Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when I was appointed chairman of the Helsinki Commission in early 1995, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. foreign policy establishment and its European counterparts were seized by a genocidal conflict of aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina. Many here in the Congress were already deeply involved in bipartisan efforts to end the conflict by urging a decisive, international response under U.S. leadership. I can still recall the sense of horror, outrage, and shame when the Srebrenica massacre occurred and nothing was done to stop it and other atrocities committed against civilians. Slobodan Milosevic, meanwhile, was comfortably entrenched as Serbia's leader, with Kosovo under his repressive thumb. The situation was truly bleak.

Today, relative calm prevails throughout the Balkans region, though simmering tensions and other serious problems could lead to renewed crisis and conflict, if left unchecked. Overcoming the legacy of the past and restoring dignity and ensuring justice for the victims will require sustained engagement and vigilance. Integrating the countries of the region into European institutions can advance this process.

Slovenia has become a full-fledged member of both NATO and the European Union. Croatia is well on its way to similar membership, and Macedonia and Albania are making steady progress in the right direction. In a welcome development, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the epicenter of bloody carnage and mass displacement in the mid-1990s, was invited last week to participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace Program, along with Serbia and the newly independent state of Montenegro.

As a longstanding member and leader of the Helsinki Commission, I want to highlight some of the numerous initiatives we have undertaken in an attempt to draw attention to developments in the Balkans and to influence related policy. Since 1995, we have convened more than 20 hearings on specific aspects of the region as well as related briefings, legislation, letters, statements and meetings. These efforts have been undertaken with an uncommon degree of bipartisanship. In this regard, I particularly want to thank the Commission's outgoing ranking member, Mr. Cardin of Maryland, for helping to make this a reality.

Among the Commission's most noteworthy accomplishments, I would include garnering the strong support that contributed to the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and pressing countries to cooperate in bringing those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to justice. I would include the change in U.S. policy from relying on Milosevic to implement the Dayton agreement to supporting democracy in Serbia as the long-term and genuine partner in building regional peace and stability.

We have maintained a significant focus on elections, encouraging all the countries in the region to strive to meet international standards for free and fair elections as well as referenda. There has been tremendous progress in this regard.

The Commission's support for the OSCE, I believe, has helped the organization's field activities in southeastern Europe to be more successful in promoting respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all the people, regardless of ethnicity. Finally, on the more controversial policy of NATO's action against Serbia in 1999, the Commission served as a forum to air differing views on the policy response while finding common ground in addressing the humanitarian crises, documenting human rights abuses and holding human rights violators to account.

Mr. Speaker, while welcoming this progress in southeastern Europe, I would caution against complacency as the region faces significant challenges. Maintaining positive momentum will require much from actors in the region as well as the international community, including the United States.

First and foremost is the situation in Kosovo. The pending decisions that will be made on Kosovo's status give rise to growing expectation as well as apprehension and concern. Despite the many debates on larger issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self- determination, these decisions should and will ultimately be judged by whether or not they lead to improved respect for human rights, especially the rights of those people belonging to the Serb, Roma and other minority communities in Kosovo. The members of the minority communities deserve to be treated as people, not as pawns in a fight over territory and power. They should be allowed to integrate rather than remain isolated, and they should not be discouraged from integration when opportunities arise. I remain deeply concerned that these issues are not being given the attention they deserve. Whatever Kosovo becomes, OSCE and other international human rights standards must apply.

Similarly, there is a need to ensure that justice is vigorously pursued for the victims of horrendous human rights violations. Conditionality on assistance to Serbia, as well as on that country's integration, must remain firmly in place until Belgrade cooperates fully in locating at-large indicted war criminals and facilitating their transfer to the ICTY in The Hague. It is an outrage that Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic remain at large. After refusing to take meaningful action on these cases, Serbia can not be let off the hook now, but should be pressed to comply with its international obligations.

A related issue is that of missing persons. Ten years after Dayton, additional mass graves continued to be uncovered, and the identification of the remains of relatives and loved ones is important for the survivors of past atrocities and their societies. The Commission recently held a briefing on identifying remains found in mass graves in Bosnia, and I hope that support for determining the fate of missing persons can be further strengthened.

While some progress has been made in combating trafficking in persons in the region, all countries there need to intensify their efforts to end this modern-day form of slavery. Political will and adequate resources will be required, including through enhanced efforts by law enforcement and more vigorous prosecution of traffickers while providing protection for their victims.

Religious freedoms also remain a cause for concern. Various laws in the region allegedly providing for religious freedom do more to restrict this fundamental right by establishing thresholds for registration, by discriminating against small or new religious groups through tiers of recognition with associated privileges for traditional faiths, and by precluding the sharing of creeds or limiting free speech. These restrictions are particularly burdensome to smaller religious groups and can lead to stigmatization, harassment, and discrimination against their members. For instance, Kosovo's new religion law singles out certain communities for special status while failing to address how other religious groups can obtain juridical personality as a religious organization, thereby creating a significant legal void from the start. I urge Kosovo authorities to follow the progressive Albanian system and create a neutral registration system of general applicability. Macedonia is considering a draft law now, and I hope authorities will fully adopt the recommendations of the OSCE Panel of Experts

on Religious Freedom, as certain provisions of the draft regarding the granting of legal personality need additional refinement. I similarly call on Serbian officials to amend their current law and ensure all groups seeking registration receive legal status. Meanwhile, there is a need to step up efforts to respect the sanctity and ensure the safety of places of worship that have in the past been the targets of ethnically based violence in Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, concerted efforts by courageous leaders in the Balkans and elsewhere have helped move the region from the edge of the abyss to the threshold for a brighter and more prosperous future. I congratulate the countries of southeastern Europe on the progress achieved thus far and encourage them to make further progress to ensure that all of the people of the region benefit.

Mr. Speaker, as this Congress comes to a conclusion, I rise to make some remarks on the state of democratic development in Central Asia. I am inspired to do this by the very significant recent events in Kyrgyzstan, where last month, a new constitution was adopted that limits the power of the presidency and enhances the authority of the legislative branch.

The Kyrgyz should be congratulated for peacefully negotiating a delicate political situation that could have turned violent. The outcome resulted in the strengthening of Kyrgyzstan's democracy at a time when its neighbors are moving in the opposite direction.

