens are terrorists.

Despite Moscow's repeated claims that heavy-handed Russian tactics in Chechnya are part of the war against global terrorism, the situation is far more complex. Many Chechens have taken up arms against what they believe is a repressive colonial power and wish to see Chechnya as an independent state that will be able to make the critical choice regarding the future of its people. As is so frequently the case, the civilian population has suffered terribly from the war. While both sides are guilty of violations of international humanitarian law, the Russian military and special operations units have been responsible for numerous and well-documented instances of gratuitous, brutal and mass violence against the civilian population.

During my years in the leadership of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Commission has conducted eight hearings and briefings on Chechnya. Witnesses, including a nurse who was present in a Chechen town where some of the worst atrocities by Russian forces took place, have described the appalling fate of the civilian population.

According to the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2001, ``The indiscriminate use of force by government troops in the Chechen conflict resulted in widespread civilian casualties and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons, the majority of whom sought refuge in the neighbouring republic of Ingushetia. Attempts by government forces to regain control over Chechnya were accompanied by the indiscriminate use of air power and artillery. There were numerous reports of attacks by government forces on civilian targets, including the bombing of schools and residential areas.'' The report continues: ``Command and control among military and special police units often appeared to be weak, and a climate of lawlessness, corruption, and impunity flourished, which fostered individual acts by government forces of violence and looting against civilians.'' Among the examples of such lawlessness and impunity in the Country Reports were ``. . . reports of mass graves and `dumping grounds' for victims allegedly executed by Russian forces in Chechnya'' and ``cleansing'' operations directed against guerrillas but resulting in deaths and the disappearance of non-combatants.

The State Department points out that Chechen forces also committed serious abuses: ``According to unconfirmed reports, rebels killed civilians who would not assist them, used civilians as human shields, forced civilians to build fortifications, and prevented refugees from fleeing Chechnya. In several cases, elderly Russian civilians were killed for no apparent reason other than their ethnicity.''

Against this unsettling backdrop, with an estimated 100,000 internally displaced persons living in refugee camps in neighbouring Ingushetia, and under the guns of approximately 80,000 Russian soldiers in Chechnya, the Chechen people have reportedly voted overwhelmingly for the proposed new constitution. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that a genuine assessment of the public will would have been determined under such circumstances. I would ask the same question I asked in a Helsinki Commission press release over a month ago: ``Are we supposed to believe that this referendum will stabilize Chechnya while armed conflict between the Russian military and Chechen fighters continue to produce death and destruction?''

The well-respected Russian human rights group, Memorial, has charged that Chechens were pressured to vote with the threat of losing their pensions or humanitarian aid. A joint assessment mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe stated that ``no group has been able to campaign officially against the referendum in the mass media or distribute literature arguing against the referendum,'' although some opposition opinions were voiced in the media. Incidentally, in the concluding communique of the 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit, the Russian Government agreed that all sides should seek a political solution to the conflict, and avail themselves of the assistance of the OSCE. This commitment was seriously undermined when the Russian government evicted the OSCE Assistance Mission to Chechnya at the end of last year.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration has stated that ``. . . we hope [the referendum] can be the basis for a political solution to that tragic conflict.'' I find that rather optimistic. The Russian Government might better instruct its military to stop terrorizing the civilian population, prosecute human rights violators and rebuild Chechnya. Then perhaps it would not have to hold referenda in Chechnya under armed guard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Vincent L. Barile, Deputy Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, who retired after 28 years of service at the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA.

Vince began his career with VA in 1975 as a veterans' benefits counselor. In 1976, he transferred to the Budget Service in VA's central office. From 1979 to 1984, he served as a budget analyst in the Veterans Health Administration, where he rose to supervisor of budget formulation and operations.

In 1984, Vince joined the National Cemetery Administration, NCA, as the director of budget and planning. In this position he was responsible for the formulation and implementation of the annual budget, all planning activities, and other activities including emergency preparedness, energy conservation and safety programs. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs promoted Vince to Deputy Under Secretary for Management for NCA in 1990.

In 2002, Vince was appointed Deputy Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs. In this capacity, Vince oversaw budget and planning, information systems, communications, human resources, administration, contracting, memorial programs, state cemetery grants, and operations and construction for 120 national cemeteries. Vince testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee frequently on memorial affairs issues, where he brought extensive knowledge and experience to the witness table.

