Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this important resolution strengthening the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Chairman Lantos, for his continued leadership on this issue. It's an issue that concerns Members on both sides of the aisle and anyone who cares about freedom and human rights.

The despicable actions of Burma's brutal regime in recent months are only the latest chapter in a long history of repression by that country's dictators. After their shocking murder and incarceration 2 months ago of peaceful demonstrators, including Buddhist monks--the very symbols of the Burmese people's desire for peace--the Government thugs hope that our attention will turn elsewhere. They hope that the international outcry over the violence and humiliation of this fall will die down. But we are all too aware of the history of this regime to let that happen.

If we turn our attention elsewhere, the regime will intensify the abuse and repeat these crimes again and again. Since the 1988 slaughter of several thousand peaceful demonstrators, the story of Burma has been a constant saga of harassment, violence, and torture. The inhumane treatment of Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is only the most glaring example of the regime's efforts to stifle democracy-- unfortunately there are many others that don't get as many headlines.

Members may recall that I have mentioned in the past how the military regime in Burma locked up a 19-year-old student from my district, Michelle Keegan, who had traveled to Burma in 1998 to mark in a peaceful way the 10th anniversary of those 1988 massacres. She and others were sentenced to 5 years in jail for distributing small leaflets calling for democracy in Burma.

I, and others, were outraged, and agitated for the release of these young people. They wouldn't let us into the country, but they couldn't keep us quiet. If not for the attention of the U.S. Congress and the American people--and for the international pressure that resulted--who knows what would have happened to these students in the prisons of Burma? Thankfully, we gained their release.

The Block Burmese JADE Act will tighten the noose on this murderous regime, expanding what this body has already done to isolate these criminals. Burma's junta continues to enrich itself from the country's vast natural resources while most of its people are mired in poverty. The generals and their families milk state-owned enterprises for all they're worth, getting their hands on much of the nearly $3 billion in annual revenues from oil and gas, timber and gems.

By blocking further assets, imposing more severe import restrictions on Burmese gemstones, and expanding the visa ban on the regime's cronies, we will further limit its comfort zone. The regime will be less able to avoid U.S. sanctions--and U.S. companies will no longer be able to take tax deductions for investment in Burma.

These measures alone won't bring about wholesale change in Burma. We need more help from our allies and from Burma's neighbors if we dare to hope for true freedom in that country. We need China to take a serious stand on the right side of this issue instead of remaining--as usual-- lined up against human rights and human dignity.

But this strengthening of our law--this strengthening of our resolve--will take another concrete step in the right direction. It will also make an important statement to Burma's brutal dictators--and to the beleaguered pro-democracy activists in that country struggling under the yoke of military repression.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her outstanding leadership and for that of the chairman of the committee, Tom Lantos. He has been extraordinarily effective in this fight against modern-day slavery, and I thank him for his leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-386, has made, I believe, an enormous positive difference in our efforts to end modern-day slavery, a nefarious enterprise that nets the exploiters billions of dollars each year.

The 7-year-old landmark law and its numerous reinforcing provisions to prevent trafficking, to protect victims and to prosecute to the max those who traffic, has been a model statute worldwide. Indeed, many of its provisions have been adopted into law in whole or in part by governments around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the TVPA of 2000 does not pull any punches. By naming the names of countries out of compliance with what we call minimum standards and by imposing smart sanctions that are prescribed in the act, the withholding of nonhumanitarian aid, for example, we have signaled to the world that ending this egregious practice is among the highest priorities of the United States.

By protecting the victims and not sending them back to their home country where they are often exploited in a vicious cycle of exploitation, we say to the victims we will make every effort to make you safe and secure. By prosecuting the traffickers and imposing serious jail time, we are telling these exploiters we are coming after you, we will hunt you down, and you are going to pay for your crimes.

Since the enactment of the TVPA, the traffickers here and abroad are increasingly likely to face prosecution and conviction. In the 6-year period before its enactment, DOJ prosecuted 89 suspected traffickers. In the last 6 years, the Justice Department has prosecuted 360, representing more than a 300 percent increase. The Department has secured 238 convictions and guilty pleas, compared with 67 in the same period prior to the act. And it has opened 639 new investigations, an almost four-fold increase over the 128 opened prior to implementation of the law. Worldwide, nearly 6,000 traffickers were prosecuted last year alone, and more than 3,000 were convicted.

Notwithstanding these successes, it is clear that more has to be done to destroy this mob-infested, criminal enterprise known as human trafficking. According to research sponsored by the U.S. Government and completed in 2006, approximately 800,000 people are trafficked internationally and millions more are trafficked within their country. According to the same research, the vast majority of transnational victims, almost 80 percent, are women and girls, and almost half of those 800,000 victims are minors. These figures are low compared to those posited by the International Labor Organization, which estimates 12.3 million people are subjected to forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor, and sexual servitude.

The bill before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a very good piece of bipartisan legislation; and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his extraordinary leadership on this. We are working in a partnership, and it is really making a difference. The legislation that is before us aims to update, expand, and improve the TPVA.

There have been lessons learned since the first law was enacted 7 years ago and subsequently reauthorized in 2003 and 2005. They are incorporated into this legislation as we try to do an even better job in mitigating the suffering of the victims while simultaneously going after those who traffic and the countries that harbor traffickers who are also part of the problem themselves.

The bill is appropriately named after William Wilberforce, who was 21 years old when he was elected to the House of Commons in 1780. John Newton, the former slave captain turned convert to Christ, encouraged Wilberforce as well as others to fight the battle against slavery. Wilberforce agreed and then poured his heart into that battle.

Wilberforce once said: ``Never, never will we desist until we extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic to which our posterity, looking back to the history of those enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long to disgrace and dishonor this country.''

He also said: ``So enormous, so dreadful, so remediable did the trade's wickedness quickly appear that my own mind was completely made up for its abolition.'' We need to fight with Wilberforce-like tenacity against this modern-day slave trade.

One of the most prominent provisions of the original TVPA was the establishment of the tier-ranking system that indicates how well or poorly a country is conforming to the minimum standards. We found when we created the watch list that some of the countries began to realize they could be ``parked'' there with no serious consequence for their failure. Tier 2 watch list countries found there was no penalty even though they made no improvements. That has to change: Two years and then you are off the watch list, up or down. If significant improvements fail to materialize, that country is put on tier three, subject to penalties.

Finally let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that effective cooperation, and especially the bipartisan cooperation we see here today, and partnership with other countries, is essential if we are to win this winnable war. Without it, we are doomed to either meager results or outright failure. With so many lives hanging in the balance, failure simply is not an option. None of us alone can stop human trafficking. Too much evil is involved here, and the prospect of making billions has enticed some of the most unsavory and cruel individuals on Earth, including organized crime.

Too much demand, enabled by crass indifference, unbridled hedonism and misogynistic attitudes has turned people, especially women, into objects, only valued for their utility in the brothel or in the sweatshop. And the relative lack of visibility makes the task of combating trafficking all the more difficult.

Trafficking, like germs, infection and disease, thrives in shadowy and murky places. But the contagion slows and it even dies when exposed to the light. This legislation brings more light, bright light, to this problem; and it will act as a powerful disinfectant.

So the challenge to us today is to bring this new light, the bright light of sustained scrutiny and enacting good laws, like this one, and then implementing them aggressively. We need to employ best practices and well-honed strategies in order to win the freedom of the slaves and to spare others unspeakable agony.

Together, we can make the pimps and the exploiters pay by doing serious jail time as well as the forfeiture of their assets, their boats, their villas, and their fat bank accounts.