Throughout post-Soviet Central Asia--and all over the former USSR-- the defining feature of political development has been the emergence of super-presidents, while parliaments and courts languish under executive control. As a result, the balance of powers, though constitutionally mandated, has remained a dead letter, and corruption has become endemic.

But Kyrgyzstan has always differed from other regional states by virtue of its strong civil society and relatively combative legislature; former President Askar Akaev was never as powerful as his counterparts in Central Asia. Moreover, there is a well-established tradition of ``people power'' in Kyrgyzstan--Akaev was almost forced from office by a countrywide protest movement in 2002. He managed to keep his seat, however, until last year's ``Tulip Revolution'' of 2005, which led to his ouster and his replacement in July by Kurmanbek Bakiev. By all accounts, the presidential election of July 2005 marked a real improvement in elections held in Kyrgyzstan, and particularly in Central Asia.

Since then, however, Kyrgyzstan has struggled with major problems, among them: uncontrolled criminality, high-level corruption, economic decline and a general sense of disappointment at unfulfilled promises. By this fall, discontent had risen to such a degree that a political movement, ``For Reforms'' led largely by President Bakiev's former associates, was able to mobilize protesters to pursue their agenda by peaceful rallies. Though the demonstrators originally called for Bakiev's resignation, in the end a compromise was reached in the form of a new constitution.

The document represents a real achievement, primarily for limiting the executive's powers--a first in Central Asia. Bakiev will remain in office until 2010 but his successor will not appoint the government, Prosecutor-General, the head of the Central Election Commission and the holders of other important posts. Whichever political party gains 51 percent in elections has that responsibility--an incentive for traditionally fractious political parties to align themselves in coalitions and work together.

Naturally, the heads of neighboring states have been displeased. State-controlled media in those countries have portrayed these events in the worst possible light, emphasizing ``chaos and anarchy,'' and hoping thereby to discredit the Kyrgyz experiment by linking popular demonstrations with instability. But while crowds gathered in the streets of the capital Bishkek, the new constitution was adopted almost without violence, solidifying a tradition of politically effective peaceful protest. Most important, a framework has been created for developing all branches of power and resolving political disagreements.

I believe Kyrgyzstan's experience has genuine significance for the possibility of democratization in Central Asia, simply because the Kyrgyz political class, cooperating with civil society, has shown that it is possible without bloodshed to reach compromise solutions to fundamental political problems. Whether Kyrgyzstan's experience can or should work in other countries is a different issue. But it is clear that all post-Soviet states need to find a way to limit the power and authority of their presidents if they are to escape the trap into which they have fallen. When people feel they have no representation or possibility of addressing grievances through state institutions, they will be tempted to find other methods. If this happens in other, more repressive countries with few or no democratic traditions, the outcome may not be so peaceful or positive.

So far, there is little evidence that this realization has penetrated elsewhere in Central Asia, where presidents continue to jealously hoard power. Sapannurat Niyazov remains the all-powerful ``Turkmenbashy,'' or leader of all Turkmen, whom he continues to subject to his capricious campaigns, while running a permanent purge of the political class and making sure Turkmenistan remains the only one-party state to survive the Soviet bloc. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov, who allows no opposition, has cracked down even harder and cuddled up to Russia since the international community reacted with outrage to the slaughter of hundreds in Andijan in May 2005. Tajikistan's Imomali Rakhmonov won re- election last month; constitutional amendments adopted last year will potentially allow him to remain in office until 2020. And Kazakhstan's bid to chair the OSCE in 2009 has been resisted by the United States and the United Kingdom for failure to improve its poor human rights record.

What happened in Bishkek is quite noteworthy, especially for the region--opposition groups were allowed to protest, the government did not respond with violence, and both sides agreed to a new constitution that actually decreases presidential powers and introduces a parliamentary system. Nothing like this is happening for thousands of miles in any direction.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, 15 years after the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of new states, it is hard to summon up much optimism for the prospects of democracy. Still, Kyrgyzstan has given me a bit of hope.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6060) to authorize certain activities by the Department of State, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006, contains several important provisions that will positively impact upon the safety of our country and our citizens and promote good governance.

The legislation has been worked out in a bipartisan way with my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) and enjoys, I believe, very strong support on both sides of the aisle.

One provision, Mr. Speaker, would give the Secretary of State needed flexibility in spending fraud prevention and detection fund moneys to permit investigation of a broader array of fraud, including fraud in connection with terrorist activity. Another would allow for the waiver of fees for passports when U.S. citizens are caught in difficult situations abroad, such as those who were victims of the 2004 tsunami. A criminal provision provides for penalties when an individual interferes with a Secret Service agent protecting a foreign dignitary. And passage of the bill would give the President authorization to extend privileges and immunities to the Holy See's Observer Mission to the United Nations and to the African Union's newly established diplomatic mission to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment would also establish the outlines of two programs under the Foreign Assistance Act. One would provide for greater international cooperation with friendly foreign governments with respect to the interdiction of dangerous cargo. The second would authorize an accelerated program to secure and eliminate particularly dangerous conventional weapons, such as man-portable air defense systems, commonly referred to as MANPADS. I would point out parenthetically that it was Colin Powell in one speech who said that the largest danger, the most acute danger to aviation, whether it be criminal or whether it be military or civilian, are these stinger-like MANPADS. They are very, very dangerous and there are hundreds of thousands of those out. They are very much in the black market. If terrorists get their hands on those, we are in serious trouble. Under the bill's provisions, sanctions could be imposed on foreign governments who knowingly transfer such weapons to terrorists.

Finally, the bill would extend the duration of certain types of assistance we have been providing to Israel for a number of years. Specifically, the bill would extend for an additional 2 years the authorization provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2005 for the United States to transfer to Israel obsolete or surplus stocks in the war reserve stockpile located in Israel.

Similarly, the bill would extend for an additional 4 years a provision in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 to provide loan guarantees to Israel, the authorization of which is scheduled to expire.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say briefly, I do regret that the bill does not contain an important provision for the reform of the Foreign Service compensation system, a very, very well-worked-out piece of legislation, but regrettably that was dropped from the bill.

I include an exchange of correspondence relating to this bill.

December 8, 2006.

Hon. Tom Davis,

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill,

H.R. 6060, the ``Department of State Authorities Act of

2006.'' The Committee on International Relations ordered the

bill reported favorably on September 13, 2006.