When asked what they will remember most about Vince Barile, employees he supervised say that he was a mentor and a teacher. He often conducted impromptu sessions in the hallways, always credited his employees for their work, and helped them find opportunities to learn. As evidence of the high regard he had for his employees, Vince summed up his remarks at his farewell party by saying that his Exceptional Service Award was not his award, but one in recognition of all his employees. He noted that if his career was considered successful, it was because of the people who worked for and with him. He then applauded his staff.

With Vince's retirement, VA is losing vast institutional knowledge and a real friend to America's veterans. Thank you, Vince, for your 28 years of dedicated service to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Nation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 109) urging passage of a resolution addressing human rights abuses in North Korea at the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and calling on the Government of North Korea to respect and protect the human rights of its citizens, as amended.

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

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

I thank our cosponsors for being a part of this, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a good cross-section of Members, a bipartisan group, supporting House Resolution 109.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of North Korea is an historical anachronism, a totalitarianist Stalinist regime under the control of the Korean Workers Party, the so-called Dear Leader, or Kim Jong-Il, a man who demands godlike reverence and enjoys a decadent, opulent lifestyle while hundreds of thousands of children and their parents starve to death.

His regime, his dictatorship, Mr. Speaker, is one of the worst systematic abusers of human rights in the world today. Inside North Korea, there are no genuine freedoms of speech, religion, or assembly. The penal code imposes a penalty of death for a wide variety of crimes against the revolution, including defection, attempted defection, slander of party policy, listening to foreign broadcasts, and imagine that, one listens to a radio show and one can be charged with crimes against the revolution, and writing letters or possessing printed material that is considered reactionary.

The regime maintains an extensive system, Mr. Speaker, of political prison camps that hold an estimated 200,000 prisoners, including entire families of those suspected of disloyalty toward the dictatorship.

As confirmed by eyewitness testimony presented before the Committee on International Relations last year, camp conditions are horrific. Starvation, overwork, and disease kill most of the camp inmates. Others are used as targets for martial arts practice or as guinea pigs for lethal tests of chemical weapons.

Christians are tortured to death for refusing to renounce their faith in one who is greater than the Dear Leader. Female prisoners are not allowed to bear additional children, and their newborns are routinely and brutally killed before their eyes, usually by smothering or having their necks broken.

Based on reputable reporting, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 109 recounts the abominable conditions inside North Korea and exhorts the dictatorship in Pyongyang to respect human rights for its citizenry. More immediately, it urges the Department of State to support the introduction and passage of a resolution on human rights abuses in North Korea at the current session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

At the State Department's suggestion, we included language that urges other members of the Commission to support that effort. While the Commission has censored numerous countries in recent years, North Korea has inexplicably escaped its notice. We hope that oversight will be corrected during this session.

I want to thank those 19 bipartisan cosponsors, particularly the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the committee, for their support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Africa and a leader on issues of human rights relevant to North Korea.

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. Res. 109 the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for her very eloquent remarks and my good friend from California (Mr. Lantos). We need a very strong show of support by our colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this resolution. The U.N. committee is meeting as we speak. This issue must be brought so the kind of scrutiny and, I would say, condemnation for these egregious abuses of human rights can be brought to the fore. North Korea has a horrific record on human rights; and it is about time the international community said so in one loud voice: no more.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, during the Holocaust, the Jews of Europe were subjected to persecution and, ultimately, targeted for total genocide--not only by foreign occupiers, but also at the hands of erstwhile friends and even their own governments. In the face of this atrocity, Bulgaria stands out for protecting its indigenous Jewish population from the evil machinery of the Holocaust. Despite official allied status with Nazi Germany, Bulgarian leaders, religious figures, intellectuals and average citizens resisted pressure from the Nazis to deport Bulgarian Jews to certain death in the concentration camps of Eastern Europe. Thanks to the compassion and courage of broad sectors of Bulgarian society, approximately 50,000 Jews survived the Holocaust.

