Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lantos for his very strong support for the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2007. His long-standing concern about torture victims is legendary, and I want to thank him for that. And I want to thank Mr. Ackerman for his leadership as well, and for presenting the bill before the House today.

Madam Speaker, an estimated 400,000 foreign torture survivors reside in the United States today. Worldwide it is virtually impossible to count the numbers, although we know it is very high. As witnesses have repeatedly testified before Congress, the paralyzing scars from the physical and psychological wounds of torture can and do remain for years. Torture impacts not only on individual victims, especially as it relates to post-traumatic stress disorder, but their families and society as well.

I would note parenthetically, Madam Speaker, that we don't have to look very far to know there are torture victims in our own Congress. Sam Johnson, a very brave and dedicated soldier of the Vietnam war, suffered terrible hardship and torture when he was incarcerated in Hanoi. Because of his faith and courage, Sam overcame unspeakable torture and abuse and is today an inspiration to us all. The same goes for Senator John McCain, who also suffered horrible torture, survived and overcame. But they are really the exception. They are not the norm. So many people who do suffer never recover--unless they get significant help. They suffer irreparable psychological damage and live a life of real misery, pain and flashback, unless they get help.

My own involvement in torture victims relief began in 1981 when I read a book titled ``Tortured for Christ,'' written by Pastor Richard Wurmbrand in Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania. That book detailed despicable tortures that were routinely imposed upon Pastor Wurmbrand and other religious prisoners in Romania by the securatate. Pastor Wurmbrand appealed to all to help the persecuted.

I also read Solzhenitsyn's book, ``The Gulag Archipelago,'' and another book called ``Against All Hope'' by Armando Valladares in which he chronicled what Castro does routinely to people in his gulags--it is sickening and pathetic.

I would encourage Members and the listening public to pick up one of those books or others like them and read what really happens in dictatorships--and Castro's abuses continue to this day--where torture is used as a weapon against dissidents. Sadly, torture is used with impunity in China and North Korea.

Armando Valladares tells us in his book in one particular chapter how the political prisoners were marched into a huge vat of human excrement, and submerged. Many of the men got permanent disabilities and infection from it. The beatings were unceasing.

Torture is horrible. It is degrading and inhumane. It also constitutes grave violations of U.N. treaties and U.S. law and must be stopped wherever it rears its ugly head.

In the 1990s, Frank Wolf and I visited the infamous Perm Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains--1,000 miles outside of Moscow--the place where Natan Sharansky spent years of his life, and met with many torture victims while they were still incarcerated and saw the mix of anger and hopelessness in their eyes and in their faces.

In 1998, Madam Speaker, Congress took a historic step towards repairing the broken lives of torture victims with the passage of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998. I sponsored that legislation and three reauthorizations that followed. As important as these congressional measures have been, there continues to be an enormous unmet need for us to try to reach out and robustly address, and that is what this legislation at least attempts to do. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this. This helps us to help those who have been hurt.

The domestic provision of H.R. 1678 is designed to ensure that particular attention is given to torture victims in regions with significant immigrant and refugee populations. The measure authorizes $25 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to the Department of Health and Human Services to assist domestic treatment centers. This maintains the current $25 million authorization level for those centers.

Currently, 20 torture treatment centers in 15 States are assisted by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. These programs include treatment for the physical and psychological effects of torture as well as social and legal services for torture victims. In addition to direct assistance, many of these centers also provide training in the specialized treatment of torture victims to mainstream providers in the health care, education and social service fields.

H.R. 1678 also authorizes $12 million for both fiscal year 2008 and 2009 for foreign treatment centers and programs administered by the USAID Victims of Torture Fund. In fiscal year 2006, the Victims of Torture Fund supported treatment programs in 28 countries throughout the regions of Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Near East and Europe and Eurasia.

Treatment centers often provide services beyond rehab, to include forensic documentation, written and verbal testimony to courts and legislatures, and advocacy for the rights of brutalized religious, ethnic and minority groups. This is the expertise Congress sought to foster when we first adopted the TVRA back in 1998.

Lastly, the measure increases current authorization levels of $7 million for fiscal year 2007 to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture to $12 million for both 2008 and 2009. Through this U.N. mechanism, the voluntary fund supports 175 projects in 64 countries in 2006, including within the United States. The type of humanitarian assistance provided by organizations which receive those grants from the fund consists mainly of psychological, medical, social, legal and economic assistance.

Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, due to an event at the White House on malaria, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and that he be able to control the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, this morning the Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing in anticipation of the reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. I concur on the importance of examining the extraordinary successes of this program, as well as the means by which we can ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those impacted by the pandemic.

In my travels abroad, particularly in Africa and Vietnam, I have seen for myself how the intervention has transformed lives and infused hope in individuals, families and communities affected by HIV/AIDS. One experience that struck me, in particular, was in Uganda when I visited there last year. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. John Robert Ongole, who is 29 years old and the first person to benefit from the first treatment program funded by PEPFAR. I was told that when he first started receiving the anti-retroviral therapy, he looked like a walking skeleton. When I met him, he was healthy and energetic, leading an active life and caring for his family. I have recently learned that he has almost completed his bachelor's degree in teaching. He and countless others have expressed their profound gratitude to President Bush and the American people for giving them a new lease on life in the face of this devastating disease.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of PEPFAR here in Congress is the requirement that one-third of prevention funding be expended on abstinence and fidelity programs, known as the A and B aspects of the ABC (abstinence, be faithful and condoms) prevention model. Some have called for the removal of this requirement in favor of an evidence- based approach, free from legislative constraints, that takes into account the particular situation of the individual country. What these people fail to take into account is that the ABC model is evidence- based, and those countries with generalized epidemics that have experienced declines in prevalence have emphasized behaviors of abstinence, and fidelity in relationships between un-infected partners.

In a statement published in 2004 in the prestigious scientific journal, The Lancet, over 160 scientists and the President of Uganda noted that ``when targeting young people, for those who have not started sexual activity, the first priority should be to encourage abstinence or delay of sexual onset, hence emphasizing risk avoidance as the best way to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections as well as unwanted pregnancies. After sexual debut, returning to abstinence or being mutually faithful with an uninfected partner are the most effective ways of avoiding infection.''

In the past, even those considered ``experts'' on the ground have resisted implementing the ABC strategy with the proper emphasis on A and B, and so the spending requirement was necessary. I have met representatives of USAID who acknowledged that they were initially skeptical of the possibility of changing people's behavior as a key element

of HIV/AIDS prevention, but due to their experience of implementing the PEPFAR abstinence and fidelity programs they had become convinced of their efficacy.

I would strongly encourage my fellow Members to examine the growing evidence regarding the success of the ABC model in HIV/AIDS prevention. It is, fundamentally, a matter of life and death.

Madam Speaker, I want to express my strongest support for the ``Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007,'' H.R. 1881, and I was very pleased to join my friend and colleague Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania this week in introducing this important legislation. H.R. 1881 addresses a very critical need--to provide assistance to the 1.5 million Americans with autism who are in desperate need of treatments and services throughout their lives.

From my first session in Congress in 1981, I have been a consistent advocate for individuals with developmental disorders, including autism. But autism came into a particularly strong focus in 1998, when two of my constituents, Bobbie and Billie Gallagher of Brick, NJ, contacted me with concerns about an elevated level of autism cases in the township of Brick. The concerns of the Gallaghers--parents of two autistic children themselves--led me to request that the Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, conduct an investigation into a possible autism cluster in Brick.

The results of this investigation, one of the first federal studies on autism, were quite alarming. Higher rates of autistic disorder and autism spectrum disorders, ASDs, were found in Brick Township relative to rates from previously published studies. However, we have now come to learn that the high rate of autism found in Brick Township was not an isolated incident; it was the window to a nationwide phenomenon.

Earlier this year--on February 8, 2007, the CDC released groundbreaking data documenting the high prevalence of autism around the country. As a result of this landmark study, it is now believed that 1 out of every 150 children born in the United States suffers from a form of autism.