We can end this barbaric, cruel modern-day slavery. Make no mistake about it, this is a winnable war but we need to fight in a way so as to win. This legislation further propels us in that fight, and we will win this and the slaves will be free.

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

I would like to associate myself with the sense of loss we all feel for the passing of Congressman Henry Hyde. As I think my colleagues know, Henry Hyde was one of the rarest, most accomplished and most distinguished Members of Congress ever to serve. He was a class act.

Henry Hyde was a man of deep and abiding faith, generous to a fault with an incisive mind that worked seamlessly with his incredible sense of humor. He was a friend and colleague who inspired and challenged us to look beyond surface appeal arguments and to take seriously the admonitions of Holy Scripture to care for the downtrodden, the vulnerable and the least of our brethren.

On the greatest human rights issue of our time, the right to life for unborn children, the disabled and frail elderly, Henry Hyde will always be known as the great champion and the great defender of life. No one was more logical, compassionate or eloquent in the defense of the disenfranchised.

Because of the Hyde amendment, countless young children and adults walk on this Earth today and have an opportunity to love, to learn, to experience, to play sports, to get married, to enjoy their grandchildren some day, to experience the adventure of life itself because they were spared destruction when they were most at risk, millions, almost all of whom have no idea how much danger they were in, today pursue their dreams and their hopes with expectations and great accomplishment.

With malice towards none, no one, even his most vociferous critics, Henry Hyde often took to the House floor to politely ask us to show compassion and respect and even love for the innocent and inconvenient babies about to be annihilated by abortion.

A Congressman for 32 years, a chairman for 6 years of the Judiciary Committee, and for another 6 years chairman of the International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde was a prodigious lawmaker. With uncanny skill, determination and grace, he crafted numerous historic bipartisan laws and commonsense policies that lifted people out of poverty, helped alleviate disease, strengthen the U.S. Code to protect victims and to get the criminals off the streets. He was magnificent in his defense of democracy and freedom both here and overseas.

One of his many legislative accomplishments includes his authorship of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, a 5-year $15 billion plan to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. During the debate, Chairman Hyde compared the HIV/AIDS crisis to the bubonic plague of the 14th century, the black death, and challenged us to enact a comprehensive program to rescue the sick, assist the dying and to prevent the contagion from spreading.

Having served with this brilliant one-of-a-kind lawmaker, I know the world will truly miss Henry Hyde. Still, we take some comfort in knowing that Henry Hyde's kindness, his compassion and generosity will live on in the many laws he wrote to protect and enhance the lives of others. I, we, will miss this great statesman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague Mr. Bilirakis for yielding and Chairman Faleomavaega for his very strong words in support of this legislation; Tom Lantos, the chairman of our committee; and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who were very strong supporters and backers of the bill before us today as well.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of World War II, Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe. Over 50 percent of world Jewry has family ties to this pre-war community. Tragically, as a result of the Holocaust, a once thriving community was virtually destroyed.

In 1996, a group of people developed the idea for a museum dedicated to the culture, art and history of Poland's Jews. As one of the founders of the museum told me when I visited Warsaw a couple of years ago, We often learn how Jews died, but rarely how they lived. The Museum of the History of Polish Jews will change this. Indeed, it will solemnly remember the 3 million Polish Jews who died during the Holocaust and World War II, but also it will celebrate the rich 1,000 years of Polish Jewish life.

The interactive museum will allow visitors to view the long history of Jews in Poland in context, examining their lives through nine thematic galleries that illustrate their culture, their accomplishments, and the challenges they faced. The museum will measure 14,000 square feet and incorporate state-of-the-art multimedia installations that showcase the museum's collection, an archive of over 60,000 computer files of images collected from around the world. The nine galleries that house the museum's core exhibition provide 43,000 square feet of space that will be equipped with the latest technology to showcase a variety of multimedia displays. These exhibitions are being developed by a team of scholars, historians and museum experts from Poland, Israel, and the United States.

A crown jewel of the museum and a key element to serving the public will be the 5,400 square-foot state-of-the-art education center that includes a resource center for visitors. Multimedia displays and Web- based kiosks will share the museum's data base of 60,000 documents and objects with visitors, who will also have access to a reading room as well as a library.

Today, Mr. Speaker, despite the robust efforts of many good people, anti-Semitism remains a dangerous and a growing force in Europe and elsewhere in the world. By looking at the life of Polish Jewry and also documenting the events of the Holocaust, the museum and its educational center will make a major contribution in combating anti-Semitism. A better understanding of the great contributions that Polish Jews have made to society will help fight off the ignorance and the lies that bring about this bigotry.

There is no better time for a living monument to stand against anti- Semitism than now, and no better place than in the heart of Europe, the place where the Nazis put so many Jews to death. In 1997, the City of Warsaw donated land adjacent to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Monument for the construction of this museum. In June of 2007, authorities broke ground for its construction. It is now slated for opening in 2010, but there still is a significant deficit in funding.

It is one of the first institutions in post-European Poland to be built through a partnership of public and private support. The Government of Poland and the City of Warsaw have each designated some $15 million for the museum, and a number of private corporations and individuals from Israel, the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, of course that includes the United States, have also agreed to contribute. Just yesterday, the Government of Germany signed an agreement to donate over $7 million to the effort. All donors are united in preserving the memory of a magnificent people, who have made such a positive difference, and to combat the rising ugly tide of anti- Semitism.

As you can imagine, it's a costly and difficult project to assemble artifacts and memorabilia from Polish Jewry. Not only did the Nazis systematically destroy Jewish men, women and children, they sought to erase all memory of a noble people. The Nazis also decimated most of the City of Warsaw. Our contribution of $5 million will be more than just a symbol of American commitment to these principles, although that is important. It will be more than a reminder of the historical ties that bind many descendants of Polish Jews in the United States and elsewhere to Polish Jewry, although that, too, is a worthy goal. This contribution will be an important aid in making this project a reality. It will help bring it to completion.

I urge support for H.R. 3320. As one supporter called this, this is a ``restitution of memory.''

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

Madam Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus I rise today to recognize October as National Spina Bifida Month. Currently, more than 70,000 people in the United States live with Spina Bifida, the Nation's most common permanently disabling birth defect. Each October we honor these Americans during National Spina Bifida Month, but we must be steadfast in our efforts year round to prevent and reduce suffering from this devastating birth defect.

Spina Bifida is a neural tube defect that occurs in the first month of pregnancy when the spinal column does not close completely. An average of eight babies a day are born with Spina Bifida or a similar birth defect of the brain and spine. Currently, approximately 3,000 pregnancies each year are affected by Spina Bifida; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimates that up to 70 percent of Spina Bifida and other neural tube defects could be prevented if all women of childbearing age consumed 400 micrograms of folic acid daily, prior to becoming pregnant.

Fortunately, the CDC's National Spina Bifida Program--which I helped to create with my colleague and caucus co-chair Representative Bart Stupak--plays a critical role in addressing both sides of the Spina Bifida equation--preventing the birth defect and providing support and quality-of-life enhancement for people living with it. I am proud that the National Spina Bifida Program--in its more than 4 years of existence--is making a significant difference in the lives of people with Spina Bifida. Now patients, parents, health professionals, and caregivers have the information and resources they need to ensure that quality-of-life is maximized for all who live with this condition and that we are doing our best to reduce the number of Spina Bifida affected pregnancies through education and awareness of women about the importance of their consumption of folic acid prior to becoming pregnant.