There are certain provisions within the bill that will be

considered by the House today that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. In the

interest of permitting the Committee on International

Relations to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of

this bill, I request that your Committee waive its right to

sequential referral on this matter. I understand that such a

waiver only applies to this language in the bill and not to

the underlying subject matter.

I appreciate your willingness to allow us to proceed. I

will insert this exchange of letters into the Congressional

Record during the debate on this bill.

Sincerely,

Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding back, this is one of the last bills, if not the last bill, that the IR committee will consider tonight. I would just like to say as the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global, Human Rights and International Relations, I would just say a brief word about our distinguished chairman, Chairman Hyde.

Mr. Speaker, the House just isn't going to be the same without Henry Hyde, one of the rarest, most accomplished and most distinguished Members of Congress ever to serve. Henry Hyde is a class act. He is a man of deep and abiding faith. He is generous to a fault, and he has an incisive mind that works seamlessly with his incredible sense of humor. He is a speaker of truth in a society that all too often is willing to accept cheap sophism, the plausible and the fraudulent.

He is a man who inspires and challenges all of us to look beyond surface appeal arguments, and Henry Hyde compels us to take seriously the admonitions of holy scripture to care for the downtrodden, the vulnerable and least of our brethren. The ``Almanac of American Policy'' has written that Henry Hyde is one of the most respected and intellectually honest Members of the House and has proven himself as one of the most eloquent Members as well. His speeches, they point out, and I agree, are classics.

Mr. Speaker, in abortion debates Henry Hyde remains the great defender of children and their moms, the champion of the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life. Because of the Hyde amendment, countless young children and adults walk on this Earth. They have had an opportunity to prosper now, and they were spared the destruction when they were most at risk. With malice towards none, Henry Hyde took to this microphone to politely asked us to show compassion and respect, even love for the innocent and inconvenient baby who was about to be annihilated. In one speech on the floor he pointed out how important it was to be inclusive to welcome the stranger.

As we all know, Congressman Hyde was a Congressman and is a Congressman for 32 years, chairman for 6 of Judiciary, chairman of the IR for 6 years as well. He has been a prodigious lawmaker, with uncanny skill, determination and grace. He has crafted numerous bipartisan laws and commonsense policies that have lifted people out of poverty, helped obliterate disease, criminals off the street and has been magnificent in the defense of democracy and freedom both here and overseas.

Finally, 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 those committees and debates on the floor, Chairman Hyde was persuasive and highly incisive as he compared the HIV/AIDS crisis to the bubonic plague of the 14th century, the Black Death, and challenged us to enact a comprehensive program, which we did, to rescue the sick, assist the dying and prevent the contagion spreading. Having served with this brilliant one-of-a-kind lawmaker for the past 26 years, I hope Henry Hyde knows that I and so many others will truly miss him. He is as irreplaceable as irreplaceable can get.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge passage of H.R. 5948, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, to provide sustained support for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Belarus, as well as encourage the consolidation and strengthening of Belarus' sovereignty and independence. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank you for your commitment to bring this legislation before this Congress. Your deep personal interest in the cause of freedom in Belarus, as demonstrated by your recent meetings in Vilnius with the leaders of the democratic opposition, has been particularly appreciated by those struggling for the rule of law and basic human freedoms. This legislation enjoys bipartisan support, and I want to recognize and thank the tremendous collaboration of Rep. Tom Lantos, an original cosponsor of this bill.

As one who has followed developments in Belarus over many years through my work on the Helsinki Commission, I remain deeply concerned that the Belarusian people continue to be subjected to the arbitrary and self-serving whims of a corrupt and anti-democratic regime headed by Aleksandr Lukashenka. Since the blatantly fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, which the OSCE condemned as having failed to meet international democratic standards, the pattern of repression and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. While those who would dare oppose the regime are especially targeted, the reality is that all in Belarus outside Lukashenka's inner circle pay a price.

recent news regarding lukashenka's regime

Last week in Riga, President Bush pledged to help the people of Belarus in the face of the ``cruel regime'' led by President Lukashenka. ``The existence of such oppression in our midst offends the conscience of Europe and the conscience of America,'' Bush said, adding that ``we have a message for the people of Belarus: the vision of a Europe whole, free

and at peace includes you, and we stand with you in your struggle for freedom.'' Mr. Speaker, this legislation would be a concrete expression of Congress' commitment to the Belarusian people and would show that we stand as one in supporting freedom for Belarus.

Just within the last few months, we have witnessed a series of patently political trials designed to further stifle peaceful, democratic opposition. In October, 60-year-old human rights activist Katerina Sadouskaya was sentenced to 2 years in a penal colony. Her ``crime''? ``insulting the honor and dignity of the Belarusian leader.'' Mr. Speaker, if this isn't reminiscent of the Soviet Union, I don't know what is. And just a few weeks ago, in a closed trial, Belarusian youth activist Zmitser Dashkevich received a 1\1/2\ year sentence for ``activities on behalf of an unregistered organization.''

A report mandated by the Belarus Democracy Act and finally issued this past March reveals Lukashenka's links with rogue regimes such as Iran, Sudan and Syria, and his cronies' corrupt activities. According to an October 9, 2006, International Herald Tribune op-ed: ``Alarmingly, over the last 6 years, Belarus has intensified its illegal arms shipment activities to the point of becoming the leading supplier of lethal military equipment to Islamic state sponsors of terrorism.''

I guess we shouldn't be all that surprised that in July, Lukashenka warmly welcomed to Minsk Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. In keeping with their bent, both pledged cooperation and denounced the West. More recently, Belarusian Foreign Minister Martynov traveled to Iran where President Ahmadinejad pledged further cooperation in the energy and defense industries. Not long ago, a member of Belarus' bogus parliament asserted on state-controlled radio that Belarus has the right to develop its own nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, Belarus is truly an anomaly in Europe, swimming against the rising tide of greater freedom, democracy and economic prosperity.

the legislation

Three years ago, I introduced the Belarus Democracy Act which passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bush in October 2004. At that time, the situation in Belarus with respect to democracy and human rights was already abysmal. The need for a sustained U.S. commitment to foster democracy and respect for human rights and to sanction Aleksandr Lukashenka and his cronies, is clear from the intensified anti- democratic policies pursued by the current leadership in Minsk. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that countries throughout Europe have joined in a truly trans-Atlantic effort to bring the promise of freedom to the beleaguered people of Belarus. Prompt passage of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help maintain this momentum aimed at upholding the democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people. With the continuing decline on the ground in Belarus since the fraudulent March elections, this bill is needed now more than ever.