The numbers are even more shocking when you examine the results from New Jersey. Autism was shown to affect 1 in every 94 New Jersey children analyzed in the recent federally funded study. That same study, based on 2002 data, showed that 1 in every 60 boys in New Jersey is afflicted with a form of autism.

While the numbers are profound, it is the reality of the lives behind the numbers which call for our compassion, dedication, and legislative action. The physical, emotional, and financial impacts of autism on individuals, families, and society are staggering. Autism can overwhelm families, as their lives become consumed with the considerable challenges of identifying appropriate biomedical and psychosocial treatments, schooling and other needed support systems for their autistic child--and eventually for an autistic adult. Most of the parents of an autistic child whom I have met express a high level of fear and apprehension about services--such as housing and employment assistance--that will be available when their child becomes an adult.

That is why I joined forces with my friend Mike Doyle to launch in January 2001 the Congressional Coalition for Autism Research & Education, C.A.R.E., which currently includes over 160 Members of Congress. The goals of the bipartisan Coalition for Autism Research and Education are straightforward, to: increase general awareness of autism and autism spectrum disorders among Members of Congress and policy analysts in Federal government; educate Members of Congress on current and future initiatives and developments regarding autism; serve as a forum where autism-related policy issues can be exchanged, debated, and discussed; bring together public, private, and government entities to pursue legislative initiatives that will help improve the lives of individuals with autism and their families; and promote all means to assist with the challenges of families and loved ones affected by autism.

Although it is still not sufficient, we have had significant success in advocating for increased funding for autism programs--funding that has increased by nearly 10 times the amount it was in the mid-1990s. In 1995, NIH invested about $10.5 million into autism research. The estimated budget for autism research in fiscal year 06 is nearly 10 times that amount--$108 million. At the CDC, autism funding has increased from $287,000 in 1995 to an estimated $15.1 million in 2006.

By introducing the ``Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act,'' EPIAA, we are building on our progress over the past decade and particularly on some legislative accomplishments during the last Congress. Many members of the C.A.R.E. caucus joined in supporting and passing last December the ``Combating Autism Act,'' important legislation which focused on improving autism-related research funded through the National Institutes of Health, autism surveillance, and early screening and diagnosis. Also last year, the caucus was successful in securing in the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations bill $7.5 million in an Army research account for the purpose of improving treatment of individuals with autism.

Notably, these successful efforts to date have focused primarily on surveillance and biomedical research. While these efforts are absolutely critical, the reality is that we have approximately 1.5 million individuals in the U.S. with autism, and they and their families are in desperate need of services to assist them in their daily lives and to help individuals with autism to realize their full potential as members of our communities. Today, we are focusing our efforts on providing services to aid families facing the challenges of providing lifetime care for their autistic children from first diagnosis through adulthood.

The ``Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007,'' which was earlier introduced in the Senate and which we introduced this week in the House, is comprehensive legislation which authorizes approximately $350 million over 5 years to provide treatments and services across the lifespan. It is incumbent upon us to act now to pass this legislation that will facilitate the provision of treatments and services for autistic individuals throughout their lives. As provided for in this legislation, assistance needs to be largely community-based and needs to address early intervention, education, employment, transportation, housing, health, and recreation.

Also, very importantly, the mechanisms authorized in this legislation are designed to provide treatments and services effectively and

efficiently. Those mechanisms include a broad-based Task Force to evaluate evidence-based treatments and services, demonstration grants to enable states to provide evidence-based treatments and services, one-time planning grants and follow-on demonstration grants for states to provide services to adults, and supplemental grants to University Centers of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Research, Education, and Services to allow the centers to train professionals who treat or serve individuals with autism, as well as the creation of four new University Centers of Excellence. To complement and further enhance the grant programs established under this Act, this legislation also provides assistance to a national nonprofit organization for establishment of a national technical assistance center and provides assistance for protection and advocacy systems.

Additionally, to fill an information gap important to almost all affected families, service providers, and government organizations, the legislation calls for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study and release a report on the ways in which autism treatments and services are currently financed, including policies for public and private health insurance.

This is truly bipartisan, bicameral legislation, and I am gratified that Representatives Eliot Engel of New York and Chip Pickering of Mississippi joined Representative Doyle and myself in introducing this legislation. We are all most appreciative that critically acclaimed actor and star of the ``West Wing'' Bradley Whitford, co-founder of Cure Autism Now and board member of Autism Speaks Jonathan Shestack, and President of the Autism Society of America Lee Grossman joined us this week in announcing the introduction of the EPIAA. Their support, along with that of other advocates for individuals with autism, will be critical as this legislation advances in the House and Senate.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding.

I rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 100. I want to thank Chairman Lantos for sponsoring it. I think it sends a very clear and nonambiguous message to all parties, including the barbaric Mugabe regime.

Madam Speaker, 2 years ago almost to this date, April 21, I chaired a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations entitled ``Zimbabwe: Prospects for Democracy after the March, 2005, Elections.'' At that time, I noted that ``Robert Mugabe was a hero to his people and to

his fellow Africans for successfully standing up to racism and oppression. More than two decades later, however, he has so tarnished his image that it must now resemble the fictional portrait of Dorian Gray, showing an increasingly repugnant picture of a hero who has gone astray.''

During the Mugabe reign, approximately 2.4 million people have been literally thrown out of their homes, and their homes have been bulldozed. There have been a number of killings and politically motivated kidnappings and torture. The government has relied on repressive laws to suppress freedom of speech, press, assembly, movement, association, and academic freedom. The Zimbabwean people have suffered greatly as a result of the government's extremely misguided economic policies, and many have died from preventable diseases. The U.S. Department of State concluded in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006 that Zimbabwe and its government have ``engaged in pervasive and systematic abuse of human rights.''

Unfortunately, the situation has only worsened in 2007. The world community was shocked by the photos of beaten members of the political opposition who gathered on March 11 for a peaceful prayer meeting. Mugabe has continued to crack down on any political opposition and even threatened foreign diplomats who offered food and water to jailed opposition leaders.

It is essential that the entire international community raise its voice in support of those seeking democratic reforms in Zimbabwe. Among other measures, this resolution calls upon the Southern African Development Community, or SADC, and the African Union to consult urgently with all Zimbabwe stakeholders to intervene with the Government of Zimbabwe while applying appropriate pressures to resolve the economic and political crisis.

I must express my deep disappointment that SADC has failed to take decisive action with regard to Zimbabwe. Following consultations in Zimbabwe earlier this month, the executive director of SADC stated, ``What's good for Zimbabwe is good for the region. What's bad for Zimbabwe is bad for the region. I think it's time we did less talk and do the work.'' On that point, I could not agree more.

Unfortunately, rather than getting to work and pressing Mugabe to undertake meaningful reforms and halt his latest assault on human beings, on political and human rights, this statement was followed by a plea of support for the Mugabe regime by the International Monetary Fund.

Is the complete retraction of political and human rights and the beating to death of innocent civilians not bad for Zimbabwe? Are Mugabe's disastrous economic policies, which have resulted in inflation rates of up to 3,000 percent, unemployment rates of 80 percent, and the flight of thousands of economic and political refugees from Zimbabwe into other SADC countries not bad for the region? And what does the continued coddling of Mugabe say about the SADC members' commitment to a ``new vision'' of responsible governance under the New Economic Partnership for Africa Development, which was championed by South Africa?

Madam Speaker, the Mugabe government has used every means of suppression, every tool that they could muster, to crush those who disagree with that regime.

I urge the passage of this resolution in order to send an urgent message to SADC and to the rest of the international community to do everything necessary to resolve this crisis currently crippling Zimbabwe and provide any and all assistance that the Zimbabwean people so desperately need to achieve democratic reform, peace, and economic prosperity.