I want to express my deep gratitude to my colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee who allocated $5.535 million for the National Spina Bifida Program in the FY 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services- Education, LHHS, bill. As members of the House and Senate LHHS Subcommittees work to reconcile the differences between their hills, I urge my colleagues to cede to the House allocation and help ensure that the National Spina Bifida Program receives adequate funding in the final FY 2008 LHHS measure so it can sustain and expand its important initiatives.

In addition, I hope my colleagues will support the report language from the Senate FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations measure which urges the FDA to review--and hopefully expand--current folic acid fortification standards so that we can continue to make strides in reducing the number of preventable neural tube defects.

Lastly, I wish to thank the Spina Bifida Association, SBA, for playing a critical role in helping those living with and affected by this debilitating birth defect. Founded in 1973, SBA is the nation's only organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the Spina Bifida community. Through its nearly 60 chapters in more than 125 communities, the SBA brings expectant parents together with those who have a child with Spina Bifida. This interaction helps to answer questions and concerns, but most importantly it lends much needed support and provides hope and inspiration.

I thank the SBA for its partnership and its commitment to ensuring that we are doing all that we can to reduce and prevent suffering from Spina Bifida. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in recognizing October as National Spina Bifida Month and in educating our constituents about the importance of folic acid consumption among women of child-bearing age. Together, with the SBA, we can help prevent Spina Bifida.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 740 which condemns the armed attack against African Union troops that took place on the remote south-eastern settlement of Haskanita, Darfur precisely one month ago. This horrific attack by rebel groups left seven Nigerian peacekeepers and three other peacekeepers from Mali, Senegal and Botswana dead. Seven others were wounded and 50 peacekeepers went missing. This is the worst attack against the AU mission since it was first deployed in July 2004.

And the suffering of those in the village did not end with this violent assault. The Armed Forces of Sudan (SAF) moved into the village on October 6, reportedly to ``secure'' the area and facilitate the evacuation of the AU peacekeepers. Three days later the village was burned to the ground and 15,000 people were displaced. Although there has been no official statement as to who is responsible for the destruction of the village, U.N. officials have quietly pointed the finger at the SAF.

Although diplomatic activity on Sudan has intensified in recent weeks, and talks on the Darfur conflict began in Libya on October 27th, there is little reason for optimism that a peaceful solution to the Darfur tragedy is anywhere in sight. Several of the rebel groups are refusing to participate in the Libya talks. The U.N. Special Envoy for Darfur, Jan Eliasson, and his African Union counterpart, Salim A. Salim, who are leading this negotiation effort, have a Herculean task ahead of them. They will need all the help that we can provide them, and it is critical that this Congress continue to highlight the tragedy of what is occurring in Darfur and seek every means to bring about a just and enduring peace.

I therefore thank my colleague Ms. Jackson-Lee for introducing this resolution, which also expresses the readiness of the House of Representatives to support efforts to bring those individuals responsible for the attacks to justice and to dismantle the networks that carry out such attacks. I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, in the Ogaden region, the Ethiopian Government is fighting an insurgency but has carried the war to the innocent population. The Ethiopian Government has put the region under effective commercial blockade, prevented humanitarian assistance from reaching the suffering population, and expelled humanitarian NGOs. We have reports that troops have also raped women, burned villages, and confiscated livestock on a large scale.

In Somalia we have reports that the Ethiopian army has raped and pillaged. Of course brutality is not limited to the Ethiopian army. It is rampant in the Ogaden and Somalia, where insurgents, warring clans, and terrorists all intentionally inflict misery on the land. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that nearly 500,000 people, almost one third of Mogadishu's population, have fled in recent months as conditions in the city have deteriorated.

But the United States Government is the staunchest international supporter of the Ethiopian Government of Prime Minister Meles. Our government supplies Meles with over $100 million in aid every year, much of it military. We cannot do this and pretend that we don't share responsibility for the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Meles regime. We cannot do this and criticize China for supporting the barbarous Sudanese regime of Omar al-Bashir.

We all know that the Ogaden region of Ethiopia and in Somalia is extremely complicated. Yet the moral imperative is not complicated. A good end cannot be justified by a bad means.

While we want to deny jihadist terrorists any ``platform'' in the Horn of Africa, we must not protect ourselves--and our Allies--from terrorists by enabling the Ethiopian government to visit terror on the Ogaden region or Somalia. We can only work with the Meles government if we do everything possible to change its behavior.

This means we have to be willing to do more than ``dialogue'' with President Meles. We have to be willing to withdraw aid if his government does not dramatically improve its human rights record.

That is why I supported the Ethiopia Human Rights Act, H.R. 2003, which passed the House on October 2, 2007. This bill will withdraw certain forms of aid to the Ethiopian Government, including forms of military aid, if it does not meet certain human rights benchmarks, spelled out in the legislation.

The reports from the Ogaden and Somalia are the latest in a long series of human rights outrages. In August 2005 I visited Ethiopia

and met with some of those opposition figures imprisoned by Prime Minister Meles, including Hailu Shawel, the Chairman of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, the largest democratic opposition party.

I also met with Meles. I brought up the June 2005 slaughter of almost 200 prodemocracy demonstrators in Addis, and the mass arrests that followed. I urged him to investigate that atrocity, to punish those responsible, and to release political prisoners. Meles told me, ``I have a file on all of them, they are all guilty of treason.''

We should all be skeptical of the value of dialogue on human rights reform with a man who would make a comment like that.

I believe that our government has not pushed Prime Minister Meles hard enough on human rights issues because it is satisfied that his government is cooperating with us in the war on terror. The war on terror is very, very important; but no regime that terrorizes people can be a reliable ally in the war on terror. Terrorism isn't just a military issue, it's also a human rights issue. Terrorists come from countries where governments failed to respect their human rights. In promoting human rights in Ethiopia, we are attacking terrorism at its roots.

America's commitment to promote respect for human rights around the world demands that we prevail upon Prime Minister Meles to respect human rights. I call upon our government to withdraw forms of aid and support to the Meles government to release its remaining political prisoners, to spare civilians in its counterinsurgency operations, and to permit humanitarian aid in the Ogaden.

Madam Speaker, I, along with my colleague, Representative Bart Stupak, Co-Chair of the Spina Bifida Caucus, would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life of Harold (Hal) Pote. Hal Pote, the founder and President of the Spina Bifida Foundation (SBF), passed away unexpectedly on June 26, 2007. Mr. Pote's dedication towards educating the public on the Nation's most common, permanently disabling birth defect has not gone unnoticed. We are deeply saddened by this loss and we know that many of our colleagues on Capitol Hill share these sentiments as well.

Spina Bifida develops during the first month of pregnancy when the spinal column does not close completely. Over 70,000 individuals in the United States currently live with Spina Bifida and it occurs in approximately seven out of every 10,000 live births. Mr. Pote began his campaign to increase awareness surrounding Spina Bifida when his nephew Gregory was born with this disabling condition almost 22 years ago. Gregory has undergone more than 20 surgeries, all of which Mr. Pote was there to support--and his dedication expands beyond his nephew as he was committed to ensuring that all individuals living with Spina

Bifida have access to, and enjoy, a high quality of life. Additionally, Mr. Pote devoted his efforts to preventing the incidence of Spina Bifida by educating women on the importance of consuming folic acid prior to pregnancy and throughout their childbearing years.