This reauthorization bill demonstrates the sustained U.S. support for Belarus' independence. We seek to encourage those struggling for democracy and respect for human rights in the face of the formidable pressures and personal risks from the anti-democratic regime. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary in assistance for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008 for democracy-building activities such as support for non-governmental organizations, including youth groups, independent trade unions and entrepreneurs, human rights defenders, independent media, democratic political parties, and international exchanges.

The bill further authorizes monies for both radio and television broadcasting to the people of Belarus. While I am encouraged by the recent U.S. and EU initiatives with respect to radio broadcasting, much more needs to be done to penetrate Lukashenka's stifling information blockade. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Administration will make this a priority.

In addition, H.R. 5948 calls for selective sanctions against the Lukashenka regime, and the denial of entry into the United States for senior officials of the regime--as well as those engaged in human rights and electoral abuses. In this context, I welcome the punitive sanctions imposed by both the Administration and the EU which are targeted against officials--including judges and prosecutors--involved in electoral fraud and other human rights abuses.

The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that strategic exports to the Government of Belarus should be prohibited, except for those intended for democracy building or humanitarian purposes, as well as U.S. Government financing and other foreign assistance. Of course, we would not want the exports to affect humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions are encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs. Furthermore, we would encourage the blocking of the assets (in the United States) of members of the Belarus Government as well as the senior leadership and their surrogates. To this end, I welcome the Treasury Department's April 10 advisory to U.S. financial institutions to guard against potential money laundering by Lukashenka and his cronies and strongly applaud President Bush's June 19 ``Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it crystal clear that these sanctions are aimed not at the people of Belarus, but at a regime that displays contempt for the dignity and rights of its citizens even as the corrupt leadership moves to further enrich itself at the expense of all Belarusians.

ongoing anti-democratic behavior

To chronicle the full litany of repression over the course of Lukashenka's 12-year misrule would go well beyond the bounds of time available here. Let me cite several more recent illustrations of anti- democratic behavior which testify to the true nature of the regime.

Belarus' March 19 presidential elections can only be described as a farce, and were met with condemnation by the United States, the OSCE, the European Union and others. The Lukashenka regime's wholesale arrests of more than one thousand opposition activists and dozens of Belarusian and foreign journalists, before and after the elections, and violent suppression of peaceful post-election protests underscore the contempt of the Belarusian authorities toward their countrymen.

Illegitimate parliamentary elections in 2004 and the recently held presidential ``elections'' in Belarus brazenly flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self-imposed isolation. Albeit safely ensconced in power, Lukashenka has not let up on the democratic opposition. Almost daily repressions constitute a profound abuse of power by a regime that has blatantly manipulated the system to remain in power.

In the last few months, the regime continues to show its true colors, punishing those who would dare to challenge the tinpot dictator. Former presidential candidate Aleksandr Kozulin was sentenced to a politically-motivated 5\1/2\ years' term of imprisonment for alleged ``hooliganism'' and disturbing the peace. His health is precarious as he is now well into his second month of a hunger strike.

In early August, authorities sentenced four activists of the non- partisan domestic election monitoring initiative ``Partnerstva''. In a patent attempt to discourage domestic observation of the fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, the four had been kept in custody since February 21. Two were released, having served their 6-month sentences. Two others--Tsimafei Dranchuk and Mikalay Astreyka--received stiffer sentences, although Astreyka has been released from a medium security colony and is now in ``correctional labor''. Other political prisoners, including Artur Finkevich, Mikalay Autukhovich, Andrey Klimau, Ivan Kruk, Yury Lyavonau, Mikalay Razumau, Pavel Sevyarynets, Mikalay Statkevich also continue to have their freedom denied, languishing in prison or in so-called correctional labor camps.

Administrative detentions of 10 or 15 days against democratic opposition activists are almost a daily occurence. Moreover, the Lukashenka regime continued to stifle religious expression. It refuses to register churches, temporarily detains pastors, threatens to expel foreign clergy, and refuses religious groups the use of premises to hold services. Despite the repressions, Protestant and Catholic congregations have increasingly become more active in their pursuit of religious freedom. I am also concerned about the recent explosion at a Holocaust memorial in western Belarus, the sixth act of vandalism against the monument in 14 years. Unfortunately, the local authorities have reportedly refused to open a criminal investigation. Lukashenka's minions have closed down independent think tanks, further tightened the noose around what remains of the independent media, suspended the activities of a political party, shut down the prominent literary journal Arche, and evicted the Union of Belarusian Writers from its headquarters. Of course, Lukashenka's pattern of contempt for human rights is nothing new--it has merely intensified with the passage of time.

Moreover, we have seen no progress on the investigation of the disappearances of political opponents--perhaps not surprisingly, as credible evidence points at the involvement of the Lukashenka regime in their murders.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help end to the pattern of violations of OSCE

human rights and democracy commitments by the Lukashenka regime and loosen its unhealthy monopoly on political and economic power. I hope our efforts here today will facilitate independent Belarus' integration into democratic Europe in which the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law are respected. The beleaguered Belarusian people have suffered so much over the course of the last century and deserve better than to live under a regime frighteningly reminiscent of the Soviet Union. The struggle of the people of Belarus for dignity and freedom deserves our unyielding and consistent support.

This legislation is important and timely because Belarus, which now borders on NATO and the EU, continues to have the worst human rights and democracy record of any European state--bar none.

I want to thank my distinguished chairman for yielding; Elton Gallegly, thank you so much for your leadership on this legislation.

I want to thank Mr. Lantos, our ranking member, for his commitment to changing and reforming the last dictatorship in Europe, which is Belarus.

I especially want to thank our good friend and leader, Chairman Hyde, for his staunch belief in democracy and freedom everywhere, including this very troubled country called Belarus.

Mr. Speaker, I do strongly support and urge passage of H.R. 4958, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, to provide sustained support for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of just law in the Republic of Belarus.

I want to thank our speaker, Speaker Hastert, for his commitment in bringing this legislation before the Congress today. Speaker Hastert's deep personal interest in the cause of freedom in Belarus was demonstrated at his recent meeting in Vilnius in Lithuania when he met with the leaders of the democratic opposition.

It was very much appreciated by them. I know them, I have worked with them for many years. They got a great boost from his personal intervention on their behalf and for really taking the time to listen and to react to their pleas.