Again, I thank the author, Mr. Lantos, and the ranking member for bringing to the floor this timely and extremely important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, this morning the Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing on the recently-released 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices prepared by the Department of State. Over the past three decades, we have seen a steady increase in the quality, candor, and scope of the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In fighting the plague of human rights abuse, sunlight is often the best disinfectant. On the whole, the Country Reports shine brightly into some very dark corners. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Department of State who work so hard to compile them.

Although we do not claim to be perfect and are ourselves subject to the universal ideals we espouse, the United States continues to be the world's most prominent champion of fundamental human rights.

This Congress, I have re-introduced the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 which seeks to promote and defend human rights related to this increasingly influential communication medium. I am pleased to note that the State Department has already implemented one of the action items of this proposed legislation by including important additional information in the Country Reports, such as the domestic legal authority for internet restrictions and penalties imposed for the exercise of free speech via the Internet. This information is critical to efforts to address Internet repression in countries like Vietnam, China, Tunisia, and Belarus, and to convince governments that free speech restrictions are contrary to their national interests.

It is worth noting that most of the major human rights efforts undertaken by the United States Government in recent decades--including the Country Reports themselves--have been the result of Congressional mandates: The Jackson-Vanik Amendment; The International Religious Freedom Act; the Torture Victims Relief Act; the Lautenberg Amendment; the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; the North Korean Human Rights Act. These were Congressional initiatives undertaken in the face of skepticism--and sometimes outright opposition--by the Executive branch.

For example, I recall when then-Assistant Secretary Shattuck appeared before my subcommittee 10 years ago to oppose the International Religious Freedom Act. He argued that he was ``particularly concerned'' that the bill would ``harm the very people it seeks to help'' because it would ``legislate a hierarchy of human rights into our laws'' that could ``severely damage our efforts to ensure that all aspects of basic civil and political rights . . . are protected.'' Not surprisingly, this doomsday prophecy did not come to pass.

To the contrary, once such issues have been forced by legislation, the Executive branch eventually internalizes, and sometimes embraces, those human rights priorities. For example, religious freedom and trafficking are now mainstream policy priorities that receive far more international attention and action than they did before the laws were on the books. Other mandates are embraced more slowly, such as the refugee title of the North Korean Human Rights Act, which has not yet been adequately implemented.

There are many countries where the seriousness of human rights violations deserves condemnation, including Zimbabwe with its recent horrific crackdown on the political opposition, North Korea, Eritrea, Belarus, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Ethiopia and Iran. The Report provides disturbing details about how these countries in particular-- though not exclusively--continue to thwart universal principles of respect for fundamental human rights. However, I will limit myself to focusing the spotlight on three human rights violators in particular-- China, Sudan, and Vietnam.

This year's report repeats the assessment of prior years that the Chinese Government's human rights record ``remained poor,'' but even when many of us thought the situation could not get much worse, it adds that the Chinese record ``in certain areas deteriorated.'' One of those areas often ignored or downplayed by the international community is the appalling lengths to which the government will go to enforce its one- child per couple limit.

The Chinese government has a long record of oppressing its people, especially women, through its population control program. Beijing does not deny levying huge fines against people who have children the State deems illegal.

In fact, at a hearing that I chaired several years ago, Secretary Dewey testified that ``couples who give birth to an unapproved child are likely to be assessed a social compensation fee, which can range from one-half the local average annual household income to as much as ten times that level.'' Indeed this is a horrific government that decides which children are legal and which are illegal--that is, which children will be allowed to live and which will not.

These acts are truly a crime against humanity executed in conjunction with the UNFPA. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes against humanity of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered--their mothers robbed of their children by the State. This barbaric policy makes brothers and sisters illegal, and makes women the pawns of the population control cadres.

This barbaric policy has now given rise to a new problem for China. An article published in the Guardian several years ago, stated that China could find itself dealing with as many as 40 million single men by the year 2020 because of the one child policy. According to the article Li Weixiong, a population advisor to the Chinese government, said a cultural preference for boys was creating an artificial disparity between the number of boys and girls representing ``a serious threat to building a well-off society.'' He also said that the lack of women in China will lead to a dramatic rise in prostitution and the trafficking of women. ``This is by no means a sensational prediction,'' he stated.

On that point Mr. Li is right. In fact, the combined effect of the birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female unborn children at a rate of 116.9 to 100 overall, and a shocking 151.9 to 100 for second pregnancies. As a direct result of these ongoing crimes against humanity, China today is missing millions of girls--girls who were murdered in the womb simply because they are girls. A couple of years ago, the State Department suggested that as many as 100 million girls of all ages are missing--that is to say, they should be alive and well and are not, a direct consequence of the government's one-child policy. This gendercide constitutes one of humanity's worst blights, and a far greater peril to peace and security than is being credited at this time.

The world is all too aware of the continuing genocide in Sudan, appropriately identified as such in the Country Reports. Current reports estimate that the conflicts in Darfur and in Southern Sudan have resulted in the deaths of close to 2.4 million people and left over 4 million others either internally displaced or as refugees. When confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, extensive trafficking in persons, and the acts of torture and violence against women.

Just two weeks ago, on March 14th, I introduced a House resolution calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release several political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who have been arrested in a recent wave of government oppression. One of those individuals specifically mentioned in the resolution is Father Nguyen Van Ly, who has already spent over 13 years in prison since 1983 for his advocacy of religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam. Tomorrow, Fr. Ly will be given a kangaroo trial for exercising his fundamental human rights, and he faces 20 years in prison in the likely event that he is convicted.

This is a case worthy of our particular attention as the Vietnamese Government audaciously resumed its past oppression of human rights after Congress agreed to Vietnam becoming an official member of the World Trade Organization in December 2006. A focus of to day's hearing was the promotion of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, and it is important to keep in mind that those of us in Congress play an important role in our country's foreign policy. While substantial criticism was leveled during the hearing at the Administration for its shortcomings in promoting and defending human rights, those of us in Congress should also look in the mirror and ask what priority we give to human rights, both individually and as an institution.

Madam Speaker, with so many important and often vexing challenges competing for our attention throughout the world, it seems that the tendency in Congress is to focus our attention on a crisis only after it has evolved into an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, that was not the case last week, when the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health held a hearing on prospects for peace in Guinea.

This hearing presented us with an opportunity to discuss not only our strategic, humanitarian, human rights, and economic interests in Guinea--particularly as speculation about President Lansana Conte's political future and the potential for even greater conflict mounts-- but also to consider how the United States Government has positioned itself to respond to threats and mitigate crises before they have spun out of control.

The stakes are high. Western Africa historically has been beset by political instability and violence, where conflict in one country spills across borders and threatens the region as a whole. This has led to massive displacements, refugee flows, the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and the perpetration of some of the most heinous human rights atrocities known to man. If we fail to capitalize on the opportunity to address transformative, stabilization and reconstruction needs in support of a democratic transition in Guinea today, I fear that we may be headed for a much wider regional crisis down the road.

Experts have been warning for years that the ``ground was quaking'' in Guinea. Widespread dissatisfaction with the autocratic rule of an aged and ailing Conte, coupled with economic decline, high inflation, political cronyism and corruption, has led to periodic episodes of unrest in Conakry. However, the union-led strikes of December 2006 through February 2007 took on a new dimension. For the first time since the country obtained independence in 1958, Guineans across the nation have taken to the streets en mass, demanding change and refusing to accept half measures.

Through solidarity, the unions, opposition parties and civil society gained strength, and in the end, they succeeded in exacting critical concessions from the government. But while this symbolizes a significant victory, the hardest part is yet to come.

While the naming of the new consensus prime minister, Lansana Kouyate on February 27th is a significant step forward, the office of the Prime Minster is not constitutionally protected and Conte has a record of breaking agreements. In addition, substantial resources are urgently needed for economic and social programs that will address the root causes of social unrest and shore-up popular support for the Prime Minster. History has shown that Conte is unlikely to share power in a meaningful way, and the longer he keeps his hand on the tiller in his authoritarian style, the more likely a renewed and destructive political crisis will emerge.