Not only has Mr. Pote been successful in his endeavors to raise awareness surrounding Spina Bifida, he had a very successful business career as well. He attended Princeton University where he received a bachelor's degree in economics and subsequently received a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard Business School. Mr. Pote's hard work eventually led to his nomination as Chairman and CEO of Fidelity Bank at the age of 37. After co-founding the Beacon Group, he was appointed to lead Chase Manhattan's Regional Banking Group--eventually culminating with a position as chairman of Retail Financial Services for JP Morgan Chase. Once Mr. Pote retired from JP Morgan Chase, he served as CEO of the American Financial Realty Trust in Philadelphia.

In its 8 years of existence, under Mr. Pote's steadfast leadership, SBF has achieved many incredible successes for the Spina Bifida community. Due to Mr. Pote's perseverance and commitment to reducing the suffering from Spina Bifida, and advancing medical research in the field, individuals born with Spina Bifida are now living much longer, fuller lives than they had previously.

Mr. Pote's vision and dedication has helped not only Gregory, but tens of thousands of people who suffer from Spina Bifida as well. Hal Pote's sudden and unexpected death is a tragedy not only to his loved ones and the Spina Bifida community, but to all our colleagues who have lost a great man. To Mr. Pote's wife, Linda Johnson, his mother Lucille Bock Pote, his two brothers Frank and Corey Pote, and his nephews--we offer our deepest condolences.

We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting and remembering this extraordinary man.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong support of the Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act. I am very happy that it has finally been brought to the floor. It is legislation that will limit and condition U.S. Government assistance on the Ethiopian Government provided that the government meets a very modest list of human rights benchmarks and provides financial support to human rights promoters in Ethiopia.

Mr. Speaker, the Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act is as timely now as it was last year, maybe even more so after the failure of so many attempts to promote human rights reform through dialogue and persuasion. It is clear that stronger measures are necessary, and they must come now. Human rights abuses have to be penalized.

Recently, Human Rights Watch reported that the Ethiopian Government, fighting an insurgency in Ogaden region, had forcibly displaced thousands of civilians in that region, burned villages and food stocks and imposed a trade blockade on the region. Just a few minutes ago in the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, we heard from a number of witnesses who told us very chilling tales. People who were there on the ground, human rights reporters on the ground were documenting the abuse that is being committed against people: rape, and a whole host of other gross indignities being committed, crimes against humanity by government forces.

Mr. Speaker, even the U.S. Department of State in its ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006'' points out that there were numerous credible reports that security officials often beat or mistreated detainees. Massive arrests and detentions are common, the reports went on to say. Although the Ethiopian Constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, the government frequently did not observe these provisions in practice. Authorities regularly detained persons without warrants and denied access to counsel and family members, particularly in the outlying regions. The Independent Commission of Inquiry found that security officials held over 30,000 civilians incommunicado for up to 3 months in detention centers located in remote areas. Other estimates place the number of such detainees as high as 50,000.

This is only part of a long series of human rights outrages, Mr. Speaker, committed by Prime Minister Meles. On June 20, 2005, after an election that displeased the Prime Minister, almost 200 pro-democracy demonstrators in Addis were slaughtered when they demanded that there be a true accurate accounting of how people voted. It was a magnificent outpouring of Ethiopians. They voted. Eighty-five percent of the eligible voters poured out to vote despite much intimidation and despite the fact that many of the election observers all of a sudden were thrown out of the country by the Meles government, including NDI and the International Republican Institute. So they weren't there.

But despite all that, people voted, only to have, in many cases, their votes discounted by the government. Then, as people took to the streets to protest, like I said, almost 200 pro-democracy demonstrators were gunned down.

When I visited Ethiopia in August of that year and met with Prime Minister Meles, I urged him to investigate that atrocity, to punish those who were responsible and to release the political prisoners. Meles told me, I have a file on all of them, that is to say, all of the opposition leaders. He said, They are all guilty of treason. It is hard to put faith in the reformist intentions of a government official who says those kind of things.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that neither we nor the international community has pushed Meles hard enough on human rights and democracy issues because we have been satisfied perhaps that they cooperate with us to some extent in the war on terror. I would point out to my colleagues that the war on terror is very important, but no regime that terrorizes its own citizens can be a reliable ally in the war on terror. Terrorism isn't just a military issue. It is also a human rights issue. Terrorists come from countries where their governments fail to respect their human rights. In promoting human rights in Ethiopia, we are attacking terrorism at its root.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know and admire many people from Ethiopia's great and ancient civilization. I ensure my colleagues that democracy, human rights, and rule of law are things that they desperately want for their country. It should be our country's policy to promote these important things which correspond with our own long- term interests.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill; and, again, I congratulate my good friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership on this very important issue.

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

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

First of all, let me thank Congressman King for offering this very important resolution, and my good friend and colleague, Chairman Lantos, for bringing this to the floor, as well as Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who serves very admirably as the ranking member.

This is a very important and very timely resolution. Chairman Lantos has been speaking out on behalf of Burma and human rights in Burma for years, and this today is another expression of our collective bipartisan support for the beleaguered pro-democracy activists in that country.

Madam Speaker, the shocking, unprovoked actions of Burma's brutal regime in recent days are part of a long history of repression by that country's dictators. The wanton bloodshed, Tiananmen Square-like, was just another serious manifestation of hate and cruelty by the junta in Rangoon.

Members will recall, that in 1988 Burmese military forces slaughtered several thousand peaceful demonstrators, sending even more into hiding in the hills and border areas. The military regime took no heed of international criticism of these crimes and continued to suppress the most basic freedoms of its people.

When the National League for Democracy won control at the ballot box, the generals nullified that election and harassed, tortured and killed parliamentarians and pro-democracy activists. They also harassed, incarcerated and put under house arrest Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, one of the greatest people on Earth.

Meanwhile, in 1998, Madam Speaker, a 19-year-old student from my district, Michelle Keegan, traveled to Burma to commemorate in a peaceful way with other pro-democracy activists the 10th anniversary of those 1988 massacres. She and others were locked up, convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. Her only crime was to distribute pamphlets calling for democracy in Burma. As a matter of fact, it was a very small business card. Very small. They handed those out, and for that she got 5 years.

I travelled to the region at the time in an effort to help negotiate the release of these young people, including my constituent. I repeatedly was denied a visa to enter Burma, but from Bangkok remained in close contact with the U.S. Embassy in Rangoon, and others as we were pressing for the release of Ms. Keegan and the five other Americans.

Together, along with family members of the detainees and others, we made these dictators understand that the whole world, including the U.S. Congress and the American people, were watching and would somehow hold them accountable. In response to international pressure, the government soon released them and then expelled them from the country. She and those other Americans were the lucky ones. Others from other countries regrettably spent long periods of time in jail.

Sorry to say, the members of the junta in Rangoon are not people who readily listen to reason. This body has addressed the situation in Burma several times over the years. I chaired a hearing on human rights abuses in Burma in September of 1998, and we shed further light on these issues in February of 2006 at a hearing entitled ``Human rights in Burma. Where are we now and what do we do next?''

Clearly we need to do more. Yes, we have sanctions. Chairman Lantos is the prime sponsor of legislation imposing sanctions on Burma. But, unfortunately, the other countries, the ASEAN countries and other countries of the world, have not followed suit the way they ought to.

We need to be united in this effort. That is when we will get the junta to stand up and take notice, especially when the PRC does something other than enable and facilitate these abuses.

Madam Speaker, now as the courageous Burmese people again dare to demonstrate peacefully for change in their society, the junta has once again unleashed the military, killing more of their people and imprisoning at least 700 Buddhist monks and 500 others. Former prisoners in Burmese jails have told us at hearings and at meetings of the torture, humiliation and deprivation that they experienced.