I am happy to say again that this legislation enjoys very broad bipartisan support. As I said, again, I want to thank Mr. Lantos for his leadership on this as well.

As one who has worked for freedom in Belarus over many, many years, I remain deeply concerned that the Belarussian people continue to be subjected to the arbitrary and self-serving whims of a corrupt and anti-democratic regime headed by Aleksandr Lukashenka. Since the blatantly fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, which the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe condemned as having failed to meet international democratic standards, the pattern of repression and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms has continued.

While those who dare to oppose the regime are especially targeted, roughed up, tortured, thrown into prison, the reality is that all in Belarus, outside of Lukashenka's inner circle, pay a price. Last week in Riga, President Bush pledged support to help the people of Belarus who faced a cruel regime, his words, and apt words, led by President Lukashenka.

The existence, President Bush went on to say, of such oppression in our midst offends the conscience of Europe, and the conscience of America. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would be a concrete expression and expansion of congressional commitment to the Belarussian people and would show that we stand as one in supporting freedom in Belarus.

Just within the last few months, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed a series of patently political trials designed to further stifle peaceful democratic opposition. In the last few months, the regime continues to show its true colors, punishing those who would dare to challenge the tin-pot dictator, Aleksandr Lukashenka.

Former presidential candidate Aleksandr Kozulin was sentenced to a politically motivated 5\1/2\ years' imprisonment for alleged hooliganism and disturbing the peace. His health is precarious, and he is now well into the second month of a hunger strike.

This is only the tip of the iceberg with respect to political repression, as

many other political prisoners continue to languish in prison or so- called corrective labor camps.

By way of background, Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I introduced the Belarus Democracy Act which passed the House and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bush in October of 2004. Prompt passage of the reauthorization act before us today will help maintain this momentum aimed at upholding the democratic aspirations of the Belarussian people.

With the continuing decline on the ground in Belarus since the fraudulent March elections, this bill is needed now more than ever. This reauthorization bill illustrates the sustained support for Belarus independence. We seek to encourage those struggling for democracy and respect for human rights in the face of formidable pressure and personal risks from this anti-democratic regime. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary in assistance for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008 for democracy-building activities such as support for nongovernmental organizations, including youth groups, independent trade unions and entrepreneurs, human rights defenders, independent media, democratic political parties and international exchanges.

The bill further authorizes money for both radio and television broadcasting to the people of Belarus. While I am encouraged by the recent U.S. and EU initiatives with respect to radio broadcasting, much more needs to be done to penetrate Lukashenka's stifling information blockade.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the administration will make this a priority. In addition, I hope that the administration would make this, like I said, a priority and much more.

In addition, H.R. 5948 calls for selective sanctions against the Lukashenka regime, and a denial of entry into the United States for senior officials of the regime, as well as those engaged in human rights and electoral abuses.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help end the pattern of violations of OSCE human rights and democracy commitments made by the Lukashenka regime and loosen its unhealthy monopoly on political and economic power.

I hope our efforts here today will facilitate independent Belarus's integration into democratic Europe in which the principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law are respected.

Clearly, the beleaguered Belarussian people have suffered so much over the course of the last century and deserve better than to live under a regime frighteningly reminiscent of the Soviet Union.

The struggle of the people of Belarus for dignity and freedom deserves our unyielding and consistent support. This legislation is important and timely, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge passage of H.R. 5948, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, to provide sustained support for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Belarus, as well as encourage the consolidation and strengthening of Belarus' sovereignty and independence. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank you for your commitment to bring this legislation before this Congress. Your deep personal interest in the cause of freedom in Belarus, as demonstrated by your recent meetings in Vilnius with the leaders of the democratic opposition, has been particularly appreciated by those struggling for the rule of law and basic human freedoms. This legislation enjoys bipartisan support, and I want to recognize and thank the tremendous collaboration of Rep. Tom Lantos, an original cosponsor of this bill.

As one who has followed developments in Belarus over many years through my work on the Helsinki Commission, I remain deeply concerned that the Belarusian people continue to be subjected to the arbitrary and self-serving whims of a corrupt and anti-democratic regime headed by Aleksandr Lukashenka. Since the blatantly fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, which the OSCE condemned as having failed to meet international democratic standards, the pattern of repression and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. While those who would dare oppose the regime are especially targeted, the reality is that all in Belarus outside Lukashenka's inner circle pay a price.

Recent news regarding Lukashenka's regime

Last week in Riga, President Bush pledged to help the people of Belarus in the face of the ``cruel regime'' led by President Lukashenka. ``The existence of such oppression in our midst offends the conscience of Europe and the conscience of America,'' Bush said, adding that ``we have a message for the people of Belarus: the vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace includes you, and we stand with you in your struggle for freedom.'' Mr. Speaker, this legislation would be a concrete expression of Congress' commitment to the Belarusian people and would show that we stand as one in supporting freedom for Belarus.

Just within the last few months, we have witnessed a series of patently political trials designed to further stifle peaceful, democratic opposition. In October, 60-year-old human rights activist Katerina Sadouskaya was sentenced to two years in a penal colony. Her ``crime''? ``insulting the honor and dignity of the Belarusian leader.'' Mr. Speaker, if this isn't reminiscent of the Soviet Union, I don't know what is. And just a few weeks ago, in a closed trial, Belarusian youth activist Zmitser Dashkevich received a one-and-a-half year sentence for ``activities on behalf of an unregistered organization.''

A report mandated by the Belarus Democracy Act and finally issued this past March reveals Lukashenka's links with rogue regimes such as Iran, Sudan and Syria, and his cronies' corrupt activities. According to an October 9, 2006, International Herald Tribune op-ed: ``Alarmingly, over the last six years, Belarus has intensified its illegal arms shipment activities to the point of becoming the leading supplier of lethal military equipment to Islamic state sponsors of terrorism.''

I guess we shouldn't be all that surprised that in July, Lukashenka warmly welcomed to Minsk Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. In keeping with their bent, both pledged cooperation and denounced the West. More recently, Belarusian Foreign Minister Martynov traveled to Iran where President Ahmadinejad pledged further cooperation in the energy and defense industries. Not long ago, a member of Belarus' bogus parliament asserted on state-controlled radio that Belarus has the right to develop its own nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, Belarus is truly an anomaly in Europe, swimming against the rising tide of greater freedom, democracy and economic prosperity.