That said, it is widely speculated that--one way or another--Conte will not finish his term in office. His health is extremely poor and his power appears to be waning. Even the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States, which typically shy away from criticizing one of their own in public, have condemned Conte's violent response to protests and have suggested that this may be the appropriate time for him to step down. Experts are no longer talking about IF Conte will leave office, but WHEN and under what conditions he will leave.

Still, Conte has not designated a successor and, in fact, has sidelined a number of individuals who appeared poised to succeed him. The President of the National Assembly, who would be the successor to the President under the terms of the Constitution, is widely unpopular. It has been widely suggested that a military takeover may be the only option for a ``soft landing'' should Conte die in office or retire to his farm.

However, I would strongly contend that a military takeover in Guinea, no matter how ``temporary'' it is intended to be, should NOT be considered an appealing option. The military is divided along generational and ethnic lines. Neither Guineans nor the international community should assume that the military is a cohesive group capable or willing to deliver a smooth transition to a democratic, civilian-led government.

While the responsibility for fostering an environment of peace and security in Guinea rests with Guineans, the United States is in a unique position to help facilitate a non-violent, democratic resolution to this crisis. Guineans remember the fact that it was the United States who came to their aid when Guinea was attacked by the Revolutionary United Front rebels from Sierra Leone, with the support of former Liberian President Charles Taylor. We also have invested heavily in peace in Liberia, and have credibility in the region. Guinea is a predominantly Muslim country which is favorably disposed to the United States. The time to help is now . . . before the crisis spirals out of control.

Madam Speaker, last week the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health held a hearing on the important and timely global health issue of drug-resistant tuberculosis. It is shocking that this disease which is curable continues to kill about 2 million people each year. Perhaps the reason for this apparent contradiction is that the vast majority of those who die from TB--98 percent--live in the developing world, and are from the poorest and most marginalized sectors of society. TB is particularly pernicious in that it targets young adults who are just starting to form their families and who are the producers and sustainers of their societies. The emergence in recent years of drug-resistant TB has raised the specter of higher death rates, more children who will lose their parents, and communities that will fall deeper into poverty and despair.

Combined with the fact that TB is the leading cause of death of persons with HIV/AIDS, this disease is having a particularly devastating impact on Africa. However, it is important to note that no region--indeed no country, including our own--is immune from the effects of tuberculosis. We should all be alarmed that strains that are resistant to a single drug have been documented in every country surveyed by the World Health Organization. Given the ease with which TB can be spread, TB is truly a disease without borders, and it is in our national as well as humanitarian interest to seek its eradication.

Therefore, it was highly appropriate that the subcommittee on global health commemorated World TB Day 2007 with the rest of the world, and raised our voices with that of others for an emergency response to this increasingly dangerous threat to global health. I agree with my colleagues here in Congress who are advocating for significantly more resources to be directed towards TB prevention, detection and treatment, and research for new drugs. In addition, the hearing provided us with the opportunity to examine the best means for directing our resources.

The World Health Organization recently came out with an interesting study entitled: ``Appreciating Assets: The Contribution of Religion to Universal Access in Africa.'' The study was focused on the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and utilized Zambia and Lesotho as the two study sites, but the findings provide useful indications for addressing other health issues, including tuberculosis, throughout Africa. The study found that approximately 30-40 percent of national health services were provided by faith-based organizations. In some areas, those percentages went as high as 65-70 percent.

The benefits of a faith-based infrastructure for addressing HIV/AIDS would seem to apply also to tuberculosis. For example, assisting and monitoring adherence to the drug regimen could be overseen by the volunteer community, as well as education of the general public. Since churches, mosques and synagogues are being encouraged to undertake HIV/ AIDS initiatives, TB can readily be included.

It is well-known that the Global Fund is a major contributor to TB detection and treatment programs around the world. The United States has given over $2 billion to the Global Fund, or just over 30 percent of the Fund's revenues. I was disturbed to read reports earlier this month that the Global Fund has permanently terminated two grants to Uganda for malaria and tuberculosis. When I visited Uganda in January 2006, a suspension of 5 Global Fund grants due to gross mismanagement had just been lifted and I was informed that the problems appeared to have been resolved. The fact that this now turns out not to have been the case, and that several other countries have also had Global Fund grants terminated, raises serious questions about how the Global Fund is operating.

I know from my visits to Africa and from the numerous reports we receive in Congress how well our bilaterally-funded PEPFAR programs are performing. The information and accountability that Congress has come to take for granted through these bilateral programs are not available through the Global Fund. And yet many of the primary recipients of Global Fund grants are governments with a history of corruption and fraud, and/or limited capacity to properly manage large sums of money in their health sectors. One could argue that the absence in the Global Fund of a robust reporting and monitoring mechanism at both the primary and sub-recipient levels is an open invitation

for waste in these countries, and a tragic loss of opportunity to save lives. The implementation of a system that provides accountability and transparency would seem vital to continued and expanded donor support of the Global Fund in the future.

Madam Speaker, last night I introduced legislation, the ``Safe Facilities Act of 2007,'' H.R. 1574, to promote and protect increased safety measures at chemical security plants. Specifically, my legislation would prohibit any federal law, regulation or agency from preempting any State chemical facility safety stipulation which may be more rigorous then the new federal regulations.

As you know, Madam Speaker, last fall Congress passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 which granted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to draft ``interim final regulations'' regarding plant security. While these standards are a necessary baseline for nationwide consideration, the federal regulations must represent a floor, not a ceiling, by which States may structure their own security standards. Federal regulations should not be written in such a way to undermine exiting State statues, which in cases like New Jersey are current and robust.

While I agree with some of the implementation provisions outlined in the interim regulations, my legislation repeals the provision allowing the federal law to preempt the state law. It is particularly difficult to find merit in the Department's plan to preempt state standards since the authorizing statute, Public Law 109-295, was intentionally silent on this issue. The very fact that the legislation did not include a specific preemption should be taken as the signal of Congressional intent to allow states to implement stricter standards if they act to do so. Federal laws should provide a framework for state laws, buttressing and enhancing existing state statutes not eradicating or replacing laws which in some cases may be more protective.

As you are well aware, September 11, 2001 changed the life of every single American--including the life of every resident in New Jersey. Nearly 700 New Jersey residents lost their lives including many from the 4th Congressional District which I represent in central Jersey. Regrettably, the most densely populated state in the Union is also well acquainted with bio-terror attacks including the subsequent anthrax attack at the U.S. Postal facility in Hamilton, also in my Congressional District. With over 100 major chemical facilities in the State of New Jersey, lawmakers, experts in the field of science, and residents alike are keen to the importance of securing New Jersey's vital infrastructure which could potentially be used as a weapon by a terrorist.

Immediately following the attacks in 2001 and in preparation for the ``worst case scenarios'' in the event of another terrorist attack, New Jersey established the Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force to develop the best security practices and encourage each chemical facility in the state to evaluate security threats and plant vulnerabilities as well as the consequences of a chemical release. In 2005, the best practices became mandatory for New Jersey's facilities. All of New Jersey's facilities are now required to prepare a site- specific, risk and vulnerability assessment, emergency incident prevention and response plan and require worker participation in their security assessments. In addition, 43 chemical facilities subject to the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) state program are also required to explore the feasibility of inherently safer technologies as part of state security and preparedness plans.

New Jersey is no stranger to danger when it comes to vulnerabilities in a post 9/11 world. We are acutely aware of the terrorist threat and thus we will not be passive in our fight to prevent future catastrophes. The Garden State is the first state in the Nation to implement vigorous plant security practices and continues to research and develop strategies to improve and enhance current standards and regulations. The federal government has no business undermining the efforts of New Jersey, or any State for that matter, in providing the greatest level of protection for our citizens.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act to allow America's workers to make their own free decisions about whether or not they want to freely associate and form unions.