One called it the closest thing to hell on Earth that he could imagine. We have good reason to fear that those who are arrested in recent days, that they too now are spending time in hell.

So we have a duty, Madam Speaker, an obligation, to speak out in the face of these outrages. We need to call in the strongest way possible for the restoration of democracy and the restoration of human rights in Burma and the unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Those with interests in Burma, especially the Chinese government, would like to turn a blind eye to these continuing abuses. China may be happy to have another egregious human rights abuser in the spotlight deflecting attention as it prepares to host the world for the Olympics amidst its own repression. But we must hold the Chinese accountable, as well, at home and abroad, and they need to step up to the plate and do what they can to stop this terrible repression in Burma.

Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse this resolution. I ask my colleagues and the global community to act to end the suffering in Burma and bring about democratic reforms that the Burmese people so desperately desire.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the resolution, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Madam Speaker, we have one remaining speaker. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance our time and urge a strong ``yes'' vote for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007, H.R. 3096, which was debated on the House Floor yesterday, September 17, 2007, and which passed overwhelmingly this afternoon, I would like to include in the record portions of the trial proceedings for Attorney Nguyen Van Dai and Attorney Le Thi Cong Nhan who are referenced in this legislation. Both individuals were ruthlessly seized by the Government of Vietnam on March 6, 2007, in Vietnam's most recent crackdown on democracy and human rights advocates. The accused each received years of imprisonment after being found guilty of ``disseminating propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' I urge each and every one of my colleagues to read this chilling account of the Vietnamese justice system.

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Independence--Liberty--Happiness

The People's Court of Hanoi City

Preliminary criminal sentence, No. 153/2007/HSST, May 11,

2007. In the name of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, The

People's Court of Hanoi City. The Preliminary Trial Committee

is composed of:

Presiding Judge: Mr. Nguyen Huu Chinh. People's Jurors: 1.

Mr. Nguyen Thanh Ha, 2. Mrs. Tran Hong Thuy. Court clerk/

recorder: Mrs. Nguyen Thi Huyen, cadre of the People's Court

of Hanoi City, Representative of The Hanoi City People's

Office of Procuracy: 1. Mr. Dinh Trong Nghia, Procurator, 2.

Mr. Dinh Quoc Thai, Procurator.

On May 11, 2007, the following defendants were

preliminarily tried by the People's Court of Hanoi City under

Criminal Docket No. 138/2007/HSST of April 24, 2007:

1. NGUYEN VAN DAI born 1969, in Da Trach, Khoai Chau

District, Hung Yen Province; domiciled at Apartment 302,

House Z8, Back Khoa Communal Building, Bach Khoa Ward, Hai Ba

Trung Precinct, Ha Noi City; occupation at the time of

committing crimes: Head Attorney of the Thien An Law Office;

educational background: Grade 12/12; born of Mr. Nguyen Van

Cap and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thom; married to Vu Minh Khanh;

arrested and placed under temporary detention since March 6,

2007; is present at the trial.

2. LE THI CONG NHAN: born 1979 in Go Cong Tay, Tien Giang

Province; domiciled at Apartment 48 (currently Apartment

316), House A7, Government Office Employees' Communal

Building, Phuong Mai Ward, Dong Da Precinct, Ha Noi City;

occupation at the time of committing crimes: Staff Attorney

of the Thien An Law Office; educational background: Grade 12/

12; born of Mr. Le Minh Duc and Mrs. Tran Thi Le; arrested

and placed under temporary detention since March 6, 2007; is

present at the trial.

Defendant Nguyen Van Dai's trial attorneys: Mr. Tran Lam,

Hai Phong City Lawyers Bar (in attendance), Mr. Dam Van Hieu,

Attorney, Thong Nhat Law Office, Ha Noi City Lawyers Bar (in

attendance), Defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan's trial attorney, Mr.

Tran Lam, Hai Phong City Lawyers' Bar (in attendance).

BE IT JUDGED THAT: 1. Relative to defendant Nguyen Van Dai.

At both the investigative offices and the trial, defendant

Nguyen Van Dai admitted that he had written a number of

articles, e.g. ``Freedom to Form a [Political] Party'' and

``Vietnamese People Have the Ability to Build a Multi-Party

System''. The defendants had distributed these articles

through the media of reactionary Vietnamese organizations

overseas, and participated in interviews via the Internet

with overseas anti-socialist elements. The contents of

these articles were meant to smear and degrade the leading

role of the VCP. He maintained that under current

circumstances, because the VCP did not have enough ability

to lead the Revolution Vietnam is in dire need of a change

of the ruling party or to a pluralistic, multi-party

system in order to emerge out of poverty.

As provided for in Article 4 of the SVN's Constitution, the

VCP--the vanguard of the worker class and loyal

representative serving the interests of the worker class and

the working people--is the leading force of the State and

society. That positively affirms that since the VCP is the

only preferred leader of the Vietnam Revolution all other

political parties and their activities are in fact in non-

compliance and illegal. Because of the fact that the

defendant is the one who drafted the ``Bylaws'' of the

Democratic Party and supported the platforms of Hoang Minh

Chinh's Democratic Party, and that he has also written a

number of articles, criticizing the VCP and advocating a

pluralistic and multi-party regime, Dai has obviously

committed a serious violation of the Constitution and laws of

Vietnam.

Based on the admissible evidences and Dai's own admissions

at the trial, from the time when the Thien An Law Office was

founded to his arrest, Dai had never served as a trial lawyer

and acted according to his duties, as specified in his

professional license. Instead, he had made contacts and

exchanged information regarding democracy and human rights

with a number of political opportunists who acted in

opposition to the VCP and against the SRV. The defendant had

joined and enthusiastically supported the platforms of the

so-called Vietnam Progression Party (VPP) and Bloc 8406, a

[political] organization founded illegally by Nguyen Van Ly

in Vietnam. The defendant had conferred and concurred with

Nguyen Van Ly on the platform of the VPP, as well as visited

Ho Chi Minh City to engage a number of Do Nam Hai's

supporters in various efforts to support both Bloc 8406 and

the VPP.

The defendant was also a member of the ``Independent Trade

Union''. He admitted to his contacts with such overseas

individuals as Nguyen Dinh Thang, Vu Quoc Dung, Tran Ngoc

Thanh, etc., which focused on ``democracy and human rights

issues''. However, seized documents and evidences have

attested to the intentions of these exiled Vietnamese who are

fiercely opposed to the State. The defendant's contacts with

these subjects have gone beyond the discussion of democracy

and human rights issues, and they have in fact intended to

form a number of organizations and political parties in

opposition to the VCP and the SRV. According to witness Tran

Van Hoa's statements, on September 2006 defendant Dai asked

the former to come to Hanoi so that they could together make

a trip to China, where they planned to meet with Tran Ngoc

Thanh, an overseas Vietnamese in Poland to discuss the

founding of the ``so-called'' Independent Trade Union.

Having searched the Thien An Law Office headed by Nguyen

Van Dai, and the residence of Nguyen Van Dai, the

investigative authorities seized numerous documents, among

which there were 121 stacks of documents. Some documents

containing contents of extremely reactionary nature are meant

to twist the facts about the VCP, and to smear the honor and

tarnish the reputations of the Party, President Ho Chi Minh

and the top leaderships of the Party and the State, e.g. a

document titled ``The Vietnamese Communist Party is Bad

Karma,'' and ``The Secrets of the New Vietnamese Prime

Minister.'' Another 475-page document, authored by a ``Quoc-

Quoc,'' is full of distortions with regard to the history of

the revolutionary struggle, the policies of the VCP and the

State throughout the different stages of the Revolution, as

well as blemishes and badmouthing against the high-ranking

officials and top cadres of the Party.