Once an ally of Nazi Germany in March 1941, the Bulgarian Government and Parliament came under pressure from the Nazi regime and enacted legislation severely curtailing the rights of the Jewish population. In February 1943, a secret meeting between, Hitler's envoy to Bulgaria, and Bulgaria's Commissar on Jewish Affairs, established a timetable for exporting to Germany the Jews in Aegean Thrace and Macedonia, territories then under Bulgarian administration, and deportation of Jews from Bulgarian cities. The deportations were to begin on March 9, 1943.

Trains and boats to be used in the deportations were in place, and assembly points in Poland had already been selected when word of the plans was leaked. Almost immediately, 43 members of the Bulgarian Parliament led by Deputy Speaker Dimiter Peshev signed a petition to condemn this action. This, coupled with widespread public outcry from active citizens, political and professional organizations, intellectuals, and prominent leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, led the Minster of the Interior to stay the deportation orders. Later that month, Peshev again took a bold step in drafting a letter, signed by members of the ruling coalition, which condemned the possible deportation of Jews, calling this an ``inadmissable act'' with ``grave moral consequences.''

In May 1943, the plan for deportation of the Bulgarian Jews was finally aborted. King Boris III resisted Nazi pressure to advance the plan, arguing that the Jews were an essential component of the workforce. While some 20,000 Jews from Sofia were then sent to work camps in the countryside for the remainder of the war and subjected to squalid conditions, they nevertheless survived.

Tragically, there was no such reversal of fate for the estimated 11,000 Jews from Aegean Thrace and Macedonia, who did not have the protection afforded by Bulgarian citizenship. Already driven from their homes in March 1943, these individuals were transported through Bulgarian territory to the Nazi death camps. Madam Speaker, this month marks the 60th anniversary of Bulgarian resistance to the Holocaust. The people of Bulgaria

deserve our commendation for their selfless efforts to preserve such a threatened religious community, and in fact, the number of Jews living in Bulgaria actually increased during the Holocaust.

Bulgaria's record of tolerance was distorted by 40 years of communist misrule which culminated in the 1984-89 forcible assimilation campaign against its largest minority, the Turks. One of the first initiatives of the government following the fall of communism in November 1989 was the reversal of this brutal campaign. A return to the wholesale suppression of minority groups as exemplified by the forcible assimilation campaign is inconceivable today, and Bulgaria is a democracy that promotes respect for fundamental rights.

Last year, Bulgaria's Ambassador to the United States, Elena Poptodorova, testified before the Helsinki Commission regarding the ongoing efforts of her government to promote tolerance, consistent with Bulgaria's historical traditions. I have been particularly encouraged by Bulgaria's initiatives, in cooperation with leading non-governmental organizations, to promote the integration of Roma and non-Roma in schools. This work deserves the full support of the Bulgarian Government.

I am disappointed, however, that the Bulgarian Government has not yet adopted and implemented comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, even though it pledged to do so in early 1999 in a platform of action on Roma issues, and committed to do so in the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit document. Four years have come and gone since Bulgaria made those pledges, and it is past time for those pledges to be honored.

I am hopeful the Bulgarian Government will do more to combat violence motivated by racial or religious intolerance. Two cases of such violence, against Romani Pentecostals in Pazardjik, appear to have received only superficial attention from the authorities.

Madam Speaker, I also was disappointed to learn of the recent passage of a new religion law in Bulgaria. Several drafts of a religion law had laid relatively dormant until the last months of 2002, when the process was expedited. As a result, it is my understanding that minority faith communities were excluded from the drafting process and assurances to have the Council of Europe review the text again were ignored. The law is prejudiced against certain religious groups and falls well short of Bulgaria's OSCE commitments. The law also jeopardizes the legal status of the Orthodox synod not favored by the Government and its property holdings, as well as threatens fines for using the name of an existing religious organization without permission. New religious communities seeking to gain legal personality are now required to go through intrusive doctrinal reviews and cumbersome registration procedures, and co-religionists from abroad have been denied visas based on poorly written provisions.

Bulgaria's leadership on these various issues would be welcomed, especially in light of their plans to serve as Chair-in-Office of the OSCE in 2004. The United States is particularly appreciative of Bulgaria's firm stand against terrorism at this time, and we look forward to continued strong relations between our countries. The proud heritage stemming from the days of the Holocaust serves as a good reminder of the importance of taking stands which are right and true. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this Congress is able to recognize that heritage and historical fact.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Evans, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Michaud join me in introducing H.R. 1212, the Veterans' Education Affordability Act, to increase the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) monthly educational assistance allowance to $1,200 for full-time students and repeal the $1,200 pay reduction for MGIB eligibility.