The Legislation

Three years ago, I introduced the Belarus Democracy Act which passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bush in October 2004. At that time, the situation in Belarus with respect to democracy and human rights was already abysmal. The need for a sustained U.S. commitment to foster democracy and respect for human rights and to sanction Aleksandr Lukashenka and his cronies, is clear from the intensified anti- democratic policies pursued by the current leadership in Minsk. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that countries throughout Europe have joined in a truly trans-Atlantic effort to bring the promise of freedom to the beleaguered people of Belarus. Prompt passage of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help maintain this momentum aimed at upholding the democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people. With the continuing decline on the ground in Belarus since the fraudulent March elections, this bill is needed now more than ever.

This reauthorization bill demonstrates the sustained U.S. support for Belarus' independence. We seek to encourage those struggling for democracy and respect for human rights in the face of the formidable pressures and personal risks from the anti-democratic regime. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary in assistance for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008 for democracy-building activities such as support for nongovernmental organizations, including youth groups, independent trade unions and entrepreneurs, human rights defenders, independent media, democratic political parties, and international exchanges.

The bill further authorizes monies for both radio and television broadcasting to the people of Belarus. While I am encouraged by the recent U.S. and EU initiatives with respect to radio broadcasting, much more needs to be done to penetrate Lukashenka's stifling information blockade. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the administration will make this a priority.

In addition, H.R. 5948 calls for selective sanctions against the Lukashenka regime, and the denial of entry into the United States for senior officials of the regime--as well as those engaged in human rights and electoral abuses. In this context, I welcome the punitive sanctions imposed by both the administration and the ED which are targeted against officials--including judges and prosecutors--involved in electoral fraud and other human rights abuses.

The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that strategic exports to the Government of Belarus should be prohibited, except for those intended for democracy building or humanitarian purposes, as well as U.S. Government financing and other foreign assistance.

Of course, we would not want the exports to affect humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products.The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions are encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs. Furthermore, we would encourage the blocking of the assets (in the United States) of members of the Belarus Government as well as the senior leadership and their surrogates. To this end, I welcome the Treasury Department's April 10 advisory to U.S. financial institutions to guard against potential money laundering by Lukashenka and his cronies and strongly applaud President Bush's June 19 ``Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it crystal clear that these sanctions are aimed not at the people of Belarus, but at a regime that displays contempt for the dignity and rights of its citizens even as the corrupt leadership moves to further enrich itself at the expense of all Belarusians.

Ongoing Anti-Democratic Behavior

To chronicle the full litany of repression over the course of Lukashenka's 12-year misrule would go well beyond the bounds of time available here. Let me cite several more recent illustrations of anti- democratic behavior which testify to the true nature of the regime.

Belarus' March 19 presidential elections can only be described as a farce, and were met with condemnation by the United States, the OSCE, the European Union and others. The Lukashenka regime's wholesale arrests of more than 1,000 opposition activists and dozens of Belarusian and foreign journalists, before and after the elections, and violent suppression of peaceful post-election protests underscore the contempt of the Belarusian authorities toward their countrymen.

Illegitimate parliamentary elections in 2004 and the recently held presidential ``elections'' in Belarus brazenly flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self-imposed isolation. Albeit safely ensconced in power, Lukashenka has not let up on the democratic opposition. Almost daily repressions constitute a profound abuse of power by a regime that has blatantly manipulated the system to remain in power.

In the last few months, the regime continues to show its true colors, punishing those who would dare to challenge the tinpot dictator. Former presidential candidate Aleksandr Kozulin was sentenced to a politically-motivated five-and-one-half-years' term of imprisonment for alleged ``hooliganism'' and disturbing the peace. His health is precarious as he is now well into his second month of a hunger strike.

In early August, authorities sentenced four activists of the non- partisan domestic election monitoring initiative ``Partnerstva''. In a patent attempt to discourage domestic observation of the fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, the four had been kept in custody since February 21. Two were released, having served their six month sentences. Two others--Tsimafei Dranchuk and Mikalay Astreyka--received stiffer sentences, although Astreyka has been released from a medium security colony and is now in ``correctional labor''. Other political prisoners, including Artur Finkevich, Mikalay Autukhovich, Audrey Klimau, Ivan Kruk, Yury Lyavonau, Mikalay Razumau, Pavel Sevyarynets, Mikalay Statkevich also continue to have their freedom denied, languishing in prison or in so-called correctional labor camps.

Administrative detentions of ten or fifteen days against democratic opposition activists are almost a daily occurrence. Moreover, the Lukashenka regime continued to stifle religious expression. It refuses to register churches, temporarily detains pastors, threatens to expel foreign clergy, and refuses religious groups the use of premises to hold services. Despite the repressions, Protestant and Catholic congregations have increasingly become more active in their pursuit of religious freedom. I am also concerned about the recent explosion at a Holocaust memorial in western Belarus, the sixth act of vandalism against the monument in 14 years. Unfortunately, the local authorities have reportedly refused to open a criminal investigation. Lukashenka's minions have closed down independent think tanks, further tightened the noose around what remains of the independent media, suspended the activities of a political party, shut down the prominent literary journal Arche, and evicted the Union of Belarusian Writers from its headquarters. Of course, Lukashenka's pattern of contempt for human rights is nothing new--it has merely intensified with the passage of time.

Moreover, we have seen no progress on the investigation of the disappearances of political opponents--perhaps not surprisingly, as credible evidence points at the involvement of the Lukashenka regime in their murders.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help end to the pattern of violations of OSCE human rights and democracy commitments by the Lukashenka regime and loosen its unhealthy monopoly on political and economic power. I hope our efforts here today will facilitate independent Belarus' integration into democratic Europe in which the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law are respected. The beleaguered Belarusian people have suffered so much over the course of the last century and deserve better than to live under a regime frighteningly reminiscent of the Soviet Union. The struggle of the people of Belarus for dignity and freedom deserves our unyielding and consistent support.

This legislation is important and timely because Belarus, which now borders on NATO and the EU, continues to have the worst human rights and democracy record of any European state--bar none.

Madam Speaker, the House just isn't going to be the same without Henry Hyde--one of the rarest, most accomplished and most distinguished Members of Congress ever to serve.