The document, titled ``Diary of a Victim of Injustice,''

contains the slants and distortions of facts, and false

allegations that the government and police brutally repressed

legal complainants. In addition, the authorities also

captured many documents written by other anti-State political

opportunists, notably ``Democracy and Human Rights in VN''

and ``Eternal Aspirations,'' authored by Nguyen Thanh Giang.

Scores of other documents and publications circulated by

overseas Vietnamese organizations include the bi-monthly ``Tu

Do Ngon Luan,'' (Freedom of Speech) the ``To Quoc''

(Fatherland) magazine, the ``Tu Do Dan Chu'' (Freedom &

Democracy) newsletter, the Bloc 8406-proclaimed ``The

Declaration of Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam''. Being

very reactionary in content, these documents are full of

distortions of the current realities of Vietnam and

allegations that all the inalienable rights of the Vietnamese

people are being brutally trampled upon and the contentions

that their goal is to struggle for a change of regime in

Vietnam.

At the trial, the defendant admitted to having contacts and

Internet direct-linked interviews with foreign newspapers and

radio stations regarding the issues of democracy and human

rights in Vietnam. However, documented evidences have

revealed that during these contacts and interviews the

defendant always provided untruths and distortions regarding

the democracy and human rights situation in Vietnam, and

provocative badmouthing against the socialist regime and the

VCP, and he called for a change of regime as well. At the

same time, he had received other documents calling for a

boycott of the 2007 National Assembly Election. Another

document ``Wear White on the 1st and 15th of the Month in

Support of Democracy,'' a campaign document published by Bloc

8406 proclaiming 10 conditions for a multi-party National

Assembly election. Another Bloc 8406 document initiated the

launching of a boycott of the 2007 One-Party National

Assembly Election.

Nguyen Van Dai held classes regularly at the Thien An law

office to provide propaganda on the subject of Democracy,

Human Dignity and Human Rights. Witnesses Dong Thi Giang,

Khong Van Thanh, Nguyen Ba Truc, and Giap Van Hieu that Dai

had invited to participate in the classes, all affirmed that

during those class lectures both Dai and Nhan had zealously

badmouthed the political and social state of the nation, the

Government of the SRV. Dai had alleged that the SRV does not

respect human rights and has employed torture and violence

against innocent citizens. The defendant, while maintaining

that the ``Party Nominates, Citizen Elects'' election trick

is undemocratic, called for a change of the socialist regime

that would deny the VCP its monopoly of power in order to

achieve social equality.

The defendant's criminal conduct has constituted the crime

of ``disseminating propaganda against the Socialist Republic

of Vietnam,'' as stipulated in Article 88 of the Criminal

Code and determined in the indictment of the Hanoi City

People's Office of Procuracy. :

2. Relative to defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan. At the

investigative offices and at the trial, the defendant

admitted that she was a member of the Vietnam Progression

Party (VPP) and that of Bloc 8406 (founded by Nguyen Van Ly).

Nhan participated as the VPP spokesperson. She indicated that

she had joined the party voluntarily. The Trial Committee is

of the opinion that the purpose of this organization is to

act against the VCP and the SRV in order to drastically

change the political regime of Vietnam. Her organization

appealed for a pluralistic, multi-party system and incited

the people to ``Wear White'' as a demonstration of support

for democracy. As such, the defendant's participation and

support of the VPP's platform is a violation of State laws.

The defendant herself wrote the article, ``The Truth about

the Repeal of Decree 31/CP of April 14, 1997''. The content

of her article indicates that the repeal of this decree was

phony with the intent to misdirect public opinion. In her

interviews, the defendant also commented on Directive 37

issued by the Prime Minister that this directive is

undemocratic as it prohibits freedom of the press. All her

articles contain fabrications, defamations, ridicules, and

attacks on the regime. The defendant maintained that the

Vietnamese political structure is dictatorial, infantile,

and uncivilized. Nhan's articles and documents were

distributed in the form of direct answers to foreign radio

networks such as BBC, RFA (Radio Free Asia), or Internet-

linked interviews with overseas Vietnamese exiles.

In a house search, the investigative authorities have

seized many stacks of documents which had been circulated by

both domestic and overseas political opportunists. These

documents contain bad-intent distortions of the facts and

protests against the current directions and policies of the

Party and the State. They include: appeals to ``boycott the

National Assembly Election of 2007; demands for a

pluralistic, multi-party system, etc.; instructions for the

populace to ``Wear White'' on the first and 15th day of the

month to support democracy in Vietnam; ``Let's Paint a

Portrait of a Free and Democratic Vietnam''; ``How to Fight

Fear'' (written by Nguyen Van Ly); ``The Declaration of

Democracy for Vietnam 2006''; ``The Preliminary Platform of

the Vietnam Progression Party''; ``The Founding of an

Alliance of National Forces for Freedom, Democracy and Human

Rights''; ``Bloc 8406 To Announce 10 Conditions for a Multi-

Party National Assembly Election and How To Boycott This

Election''; ``Bloc 8406 initiating a Campaign to Reject the

Single-Party National Assembly Election of 2007''.

The defendant has also provided her students with

propaganda in her so-called ``Democracy'' course. With great

discontent, she has criticized and smeared our regime,

falsified the history of the People's VCP-led revolutionary

struggle, as well as called for the replacement of the

current VCP by another political party or a pluralistic,

multi-party system.

The defendant's criminal conduct has constituted the crime

of ``disseminating propaganda against the Socialist Republic

of Vietnam,'' as stipulated by Article 88 of the Criminal

Code and charged with in the indictment of the Hanoi City

People's Office of Procuracy.

The crimes both defendants have committed are very severe.

They have taken advantage of their democratic rights and

freedom to produce, possess, and distribute various documents

meant to libel the People's Government and oppose the SRV.

Their conduct is deemed to be dangerous to society. It has

generated bad opinion both in and outside of the country, and

has directly damaged our national security interests, as well

as the benefits and achievements that the Vietnamese people

have made throughout our long struggle for building and

safeguarding the nation. Their conduct has resulted in the

tarnished reputations of the VCP, the socialist regime, and

our leaders among the populace. They, being Vietnamese

citizens, shall have the absolute obligations to abide by the

laws of Vietnam. Consequently, they are to be severely

punished, once found to be in violation, as provided for by

the laws of Vietnam.

Although still at young age and having yet made

contributions to the country, both defendants Nguyen Van Dai

and Le Thi Cong Nhan have committed serious crimes to the

detriment of our national interests and security. They need

to be severely punished before the court of law in order to

appreciate fully the effects of reform, education, and

deterrence. In this case, defendant Nguyen Van Dai has been

found to have actively engaged in carrying out his crimes

although his admissions were not truly sincere, Dai is to

deserve a heavier punishment. Defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan has

also actively committed her crimes. As she was found not to

be fully cooperative in her admission at the investigative

offices and at the trial, she is to be punished according to

the severity of her crimes.

House arrest shall be an additional requirement to their

main punishments, as stipulated by Article 92 of the Criminal

Code.

Evidential material: The investigative authorities have

seized numerous evidences from the Thien An Law Office, as

well as the residences of defendants Nguyen Van Dai and Le

Thi Cong Nhan. It is determined that these evidences were

used as a means to have committed their crimes, and therefore

shall be confiscated and kept in State's depositories. Other

captured evidences, of insignificant values, shall be

destroyed.