The original World War II GI Bill exceeded all expectations and had enormous benefits beyond the immediate ones given to deserving war veterans. College enrollment grew dramatically: in 1947, GI Bill enrollees accounted for almost half of the total college population. This resulted in a need for more and larger colleges and universities. In my home state of New Jersey, Rutgers University saw its admissions grow from a pre-war high of 7,000 to almost 16,000.

In the decade following World War II, more than 2 million eligible men and women went to college using GI Bill educational benefits. The result was an American workforce enriched by 450,000 engineers, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists and another million college-educated men and women.

Building upon the success of the original GI Bill, Congress subsequently approved a second bill following the Korean Conflict; then a third bill following the Vietnam Conflict; and a fourth bill for the post-Vietnam War era. In 1985, under the dedicated leadership of former Veterans' Committee Chairman Sonny Montgomery, Congress approved the modern version of the GI Bill which is fittingly called the Montgomery GI Bill. The MGIB was designed not only to help veterans make a transition into the workforce through additional education and training, but also to serve as a powerful recruitment tool for our all- volunteer armed forces.

With the enactment of Public Law 107-103, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, Congress significantly increased MGIB purchasing power for veterans and servicemembers. I was privileged to author this legislation which increased the MGIB basic benefit in January 2002 from $672 to $800 per month. It further increased the benefit in October 2002 to $900 and will increase the benefit in October of this year to $985--a 46 percent increase from the $672 per month.

But according to data furnished by the College Board, for the current academic year the MGIB benefit remains below the level needed for a veteran-student to attend a public, four-year institution as a commuter student. This increase to $1,200 would be another significant step toward a more realistic educational benefit.

This legislation would also eliminate the $1,200 reduction in pay required for a servicemember to gain eligibility for the MGIB. We view the $1,200 as an unnecessary GI education tax and a hardship on the most junior servicemembers, many of whom qualify for food stamps. No other federal education program charges such a participation fee and H.R. 1212 will repeal it.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help both servicemembers and veterans get the most valuable benefit possible--a quality education and training for the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, we learned today of the assassination in Belgrade of the Prime Minister of Serbia, Zoran Djindjic.

This is a true tragedy, not only for family and friends of Mr. Djindjic but for all the people of Serbia and, indeed, for all who struggle for human rights and democratic development.

Zoran Djindjic became a leader during difficult times in his country. He chose to stand in opposition to Slobodan Milosevic and his regime. That certainly was not the easiest course, and it took courage. Zoran Djindjic also had determination and, after repeated setbacks and obstacles, he played a key role in ousting Milosevic from power in 2000. He subsequently became, as Prime Minister of Serbia, a force for reform, recognizing that Serbia needed to cast off not only the yoke of Milosevic's rule but also Milosevic's legacy of nationalist hatred, organized crime, corruption and greed. Transferring Milosevic to The Hague in 2001 to face charges for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide perhaps best symbolized Djlndjic's continued courage and determination to conquer the sinister forces which seized his country.

Zoran Djindjic was still battling resistance to reform in Serbia when his life was taken by the vicious act of cold-blooded assassins.

These will undoubtedly be turbulent times for Belgrade, for Serbia, and for Montenegro which is just embarking on a new relationship with Serbia. This tragedy may have reverberations throughout the region, particularly in Bosnia and in Kosovo.

It is my hope and prayer, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Serbia will respond to this crime with a loud and united cry: ``Enough is enough.'' In the past, they have seen the lives of journalist Slavko Curuvija and politician Ivan Stambolic snuffed out for their advocacy of a civilized Serbia, in which human rights and the rule of law are respected.

Similarly Djindjic, too, was advocating such noble objectives. The very decent people of Serbia deserve a society which respects human rights and upholds the rule of law. That is what the leaders of Serbia must now provide without further hesitation or delay. I take heart in knowing that Djindjic had many colleagues who shared his vision of a reformed Serbia.

My deepest condolences go to the family of Zoran Djindjic. I hope that the incredible grief they must now feel will be tempered by the pride they should feel in his accomplishments and service to his country.