H.R. 800 is designed to tighten rules and regulations and close labor law loopholes that have been either manipulated or exploited by those seeking to stifle or defeat organizing efforts through methods other than open and transparent debate. Employers have increasingly hired consultants to file motions and appeals aimed at delaying elections that could be easily certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). These delays have frequently resulted in denial of workers' rights. If the system were not in disrepair; if the NLRB was working as intended, this legislation would not be necessary. Unfortunately, the system is broken and we must act to repair it.

Accordingly, H.R. 800 will replace the current two-step process that now requires 30-percent of employees to sign a card followed by an NLRB election, with a simpler, fairer single step process. Under the bill, a majority of employee signatures, 50 percent plus 1, on an authorized card establishes a designated union as the official bargaining unit. My state of New Jersey has already implemented an Employee Free Choice Act for its public employees; H.R. 800 would do so for everyone in the Untied States.

Employers utilize union busting consultants more than 80 percent of the time, and use delaying tactics that can prevent any final decision for years. Moreover, the NLRB is less prepared to handle the legal dealings than it was 20 years ago. At last count, the staff is only about one-third the size of what it was in the early '80s.

In addition to reforming the process, H.R. 800 would also impose new and increased penalties for unfair labor practices, including higher civil penalties such as a $20,000 fine for each violation of coercion.

Recently at Rutgers University in New Jersey attempts were made to discourage the organization process. For example, emails sent from the Human Resources Department for

the employees stated in part ``we believe the facts strongly support the conclusion that union representation would not benefit you, and we will be providing important information that supports our belief.

Fortunately, a neutrality agreement, currently in force, was signed on January 25, 2007. It forbids all anti-union campaigning on behalf of the University and prevents the University from making disparaging remarks about the union, and discussions on the question of unionization are permitted at work as long as they do not disrupt educational functions. I want to commend President Richard McCormick for signing a comprehensive neutrality agreement.

Coercion of any kind is now expressly forbidden by either the University or the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Rutgers is forbidden from holding captive audience meetings, one-on-one meetings, and the University can't question or monitor employees about unionization. The organization process at Rutgers is now working. One study shows that 91 percent of employers force employees to attend anti-union briefings and meetings. This is not expected to happen at Rutgers.

Pursuant to the neutrality agreement and relevant law, no employee can be subjected to any intimidation, threats or reprisals, promises of benefits or other offers, or subjected to speech designed to influence his or her decision to join the union.

None of these actions, as well as others, are permitted as of the date of the neutrality agreement and mechanisms are also now in place to adjudicate any infractions. These protections are essential, necessary, and justified.

Amazingly, it is the research done in part by Rutgers Professor Adrienne Eaton and the Eagleton Institute that has suggested that ``while pro-union workers and union organizers can attempt to make their case persuasively, it is the employers who control the workplace and frequently use their power to hire, fire, and change work schedules to pressure workers during the weeks leading up to an NLRB election.''

Another long labor organizing effort in New Jersey involves nurses and other employees at South Jersey Healthcare. While these healthcare workers finally got their union several weeks ago, organizing was not easy. Michele Silvio, a registered nurse for 13 years, who spent her last eight years in the emergency room, was told ``like it or leave it'' when she and other employees tried to make their concerns known. According to Michele, problems began after the consolidation of several facilities into one large medical center. Up to three times the patient volume was being experienced and Michele and her other co-workers felt they needed a voice to make their concerns about quality patient care known.

During the process, however, management used the tools of a captive workforce to try to ``persuade them'' to change their minds. Nurses were forced to sit through mandatory meetings on work time where management gave anti-union presentations. Workers were also interrogated and sometimes intimidated by management during one-on-one meetings.

When faced with organizing drives, the research has found that 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers; 49 percent threaten to close a worksite if the union prevails, and 51 percent coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism.

This is not free or fair, and the right to associate and form labor unions must be protected. The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field and bring fairness to the organizing process.

Madam Speaker, Edmond Burke once said that, ``all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'' Thirty years ago, good men and women came together, and together, they ultimately triumphed over evil.

In 1987, I traveled to Czechoslovakia with a Helsinki Commission delegation led by my good friend, Steny Hoyer, who was then Chairman of the Commission. We traveled there just ten years after the Charter 77 movement had been formed and, amazingly, in spite of persecution and imprisonment, they had managed to publish 350 documents during its first ten years. And it was clear during my visit to Prague that this organization was having an impact, especially when the communist authorities went to the trouble of preventing five independent activists, including Vaclav Havel, from meeting with us.

In spite of this, our delegation was able to meet with several other Charter 77 signatories and sympathizers: Libuse Silhanova, Josef Vohryzek, Father Vaclav Maly, Zdenek Urbanek, and Rita Klimova. Libuse Silhanova, then serving as a Charter 77 spokesperson, described her fellow Chartists as ``ordinary people who happen to be part of a movement.'' For a group of ``ordinary people,'' they certainly accomplished extraordinary things.

One of the most notable of these ``ordinary people'' was the playwright Vaclav Havel, who is today the sole surviving member of Charter 77's first three spokespersons. At a time when most Czechoslovaks preferred to keep their heads low, he held his up. When others dared not speak out, he raised up his voice. While others hid from communism in their apartments and weekend cottages, he faced it down in prison.

In 1978, Havel wrote a seminal essay entitled, ``The Power of the Powerless.'' In it, he proposed a remarkably conspiratorial concept: the idea that those repressed by the Communist Lie actually had the power to ``live for truth,'' and that by doing so, they could change the world in which they live.

One of the people who read this essay was Zbygniew Bujak, who became a leading Solidarity activist in Poland. Bujak described the impact of Havel's message:

This essay reached us in the Ursus factory in 1979 at a

point when we felt we were at the end of the road. Inspired

by KOR [the Polish Workers' Defense Committee, which preceded

Solidarity], we had been speaking on the shop floor, talking

to people, participating in public meetings, trying to speak

the truth about the factory, the country, and politics. There

came a moment when people thought we were crazy. Why were we

doing this? Why were we taking such risks? Not seeing any

immediate and tangible results, we began to doubt the

purposefulness of what we were doing. Shouldn't we be coming

up with other methods, other ways?

Then came the essay by Havel. Reading it gave us the

theoretical underpinnings for our activity. It maintained our

spirits; we did not give up, and a year later--in August

1980--it became clear that the party apparatus and the

factory management were afraid of us. We mattered. And the

rank and file saw us as leaders of the movement. When I

look at the victories of Solidarity, and of Charter 77, I

see in them an astonishing fulfillment of the prophecies

and knowledge contained in Havel's essay.

Vaclav Havel's essay was not just the product of clever wordsmithing; it was an act of singular heroism. In fact, shortly after writing ``The Power of the Powerless,'' Vaclav Havel found himself in prison, again. And it should be remembered that others, including philosopher Jan Patocka, Havel's close friend, and Pavel Wonka, paid with their lives for their opposition to the Czechoslovak communist regime.

Vaclav Havel is a man who has always been guided by the courage of his convictions. Remarkably, his courage did not fade upon his assumption of the presidency. Indeed, he is all the more heroic for his steadfast commitment to human rights even from the Prague Castle. From the beginning, he was a voice of reason, not revenge, as he addressed his country's communist and totalitarian past. In 1993, he rightly identified the situation of Roma as ``a litmus test for civil society.'' And not only has he raised human rights issues in his own country but reminds the world of the abuses taking place in Cuba and China.

Throughout his presidency, he pardoned those faced with criminal charges under communist-era laws that restrict free speech. In 2001, he spoke out against the parliament's regressive religion law, which turned the clock back on religious freedom. And he has reminded other world leaders of our shared responsibility for the poor and less fortunate the world over.

On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the founding of Charter 77, I want to join my colleagues from the Helsinki Commission in honoring Vaclav Havel and all the men and women who signed the Charter, who supported its goals, and who helped bring democracy to Czechoslovakia.