For the above-mentioned reasons, BE IT DECIDED THAT:

Verdict: Defendants Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan are

guilty of ``disseminating propaganda against the Socialist

Republic of Vietnam''.

Penalty: Nguyen Van Dai is sentenced to 5 (five) years of

imprisonment, effective as of his temporary detention which

began on March 6, 2007.

Penalty: Le Thi Cong Nhan is sentenced to 4 (four) years of

imprisonment, effective as of her temporary detention which

began on March 6, 2007.

Additional penalty: Defendant Nguyen Van Dai is sentenced

to 4 (four) years of house arrest upon completion of his

imprisonment term. Defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan is sentenced to

3 (three) years of house arrest upon completion of her

imprisonment term.

Evidential material: to be confiscated and kept in State

depositories 6 CPUs, 1 flat-screen monitor, 1 desktop

computer (16 inch, make Samsung), 1 digital recorder (make

Digital Live SDR-6404), 1 Card Reader (make QS 034 Ba07), 1

desktop computer cable, 1 notebook (make HP:S/NCND604172F; PN

EP412UA # ABA), 1 scanner (make Canon F915800), 1 modem (make

AR 325W, 6H057-15379), 1 Webcam (Colorvis). Destroyed 2 hard

drive, 1 hard disk (make HD080HJ-PIN 137216FL740777P/ V FS S/

N081KL702016), 1 hard disk (make SP4011N-S/NSO1JJ50YB41562-

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

I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 3527, a bill that would extend the authorization of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation until November 30 of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, on July 23, as my good friend Mr. Faleomavaega just said, the House passed H.R. 2798, a bill to reauthorize OPIC through September 30 of 2011. That measure had previously been favorably reported by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by a vote of 26-5, totally bipartisan. To date, however, the other body has not acted, requiring us to take this stop-gap measure to continue the authorization for this legislation. We hope they act soon on the Senate side so that the President can be sent a bipartisan bill that can be signed.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3528, legislation introduced by our distinguished chairman, Tom Lantos, that will help the Peace Corps eliminate a small but important discrepancy between its accounting and its expenditures.

Under foreign local law and the terms of their contracts, the Peace Corps is frequently required to make separation payments to personal service contractors overseas, for example, a lump sum payment equal to 1 month's salary for every year of service. The Peace Corps is required to account for that liability on its books every year even though those funds are not paid out to the contractor until the end of their service with the Peace Corps, which sometimes can be more than a decade.

However, because unspent funds revert back to the U.S. Treasury 5 years after they are obligated, the Peace Corps must pay obligations from beyond that time frame out of current operating funds. The bill would create a fund into which those obligations could be paid as they accrue, which can be used only for that purpose. Since this does not affect Peace Corps appropriations or obligations, there are no costs associated with this fix.

This also provides us with an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to again commend the Peace Corps and its many volunteers for the important work that they do in building bridges of understanding between the American people and communities, families, and individuals overseas.

We support this legislation

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

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

Let me begin by thanking my good friend and colleague, Mr. Faleomavaega, for his leadership on human rights. We have worked together on those issues around the world. We have served on the Human Rights Committee for years, and he has been one of those champions with whom I am just so glad to associate myself. And I want to thank Mr. Lantos, the chairman of our committee, for bringing this bill to the floor and express my strong gratitude to him and to Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and to the leadership for posting this bill for consideration today.

Mr. Speaker, Vietnam has long been known as a major violator of human rights. Sadly, in recent months the human rights situation in Vietnam has deteriorated and become substantially worse, and a new ugly wave of brutal repression has been launched by Hanoi. Over the last couple of months, some of the bravest champions of democracy have been dragged into court and sent to the gulag for simply promoting human rights and justice and free trade unions.

I would note to my colleagues that the House of Representatives has gone on record time and time again condemning and deploring these violations, but this is a new wave that comes on the heels of PNTR, as well as the WTO accession by the Vietnamese Government.

I would note that on May 2 of this year, this House unanimously adopted a resolution that I sponsored which called on the Government of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Nguyen Van Ly, Nguyen Van Dai, Le Thi Cong Nhan, and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. During consideration of that resolution, Mr. Speaker, I noted that I had been to Vietnam on many human rights trips. I have chaired several hearings on the issue of human rights in Vietnam and have been joined by my friend Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Royce and others in those hearings. But on one of the most recent trips, I actually met with Father Ly, who was just sentenced to 8 years in prison. Just sentenced. I also met with Nguyen Van Dai and about 60 other human rights activists and religious leaders and people who are pressing for reform in that country. And one by one those individuals are being caught in this dragnet.

I was struck when I met with these individuals, Mr. Speaker, by how extraordinarily generous, compassionate, talented, and kind hearted these people are. They are extraordinary. They are Vietnam's best and brightest and certainly their bravest. I was amazed at how they harbored no malice, no hate towards the government that hates them, nor do they hate the government leaders. They only want a better future for their country. Each and every one of the people I met with is committed to peaceful, nonviolent reform.

I met with Father Ly when he was under house arrest, and he sounded just like the activists that I had met and spoken to during the dark years of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. My first human rights trip, I would note parenthetically, was in 1982 on behalf of Soviet refuzniks. It was like being right back there, deja vu, talking to these individuals just like back then, the Shcharanskys of this world or Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa, people like the folks in Charter 77 in the Czech Republic who only wanted freedom, democracy, and human rights.

And none of them wanted violence. And these reformers of Vietnam want nothing whatsoever to do with violence. And yet, they are accused of slandering the state. To criticize an unjust policy is construed by the state to be slander. Father Ly has now been sentenced to 8 years, and that's in addition to the 14 years he had previously served in the Gulag on trumped-up charges.

Just days after the House adopted the Resolution 243 calling for a reversal of human rights violations, Nguyen Van Dai was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and 4 years of house arrest. Attorney Van Dai is a tenacious campaigner for human rights who uses the rule of law in a nonviolent manner to press his case.

On the same day that Mr. Van Dai was sentenced, another human rights lawyer, a labor activist, Le Thi Cong Nhan, received 4 years imprisonment and 3 years of house arrest from the same ruthless regime. She, too, punished for engaging in activities recognized internationally as protected human rights.

I've read the 2007 trial proceedings and the government sentencing record, which I intend to put into the Record. And I ask every Member to read that and to read it very carefully. It reads like a chilling chapter out of George Orwell's book, ``1984.''

At the trial, the presiding judge, Nguyen Huu Chinh, accused and condemned Dai of being a member of an Independent Trade Union. A member of the Communist party in Poland, Jaruzelski, accused Lech Walesa of that same thing, an independent trade union. That accusation carries with it a time in the Gulag in Vietnam today.

In Vietnam today, men and women are going to jail for very long periods of time for what the government calls ``disseminating propaganda against the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.''

I point out to my colleagues that the day after the House passed the resolution on May 2, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom indicated in its annual report that the removal of Vietnam from the State Department's List of Countries of Particular Concern was premature based on the evidence that the current situation in the country has not allowed religious freedom. Again, it was part of an effort, I think, of suggesting that if they just got into the World Trade Organization, somehow they would matriculate from dictatorship to democracy. Regrettably, that has not happened. And we've seen a snapback to repression that is very, very severe, cruel, and very, very ugly.

The legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, would prohibit an increase in U.S. nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam unless the government makes substantial progress in the following areas: the release of political and religious prisoners; respect for religious freedom; allowing open access to the United States for our refugee program, because very often those who would like to become a part of that have to pay bribes to communist officials or they are simply detained and not allowed to apply; and respect for the rights of ethnic minority groups, including the Montagnard.