Henry Hyde is a class act. He is a man of deep and abiding faith, he is generous to a fault and he has an incisive mind that works seamlessly with his incredible sense of humor. He is a man who inspires and challenges us to look beyond surface appeal arguments. He is a speaker of truth in a society that all too often is willing to accept cheap sophism, the plausible and the fraudulent. And Henry Hyde compels us to take seriously the admonitions of Holy Scripture to care for the downtrodden, the vulnerable and the least of our brethren.

The Almanac of American Politics has written that Henry Hyde is ``one of the most respected and intellectually honest members of the House'' and ``has proven himself as one of the most eloquent members of the House'' and that his ``speeches are classics.''

In abortion debates Henry Hyde remains the great defender of children and their moms, the champion of the most fundamental of all human rights--the right to life. Because of the Hyde amendment countless young children and adults walk on this earth today and have an opportunity to prosper because they were spared destruction when they were most at risk. With malice towards none, Henry Hyde often took to this microphone to politely ask us to show compassion and respect--even love--for the innocent and inconvenient baby about to be annihilated. In one speech here on this floor he stated, ``for over two centuries of our national history, we have struggled to create a society of inclusion--we keep widening the circle of those for whom we are responsible--the aged, the infirm, the poor. Slaves were freed, women were enfranchised, civil rights and voting rights acts were passed, our public spaces made accessible to the handicapped, Social Security for the elderly--all in the name of widening the circle of inclusion and protection. This great trajectory in our national history has been shattered by Roe v. Wade and its progeny. By denying an entire class of human beings the welcome and protection of our laws, we have betrayed the best in our tradition. We have also put at risk every life which someday someone might find inconvenient. What I ask here today, ``welcome the little stranger.''

In another speech on U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century given in Committee back in 2001, Henry eloquently summed up the challenges and I quote in part ``As a new century opens, the United States finds itself at a unique moment, not only in its own history, but in that of the world as well. We stand at the pinnacle of power: in virtually every area--military, economic, technological, cultural, political--we enjoy a primacy that is unprecedented and virtually unchallenged. Our potential at times seems unlimited, to some perhaps even permanent. . . . But as pleasant as these thoughts may be, I confess that I also see much that concerns me. . . . The concern I speak of is the longer-term, specifically how well we will use the enormous power we currently possess to secure the future for our country and the generations to come. The wealth of opportunities we currently possess are not permanent; the luxury of choice may be a passing one. To believe that we shall always be above the fray, untouched and untouchable by the forces of destruction still at work in this world, is a dangerous illusion . . . The principal problem, the one that concerns me the most, is that we have no long-term strategy, no practical plan for shaping the future. . . . Despite our power, we must resist the temptation of believing we can fix every problem, indulge in every wish. Part of our strategy must be to decide what we cannot do, what we choose not to do, and to ensure that others take up their responsibilities. . . . So even as we revel in our good fortune, my great hope is that we will use this gift of time to plan for the future, unhurried, uncoerced, but mindful of the task at hand, aware that our opportunity to do so is a mortal one. The choice is clear: We can either shape the future or have it shape us. A century ago, Britain stood majestically at the height of her power. Within 40 years, the knife was at her throat, and she survived only because the United States was there to rescue her. But, Mr. Secretary, as you are well aware, there is no one to rescue us. That is why we must think long and hard about how we can use the opportunities that Providence and the labors of two centuries have provided us to so shape the world that the need for rescue never occurs.''

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 has been a prodigious lawmaker. With uncanny skill, determination and grace, he has crafted numerous, historic bipartisan laws and common sense policies that have lifted people out of poverty, helped alleviate disease, strengthened the U.S. Code to protect victims and get the criminals off the streets and has been 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 was positively incisive as he compared the HIV/AIDS crisis to the Bubonic plague of the 14th century--the black death--and challenged us to enact a comprehensive program, which we did, to rescue the sick, assist the dying and prevent the contagion from spreading.

Having served with this brilliant one-of-a-kind lawmaker for my 26 years here, I hope Henry Hyde knows that I--and so many others--will truly miss him. He is as irreplaceable as irreplaceable can get.

Mr. Speaker, most, perhaps everybody in

this House today, has had to deal at one time or another with the emotional agony of a loved one dying from severe illness, an accident, or perhaps even an act of violence.

One of the questions we often ask is, Did they suffer? How much pain did they endure? Did we do everything we can to alleviate their pain?

Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize or gloss over the significant and ever-expanding body of knowledge that shows that an unborn child suffers real pain, excruciating pain, when he or she is dismembered, as in a D&E abortion, or jabbed with scissors as in a partial-birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist.

Not only is abortion violence against children, but we now know that the abortion act itself is painful to the baby as well. As the gentleman from Georgia pointed out a moment ago, Dr. Sunny Anand, an expert on pain for the unborn and the neonates, has pointed out that human fetuses possess the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and there is a whole growing body of evidence that clearly demonstrates that. Meanwhile, approximately 18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond, are destroyed without even the basic decency of pain relief.

Let me describe to you what one of the abortionists who now has turned pro-life, says about the D and E abortion procedure. He did about 10 abortions per week, Dr. Anthony Levatino, from New York, here is how he described this D&E method of abortion. These are his words, he did them: ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard, really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length.

Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart, and lungs. The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. ``The head of the baby that age is about the size of a plum,'' he goes on to say, ``and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it when the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day,'' he goes on to say, ``like I often did, a little face may come out and stare right back at you.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a hideous, barbaric abuse of children. And, yes, sadly we are not stopping it with this legislation. I wish we had the ability to protect these children from this kind of child abuse. We need to affirm both patients, mother and baby. That is what prenatal care is all about. Our legislation is simply informed consent, requiring that a brochure, not unlike those booklets given to women in many States of the union that describe the growth of an unborn child and any problems she may experience, be given to her since she has the right to know this very important information.

Abortion methods kill, Mr. Speaker, and we need to at least allow that child pain medication information be conveyed to the mother.

Most--perhaps everyone in the House today--has had to deal at one time or another with the emotional agony of a loved one dying from severe illness, an accident or perhaps even an act of violence.

One of the questions we often ask is how much did they suffer? How much pain? Did we do everything possible to alleviate that pain?

Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize, or gloss over the significant and ever expanding body of knowledge that shows that an unborn child suffers real pain--excruciating pain--when he or she is dismembered as in a D & E abortion, or jabbed with scissors in a partial birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist.

Not only is abortion violence against children but we now know that abortion is painful to the baby as well.