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

Mr. Speaker, the co-Chairs of the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary of State James Baker and former House Foreign Affairs Chairman Lee Hamilton, wrote late last year: ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests.

``Many Americans are dissatisfied,'' they go on to say, ``not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress,'' Baker and Hamilton go on to say, ``must work together.''

``The President and Congress must work together.'' ``Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric.'' Good advice, especially when we are in the middle of a war to

help a suffering people living in a tortured land striving to matriculate from dictatorship to democracy.

Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I too have serious questions about this war, especially its cost in human life. I too am impatient and want our men and women brought safely home as quickly as possible.

But with so many Americans and Iraqis and coalition forces at risk, it is important to ask what message a nonbinding surge disapproval resolution with no force of law might have on a troop surge already under way and what message do we send to our troops, our allies, and our enemies. Will it demoralize even a little, maybe a lot, those brave Americans who have put their lives on the line so that others may be free? Will it undermine the resolve, commitment, and solidarity of those nations that have stood with us against the hate and murder of the extremists? And how will our enemies regard passage of this resolution? With celebration? Will they step up their already far too robust campaign of terrorism, murder, and suicide bombing?

If the Democratic leadership wants to stop the surge or the war itself, bring a measure to the floor to defund it. The debate on defunding the war and, most certainly, the vote would have predictable clear-cut consequences. The President can't spend money on a war he doesn't first get from Congress. But by offering what is essentially a sense of the House resolution, the weakest, least effective way of driving home a point because it compels nothing, I am concerned that the House this week may, unwittingly, significantly hurt the morale of our warfighters while empowering the hate mongers. Surely no one in this Chamber wants that.

Madam Speaker, this past October, Hungary celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Uprising. As President Bush said in his October 18 Presidential Proclamation, ``the story of Hungarian democracy represents the triumph of liberty over tyranny.'' Like the President, I honor the men and women who struggled--not only in 1956 but for many years thereafter--for democracy in Hungary.

The following remarks were made by Istvan Gereben, a man who came to this country after the 1956 revolution, but who never forgot his homeland. They were delivered by Mr. Gereben in San Francisco on October 22, 2006, at the Remember Hungary 1956 Commemoration, at the California State Building.

Revolution, Rebirth, Freedom: Hungary 1956

From the shadows of blood, iron bars, gallows and simple

wooden crosses we step today into the sunshine of

remembrance, hope, duty and responsibility. During the past

sixteen years the ideas, guiding principles, heroes and

martyrs of 1956 gained amends. The moral and political legacy

of the Hungarian Revolution, however, still, even today, is

misunderstood, misrepresented and waiting to be fully

appreciated.

We remember . . . our friends, the Kids of Pest, the

colleagues, the relatives, the familiar strangers. The brave

Hungarians. Let's remember the dead here, thousands of miles

away from their graves but close to their soul, grieving

woefully, but full with hope. We pray for those who in their

defeat became triumphant. ``For what they have done has been

to expose the brutal hypocrisy of Communism for all

mankind''--declared Archibald McLeish in the Special Report

of Life Magazine in 1957.

Why did it happen? The best answer can be found in Sandor

Marai's poem: Christmas 1956. Angel from Heaven.

The whole world is talking about the miracle.

Priests talk about bravery in their sermons.

A politician says the case is closed.

The Pope blesses the Hungarian people.

And each group, each class, everybody

Asks why it happened this way.

Why didn't they die out as expected?

Why didn't they meekly accept their fate?

Why was the sky torn apart?

Because a people said, ``Enough!''

They who were born free do not understand,

They do not understand that

``Freedom is so important, so important!''

The fight waged by Hungarians in 1956 was inspired by a

burning desire for freedom of the individual and the nation,

by want for national independence, by thirst for full

national and individual sovereignty and by hunger for inner

democracy. This Revolution against the Soviet occupiers was a

defining moment in Hungarian history and in the nation's

political culture. 1956 was one of the most powerful nails

driven into the coffin of an evil and fraudulent tyranny.

Then and continuously since we witness the expression of

praise, admiration of and support for the aims of this

miracle that is called the Hungarian Revolution.

Let's refresh our memory with some of the more striking

observations by our friends here in America and elsewhere in

the World:

President John F. Kennedy: ``October 23, 1956 is a day that

will forever live in the annals of free men and free nations.

It was a day of courage, conscience and triumph. No other day

since history began has shown more clearly the eternal

unquenchability of man's desire to be free, whatever the odds

against success, whatever the sacrifice required.''

(Statement, October 23, 1960)

President Ronald Reagan: ``The Hungarian Revolution of 1956

was a true revolution of, by and for the people. Its

motivations were humanity's universal longings to live,

worship, and work in peace and to determine one's own

destiny. The Hungarian Revolution forever gave the lie to

communism's claim to represent the people, and told the world

that brave hearts still exist to challenge injustice.''

(Excerpt from the Presidential Proclamation issued on October

20, 1986.)

President George W. Bush: ``On the 50th anniversary of the

Hungarian Revolution, we celebrate the Hungarians who defied

an empire to demand their liberty; we recognize the

friendship between the United States and Hungary; and we

reaffirm our shared desire to spread freedom to people around

the world.'' (Excerpt from the Presidential Proclamation

issued on October 18, 2006.)

Milovan Djilas: ``The changes in Poland mean the triumph of

national Communism, which in a different form we have seen in

Yugoslavia. The Hungarian uprising is something more, a new

phenomenon, perhaps no less meaningful than the French or

Russian Revolutions . . . The revolution in Hungary means the

beginning of the end of Communism.'' (Excerpt from ``The

Storm in Eastern Europe,'' ``The New Leader,'' No. 19, 1956.)

The New York Times: ``We accuse the Soviet Government of

murder. We accuse it of the foulest treachery and the basest

deceit known to man. We accuse it of having committed so

monstrous crime against the Hungarian people yesterday that

its infamy can never be forgiven or forgotten.'' (In an

editorial in the paper's November 1956 issue.)

I could continue with Statements made by Albert Camus,

President Richard Nixon, Sir Leslie Munroe, Henry Kissinger,

Leo Chern, Pablo Picasso, Nehru and I could read hundreds and

hundreds of pages from the Congressional Record listing the

praising remarks of hundreds and hundreds lawmakers uttered

in the past 50 years. All the words were saved for posterity,

everyone can find and savor them.

October 23, 1956 happened when two powerful ideas--

tyrannical communism and the eternal human principles of

democracy--met and clashed in the middle of Europe, in the

small and defenseless Hungary. In this inherently uneven

conflict blood was shed and lives were lost. Imre Nagy and

his colleagues were arrested, tried and most of them along

with countless Freedom Fighters were executed on June 16,

1958.

Since their death, the political and human challenge has

been to find the rationale for their supreme sacrifice. This

rationale is the indestructible dignity of every human being.

By refusing to beg for his life, Imre Nagy repudiated his

personal past for a more hopeful future of Hungary and the

world at large.

The significance of his and countless other Hungarians'

sacrifice is etched onto the political map of the 21st

century. The invented hope of the Hungarian Revolution is

taking shape in the recent developments throughout the world.

That is the real miracle of the events of 1956 and the

subsequent human sacrifices of Imre Nagy and his fellow

Freedom Fighters.

The Revolution was brutally and unavoidably defeated.

Why was the fate of the Revolution predetermined? Why did

it happen so that when we in the last days of October and the

early days of November in 1956 enthusiastically and full with

hope sensing victory strolled the streets of Budapest and the

cities and villages of Hungary not suspecting that our fate,

independently from us, already has been determined. The

deadly sentence was delivered by the powers of the world? And

if it is so why was the verdict such as it was?

Even after 50 years there is still no answer.

The questions are not new. The lack of answer frustrated

many historians, political scientists but none had the

determination, the skill, the objectivity and patience to

provide an authentic answer.