Beginning in fiscal year 2009, there would also be a need to show that neither any official of the government nor any government agency was complicit in the trafficking of human persons. The president may waive this restriction on assistance if he determines that the assistance would promote human rights or would otherwise be in the national interests of the U.S.

Other important provisions would authorize $2 million of assistance in both 2008 and 2009 to support democracy in Vietnam, and approximately $10 million over 2 years to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia by Vietnam. Let me tell my colleagues, they're jamming Radio Free Asia, jamming it, so the message that we think is so important simply cannot get through. And again, the only thing that any dictatorship needs anywhere to survive and prosper is a secret police, got that in Vietnam, and a control of the message, the propaganda. And by jamming Radio Free Asia, they preclude other voices, other opinions from reaching the people.

The bill would also extend U.S. refugee programs to Vietnamese who were previously eligible but were unable to apply for reasons beyond their control, like I said, like not wanting to pay bribes to Vietnamese officials.

Mr. Speaker, in November of 2006, pursuant to a boatload of assurances and solemn promises that the human

rights situation would improve, Vietnam became the first country to be removed from the Countries of Particular Concern. It was also part of an effort to try to get into the World Trade Organization.

Despite this flurry of international recognition, tangible economic benefit, despite the hopes of many, including and especially the Vietnamese people, Vietnam has reverted with a vengeance to its repressive practices and has arrested, imprisoned and imposed lengthy prison sentences on numerous individuals who only want freedom.

Mr. Speaker, these massive human rights violations perpetrated by the Government of Vietnam cannot be overlooked, they cannot be trivialized. These human rights violations occur as we meet here today, and they cannot continue without equally serious consequences.

I do believe that this snapback to human rights abuse underscores perhaps the unwitting naivete on the part of some who think if we just trade, things will get better. It has not.

And finally, I would ask my colleagues to take a look at pages H 4248 and H4249 from the May 1, 2007 Congressional Record, a manifesto that was written and signed on April 8, 2006, called the 8406 Block. It is a call for freedom and democracy and nonviolence.

One by one, those who have signed this very important human rights document in Vietnam have been hunted down, arrested and incarcerated by the government. That's like the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, or again, during the Soviet years, those who would sign manifestos calling for human rights, like Charter 77, who because they espoused freedom, found themselves in a Gulag or being mistreated by the government.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this. This is a bipartisan bill, and I appreciate that. This is the kind of expression that I think this body is known for, speaking with one voice, truth to power, on behalf of human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who has spoken out on behalf of human rights in Vietnam with great faithfulness, is also a cosponsor of this legislation, and also promoted legislation that was successful in expanding Radio Free Asia.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding back the balance of our time, again, I want to thank Mr. Faleomavaega and just remind my colleagues that this is the third time this legislation, both under the Republican leadership, and now, thankfully, the Speaker has seen fit to bring this to the floor, as well, the third time I have brought this bill to the floor. Twice it passed the House. Hopefully, it will pass it again.

I think there is a greater sense of urgency now because there is this new, and I would call it an ugly and pervasive, crackdown. They got all their economic benefits. They got their World Trade Organization accession, and, as I said before, PNTR was passed by this House and the bilateral agreement before that. So they got all of that. Now, they just have gone right back to the ugliest commissions of crimes against their own people.

Mr. Speaker, let me just also say to my colleagues that we have heard from some very reliable sources that those who have been incarcerated, those who are being intimidated are being told that the United States really doesn't care about human rights; that all that we care about is the almighty buck, the dollar, and making profits. I want to remind them that we have not walked away. This is a bipartisan expression of concern for their well-being.

Of course, we know why they do this. I will never forget Wei Jingsheng, the great human rights Democracy Wall leader, who spent years in the Chinese laogai, or gulag, coming and testifying at a hearing that I convened on human rights abuses in China. He said that one of the ways that they break people in prison is to say that nobody cares and that everybody has forgotten. It says in the Bible that without hope, the people perish. And that is I think doubly, triply true when you are an incarcerated political prisoner and you are told that you have been abandoned.

I want those individuals to know we have not abandoned them. We care deeply for them. We pray for them; and we are trying to do what we can do, using legislation to try to effectuate their release and hopefully, some day, welcome a Vietnam that is democratic, free, and a protector of human rights, not a violator.

Mr. Speaker, let me also finally say that right after we passed this legislation out of committee in the International Relations Committee in a totally bipartisan effort, the Communist Party of Vietnam's online newspaper berated me and my colleagues very, very, I think, viciously. They did what all human rights abusers always do. They said, Don't interfere with our internal affairs.

Well, we have heard that before, Mr. Speaker. We have heard it from the Soviet Union. We have heard it from Cuba. We have heard it from countries where gulags are filled with human rights activists and freedom-loving individuals. We heard it from South Africa in the 1980s when many of us spoke out passionately against apartheid. They said, Don't intervene in our internal affairs.

I hope the Senate takes note. I hope my colleagues will read what is truly going on in Vietnam today. I have put this in the Record, the 8406 Manifesto, a great statement of human rights call, and will include as the judge's findings in the sentencing of the two people, including Dai that I mentioned earlier. You read this and you realize why we get so concerned, those of us like Mr. Faleomavaega and others who follow this day in and day out. This is an indictment on the system, not on the individuals who have been sent to prison.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this. I urge passage of this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise in support of H. Res. 238, which commends the momentous Democratic elections held in Aceh, Indonesia this past December.

For decades, that region of northern Sumatra was caught in seemingly endless cycles of retribution. Separatist violence by the Free Aceh Movement, known as the GAM, provoked brutal crackdowns by the Indonesian military, and far too often it was the civilians in the middle who paid the price. That conflict and the mistrust of both sides appeared insurmountable.

Then, on December 26, 2004, an even more terrible tragedy struck the area. The Indian Ocean tsunami suddenly snuffed out over 165,000 lives in Aceh alone, devastated the coastline, and displaced hundreds of thousands more.

In January of 2005, within days of the tsunami, I visited the devastated coastline and the Banda Aceh aid center, along with the United States Navy crews who were providing water and logistical support from the USS Abraham Lincoln for humanitarian relief efforts.

It was a cataclysm of biblical proportions. But the immensity of the suffering it caused also diminished the relative significance of the political conflicts that had afflicted those communities for so long. Since then, we have seen progress towards democracy and reconciliation that would have not appeared possible beforehand.

The signing of the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding, the withdrawal of Indonesian troops and military from outside of Aceh, the demobilization of the GAM forces and the enactment of the law on the governing of Aceh were all and are very positive and hopeful signs.

Over 80 percent of the eligible Acehnese voters participated in last December's peaceful district and gubernatorial elections, and in an unmistakable sign of change, the former GAM leader, Irwandi Yusuf, was elected as governor.

Of course, the work of long-term reconciliation and building of a strong civil society will take time and continued cooperation from all parties. Thus, it is appropriate that this resolution encourages both sides to live up to their commitments under the Helsinki Memorandum, particularly with regard to establishing a Human Rights Court for Aceh and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Having personally witnessed the suffering of the Acehnese and the devastation of their homes and livelihoods following the tsunami, I am particularly hopeful that we are witnessing the springtime of democracy, peace and development in Aceh.

I want to thank Mr. Crowley for presenting us with this opportunity to congratulate the people of Aceh and the Government of Indonesia on the progress they have achieved so far.

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