Robert Murphy, who, in the absence of Secretary of State

John Foster Dulles from Washington, attended to the day to

day business of the State Department during the Hungarian

Revolution, summarized his frustration caused by not being

able to find a satisfactory answer to Hungary's demands in

his autobiography, Diplomat Among Warriors, published in 1964

this way:

``In retrospect, world acceptance of the Russian aggression

in Hungary is still incredible. For sheer perfidy and

relentless

suppression of a courageous people longing for their liberty,

Hungary will always remain a classic symbol. Perhaps history

will demonstrate that the free world could have intervened to

give the Hungarians the liberty they sought, but none of us

in the State Department had the skill or the imagination to

devise a way.''

This answer seems to be the most honest one.

Hungarians have fallen back in the Soviet yoke. But the

nation persevered.

There are times when remembrance is the bravest action--

declared Gyula Illyes, the eminent Hungarian poet in the

middle of the twentieth century. Today such times are present

in Hungary. The time for bravery to remain faithful to the

moral and political maxims of the Revolution. Bravery

witnessed not against the tanks, soldiers and henchmen of the

occupying empire, bravery not contesting a strange, inhuman

ideology, but courage to face insensitivity, to confront and

solve the problems of humdrum everyday life, the bravery

necessary to assume the responsibility and sacrifice of

building a truly modern country, which is democratic,

committed to observe the rule of law and governed by the

constitution. At the present, this kind of bravery does not

uniformly characterize all Hungarians.

Hungary was redeemed 35 years after the defeated

Revolution. During that 35 years her plight to fulfill the

demands of 1956 gained respect and support in the West. The

courage, the intelligence, the determination and the skill of

the Hungarian Democratic Opposition to engage a first

bloodthirsty, later, sophisticated dictatorship resulted in

recognition of the opposition's leaders as authoritative

spokesmen for the fulfillment of the desires of the Hungarian

people. They were inspired by the spirit of the Revolution

and adopted its maxims.

In the United States, Presidents and ordinary citizens

lined up in support behind the Democratic Opposition. The

United States, by publicly expressing support in words and in

action provided protection for individuals and the whole

community of the dissidents.

The U.S. Government published English translations of

selected samizdat literature produced by opposition

activists. Many volumes, each with hundreds of pages of

these, were printed and distributed in the '70s and the '80s.

A collection of these is deposited in the National Szechenyi

Library in Budapest.

Information provided by the dissidents was used by the

Hungarian Freedom Fighters Federation U.S.A. and the

Coordinating Committee of Hungarian Organizations in North

America in their countless testimonies before Congress,

the U.S Commission on Security and Cooperation, and in

numerous briefings presented in the White House and in the

State and Defense Departments.

A longstanding issue between the Hungarian Communist

Government and the Opposition, Hungarians abroad and more

significantly the United States Government was the

unwillingness of the Communist Government to identify the

secret location of the graves in which the executed Freedom

Fighters were buried. A campaign covering several decades by

U.S. Presidents, Congressman, the Commission on Security and

Cooperation, hundreds of leading public figures and civic

organizations culminated in a letter sent on June 20, 1988,

by Congressman Frank Horton, along with 43 other

Representatives urging Prime Minister Karoly Grosz of Hungary

to comply with the many requests filed with the Hungarian

Government in the past and allow the family members of the

executed to have access to the body of their relatives.

Responding in letter dated July 18, 1988 the Prime Minister

wrote:

``My Government has the intention to settle this problem in

a humane spirit in the near future, enabling the families to

rebury the dead and to pay their tribute at the graves.''

The public ceremony of the reburial took place on June 16,

1989 in the presence of 200,000 grieving Hungarians. With

this act the road opened to free parliamentary and local

elections in 1990 and the formation of a free Government.

The demands of the Hungarian people were fulfilled. The

building of a constitutional parliamentary democracy is under

way.

In these days worrisome news comes from Hungary indicating

that the road is not smooth. The diamond of twentieth century

Hungarian history that was formed in 1956 under the stresses

of the circumstances and in the fire burning in every

Hungarian's heart is being tested today in Hungary. False

prophets, eager mouths, zealous hands driven by dark emotions

attempt to pulverize this gem into powder of coal and then

burn it into ashes and dross. They will not succeed. History

and we will not let them to succeed.

On this 50th Anniversary when we remember and pay tribute

to the ideals and heroes of 1956, we also affirm our deeply

felt conviction that lasting freedom and democracy will not

take hold in Hungary unless the precepts of the Revolution

regarding resolute unity, sacrifice, human and political

wisdom are practically and fully implemented. We call upon

those who are responsible for Hungary's welfare to heed to

the principles for which so many died in 1956 and to whose

memory we pay tribute today.

We pray that it will be so! Lord Hear our prayer . . . God

bless Hungary . . . Isten aldd meg a magyart!

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

Madam Speaker, let me at the outset thank Chairman Lantos for his leadership on this issue in general, human rights. But also especially in the case of Patrick Finucane, which so many of us have cared so deeply about for so many years. He has been a great friend of Ireland as well, and I want to thank him for that.

I also want to thank the original sponsors of this legislation, including my good friends and colleagues, Mr. Engel, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Neal, Mr. King, Mr. Payne, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Crowley, Mr. McNulty and Mr. Rothman and the many others who cosponsored this truly bipartisan resolution.

H. Con. Res. 20, Madam Speaker, calls on the British Government to live up to its commitment as part of the Northern Ireland peace process to implement a public, independent judicial inquiry into the murder of human rights attorney Patrick Finucane. Mr. Finucane, who represented Catholics in Northern Ireland, was gunned down in his home in 1989 in front of his wife and his children. I would note parenthetically his wife was wounded as well.

For years, Madam Speaker, nongovernmental human rights organizations, regional and very much renowned international legal experts, have raised serious allegations that Mr. Finucane's murder resulted from collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces. In 2004, retired Canadian Supreme Court judge Peter Cory, who was appointed by the governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom to examine these allegations under the Weston

Park Agreement, reported that sufficient evidence of collusion existed to warrant a full, independent and public judiciary inquiry without delay.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the British Government has yet to comply.

Many of my colleagues know that as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and as chairman of the Helsinki Commission I have held 11 hearings on the peace process in Northern Ireland. Central to each of these hearings has been the ongoing concern about the human rights abuses by members of the police service in Northern Ireland. The Finucane family has testified. Judge Cory has testified. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers has testified, as well as many numerous human rights leaders. All have advocated for a special investigation into the possibility of collusion in the Finucane murder.

Beyond this, Madam Speaker, last year, the Irish Parliament passed a resolution calling for an open and independent investigation. Our special envoy, Ambassador Mitchell Reiss, has testified before our committee that he and the Bush administration have urged for the establishment of a credible investigation into the Finucane murder. And Congress has supported it as well last year with H. Res. 740 and previously as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

Madam Speaker, this resolution could not be more timely. Just last week the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, who testified before our committee in 2004, released a devastating report which confirms that police in Northern Ireland have colluded with loyalist paramilitaries in several murders over the last dozen years. The very fact that a police ombudsman exists, and that a report as revealing as hers can be published underscores that policing in Northern Ireland is, in fact, very different, very much improved than it was when the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998. Further testimony to the advancements and improvements in the policing in Northern Ireland is that just this past Sunday, on January 28, Sinn Fein voted overwhelmingly to move to participate in the community policing system that was set up as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

Today, the Independent Monitoring Commission set up in 2004 by the British and Irish Governments to report on paramilitary activity has praised Sinn Fein for its new commitment to policing. When referring to the IRA, the IMC concludes that ``terrorism and violence have been abandoned.''

These developments clearly are greatly welcome, and there is a new optimism that elections for a new, devolved power-sharing government will be held this spring. Yet, Madam Speaker, with reconciliation must come full disclosure of the truth.

The lack of resolution of charges of official collusion in the murder of a defense attorney such as Mr. Finucane leads people to question the government's commitment to accountability and, above all, to justice. His murder symbolizes the depth and danger of official state-sponsored collusion in Northern Ireland and a disregard for the rule of law. It has left victims who deserve answers. And I know, because many of my colleagues and I have all spoken to them, how they want these answers. There will be no closure and there will be no reconciliation without the truth.

As the U.N. Special Rapporteur told us in 1998: ``Harassment and intimidation of defense attorneys goes to the core of the independence of the legal profession and the administration of justice in any society.''

I am also reminded of the riveting testimony offered on this matter at one of my hearings in 1998. Rep. Don Payne, my colleague from NJ, remembers it as well. He was there, when Rosemary Nelson, an attorney for Northern Ireland testified. Mrs. Nelson, who was also a wife and mother, told Congress that defense attorneys in Northern Ireland feared that they could be murdered themselves because no one had been held accountable in the murder of Patrick Finucane. Six months later, after her testimony, Rosemary Nelson was killed, the victim of a car bomb.

Madam Speaker, I would like to again express my deepest condolences to the Finucane family, as well as Rosemary Nelson's family, and thank them for their courageous and tireless efforts on behalf of justice, not only for their loved one, but for all others who have been victims of state-sponsored collusion in Northern Ireland.

Similarly, I would like to acknowledge the work and support from many human rights activists, including Jane Winter of British Irish Rights Watch; Elisa Massimino from Human Rights First, formerly known as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights; Maggie Beirne, Martin O'Brien and Paul Mageean, who have also testified before Congress on behalf of the Committee of the Administration of Justice and have provided very, very useful and timely insights to our committee.

I would again like to thank my cosponsors and again thank Mr. Lantos.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by now, most of my colleagues know that, on Sunday, a team of scientists from Wake Forest University and Harvard Medical School announced the stunning news that they had discovered a new, readily available source of potentially lifesaving stem cells derived exclusively from amniotic fluid.

For those of us who passionately support extending ethical stem cell research to effectuate cures and mitigate disease, news of this breakthrough was particularly encouraging. News media around the world seemed to appreciate the enormity and the historical significance of the findings. ABC News said, ``Stem cells discovered in amniotic fluid: Researchers say stem cells can be taken from amniotic fluid with no harm to mother or fetus.'' They pointed out that stem cells they drew from the amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.

The L.A. Times said, ``Stem cells in amniotic fluid show great promise, a study finds they offer key therapeutic benefits but avoid controversy.''

Mr. Speaker, for those of us who strongly support taxpayer funding for ethical stem cell research, and I would note parenthetically that the Bush administration spent over $600 million on stem cell research at NIH in 2006 alone, the news of this breakthrough suggests that we can and must do more to finance this kind of ethical research.

And for those of us who oppose taxpayer subsidies to facilitate the destruction of human embryos, this latest breakthrough is yet another vindication and underscores the fact that ethical alternatives to embryo-destroying research are available now, and they are likely to expand.

Let me reiterate one more time, especially for the press, that we on the pro-life side strongly support stem cell research as long as it does not require the killing of human embryos. In that vein, let me remind my colleagues that I was the prime sponsor of the bipartisan Stem Cell Therapeutic Research Act of 2005, a law that authorized $265 million for cord blood and bone marrow stem cell programs, including a new nationwide program to collect, research and help disseminate these vital stem cells.

By way of update, last fall, pursuant to the new law, the Bush administration issued contracts to establish a national inventory of umbilical cord blood. Contracts totaling $12 million were awarded and more contracts are expected this year. The establishing of this national cord blood inventory marks the beginning of the effort to increase the total number of available umbilical cord blood units, making lifesaving cord blood stem cells available to Americans in need of a transplant. I believe that is really good news to patients suffering from a myriad of diseases such as sickle cell anemia and leukemia.

Mr. Speaker, it was just 6 months ago, in July, on this floor that opponents of Roscoe Bartlett's alternative pluripotent stem cell legislation belittled and scoffed that adult and cord blood stem cells were capable of pluripotency, the ability of stem cells to grow into any cell in the body. Despite the fact that numerous scientists had published findings of pluripotency in cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells, Ms. DeGette dismissed alternative sources for pluripotent stem cells as ``fake.''

She called it ``fake research that doesn't really exist'' and that ``alternative methods for creating pluripotent stem cells are not a real scientific prospect at this time.''

Mr. Speaker, that statement was false then, and it is false now. The scientific evidence clearly refutes it. In 2005, researchers from the University of Minnesota Medical School verified that umbilical cord blood stem cells expressed pluripotency genes and can repair neurological damage.

In like manner, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh demonstrated that placental stem cells express pluripotency genes and potentially form any tissue with no signs of tumor formation. As I think my colleagues know by now, tumor formation is a catastrophic problem with embryonic stem cells.

Recently, researchers in France and Switzerland discovered that they could turn pluripotent bone marrow stem cells into insulin-secreting cells, an important step in curing diabetes, and the list goes on.

And now Wake Forest has come to this same conclusion, this time about amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells. And I will quote from the report. This is their report issued this weekend: ``We conclude,'' the authors say, ``that amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells are pluripotent stem cells capable of giving rise to multiple lineages including representatives of all three embryonic germ layers. Newsweek got it, and they also talked about it as well: ``A New Era Begins: Stem Cells derived from amiotic fluid show great promise in the lab and may end the divisive ethical debate once and for all.''

Let me just finally say, where will this all take us if this bill were to be passed and signed into law? We would see the demise, the destruction over time, if it worked, of millions of embryos. Let me just quote Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology, an advocate of embryonic stem cell research, who said that because of the likelihood of immune rejection, it may require, his words, ``millions'' of embryos to be destroyed. Is that the future you want to promote with the DeGette bill? Millions of embryos killed? Let's adopt them, as we are seeing now.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, today I express my deep concern about the destruction of thirteen homes in a Hare Krishna commune outside of Almaty, Kazakhstan. It is a saddening development considering that Kazakhstan is a participating state in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and has been vigorously pursuing a bid to chair the OSCE in 2009. I am greatly troubled by the actions taken against this peaceful religious community, which is reminiscent of the ``bad old days.''

On November 21, 13 Hare Krishna homes were destroyed in the Sri Vrindavan Dham commune in the village of Seleksia, 25 miles from Almaty. Orders to bulldoze the homes reportedly came from the Karasai District Court, giving the residents only 24-hours notice to gather all their possessions. When the bulldozers arrived, they came under the escort and supervision of riot police. The belongings of some who refused to leave were thrown out in the snow, and their furniture and larger household items taken away to be destroyed. Families were left without a home and many others left without water and electricity in the cold of winter.

More damage could still be done--53 more homes (one of which houses a temple) could be demolished and their 116-acre communal farm could be seized. Making this outrage all the more disturbing, the Karasai District Court reportedly announced that it will charge the community for the demolition expenses! I appreciate the strong statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Astana urging Karasai district authorities to ``refrain from any further aggressive actions.''

The conflict over the commune has steadily intensified since a regional court ruled in March to confiscate the farm without compensation. A special government commission was established in response to international criticism to negotiate with the Hare Krishnas, but this process was short-circuited when the bulldozers revved up. Authorities justify these heartless actions by citing legal problems with the purchase of the farm by Hare Krishnas in 1999, but most observers believe this is nothing more than a land grab dressed up as a legal proceeding.

Despite Kazakhstan's positive reputation for religious tolerance, I have been concerned by governmental actions against minority religious communities, such as the heavy fines (and sometimes arrests) during the past six months against Baptist ministers representing unregistered congregations. Also worrisome are increasingly harsh government policies toward Muslims who practice their faith independent of the government-controlled Muftiate. While President Nazarbayev's initiative to bring world religions together to promote tolerance is laudable, his government's harsh treatment of small and independent groups displays a sad absence of tolerance.

In short, I do not believe these actions befit a country that would be a leader of nations. I urge President Nazarbayev and the Government of Kazakhstan to end these practices, withdraw the court cases to seize the Hare Krishnas' land, and ensure that all individuals are compensated for their lost property.