In expert testimony provided to the Northern District of the US District Court in California during the partial birth abortion trials, Dr. Sunny Anand, Director of the Pain Neurobiology Lab at Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute said, ``the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborn's or older children.''

In testimony before the Virginia State Senate, Dr. Jean Wright of Emory University School of Medicine said ``Aspects of pain architecture begin as early as six to seven weeks, mature and are identified by their anatomy, their physiology, and the coordination of responses so that by 20-22 weeks of gestation, the evidence reveals a developed system of pain perception and response. . . . The ability to modulate or blunt the pain response does not develop until the last weeks of pregnancy and the first few weeks of infancy, leading us to believe that the pain perceived in the fetus is greater than that in the full- term infant.

Dr. Anand further describes before the court that the'' highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero,'' while still in the womb, ``from 20 to 30 weeks gestation. During this period, the epidermis is still very thin, leaving nerve fibers closer to the surface of the skin than in older neonates and adults.''

He went on to explain that the pain inhibitory mechanisms, in other words fibers which dampen and modulate the experience of pain, do not begin to develop until 32 to 34 weeks of gestation. Thus, Dr. Anand concludes, a fetus 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults when these groups are subjected to similar types of injury.

Dr. Anand points out on the question of fetal consciousness that more than 3 decades of research show that preterm infants are actively perceiving, learning and organizing information, and are constantly striving to regulate themselves, their environment and their experiences. All preterm infants actively approach and favor experiences that are developmentally supporting and actively avoiding experiences that are disruptive.

Additionally a recent British study measured blood flow and oxygen in the part of the brain that feels pain while blood was drawn during a heel lance. The results showed a surge of blood and oxygen in the sensory area of their brains, meaning the pain was processed in the higher levels of the brain. Indicating that these little boys and girls do feel pain.

Meanwhile approximately 18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond are destroyed without the basic decency of pain relief. That means that twice every hour a baby is destroyed without pain alleviation by methods that include the D and E abortion.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is a modest but necessary expansion of informed consent.

To date several states have enacted informed consent laws that convey in booklet form to the mother the facts concerning development of an unborn baby as well as risks associated with abortions.

Our bipartisan legislation simply ensures that new information concerning pain capable in unborn babies be conveyed as well.

Under HR 6099, a woman considering an abortion at or past 20 weeks fertilization must simply be given an HHS produced brochure describing the most accurate and up to date information on unborn child pain. After that, the mother is given a decision form on which she may either request or decline pain relieving drugs for her baby prior to the abortion.

Is it our hope that this additional information may dissuade a woman from allowing her child to be killed? Absolutely.

I--we--believe good medicine should affirm the value, and dignity of every human life. We need to affirm both patients--mother and child.

For the child dismembered by hideous and abusive abortion methods like the D & E abortion that happen every day--the little girl or boy at least shouldn't be made to suffer.

Here's how Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist describes the painful D & E abortion.

``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs. . . The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head of the baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the [Sopher] clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a puer white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.''

The Unborn Pain Child Awareness Act is a modest but necessary expansion of informed consent. Let me remind my colleagues that in State after State throughout the country these booklets like the one in my hand that describe fetal development are given to the woman prior to an abortion. These kinds of informed consent booklets have been vigorously opposed by the abortion lobby, and we know for a fact from former as well as current-day abortionists do not discuss the baby's pain. They rarely will talk about anything that is even remotely connected with the humanity of the unborn child. It is just not part of what they convey to the woman.

Let me also point out to my colleagues that the 2005 JAMA article that is being pushed by members and the press has been part of a slick disinformation campaign and is true junk science. The authors of that study failed to point out that their conflict of interest. Susan Lee is a medical student who was previously employed as a lawyer for NARAL, and Eleanor Drey, runs the largest abortion clinic in San Francisco, where they do 600 D and E or late-term abortions every year, those hideous abortions where the baby is dismembered and she has been a very strong advocate of partial birth abortion. Eleanor Drey too did not disclose as one of the authors of that study her affiliation. Talk about conflict of interest, and the study is riddled with holes.

Finally, what the legislation does, and let us be clear, it just requires the informed consent brochure from the Department of Health and Human Service and that the mother be given an informed consent form to sign.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of S. 843, with the amendment, the Combating Autism Act. This bill is great news for the 1.5 million individuals suffering from autism spectrum disorders and their families, the many ASD advocacy groups who have been working hard for so long, and also the very many Members of Congress who have championed the cause of autism with the goal of providing meaningful relief to those autistic individuals and their families.

I just point out, Mr. Speaker, that from my very first session of Congress in 1981, I have been a consistent advocate for individuals who have autism, and frankly, it was not until the mid-1990s when some caseworker wrote in my own district about a family who had two children with autism that I realized that we were not doing enough, that the research, the best practices that are so important, the early intervention was not happening.

It was at that time that we formed the Autism Caucus. Mike Doyle, who is my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I formed this caucus. We have about 200 members and we have been pushing very hard to get money for NIH, as well as for the Centers for Disease Control so we get better prevalence data, and also, most importantly, how do we deal with this issue and how do we help these individuals.

Let me point out to my colleagues, when I first got elected, the incidence or the common prevalence of autism was thought to be one out of every 10,000. Now, because of the work that the CDC has done, we know that it is probably around one out of every 166 individuals. We have an epidemic on our hands.

This legislation which reauthorizes Title I of the Children's Health Act, and has other very, very important additions to that, I think takes us into a new era of helping the individuals who have been afflicted by this disability, trying to find out what is the trigger. There are many, many ideas out there as to what may be triggering this. We need more definitive information about that, and again, I think this legislation is good, bipartisan legislation, and it is an example of what we can do here when we put our minds together and work across the aisle and especially when we work with these many autism advocacy groups that have been tremendous in helping to bring this legislation to the floor.

So I urge strong support for it. I thank Chairman Barton for bringing it up, even if it is late, but not too late. This legislation will make a significant difference in the lives of autistic children, as well as in the lives of their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 843, with an amendment, the Combating Autism Act. This bill is great news for the 1.5 million individuals suffering from autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and their families, the many ASD advocacy groups who have been working hard for so long, and also the very many Members of Congress who have championed the cause of autism with the goal of providing meaningful relief to those autistic individuals and their families.

From my first session in Congress in 1981, I have been a consistent advocate for individuals with developmental disorders, including autism. More recently, in 1998, I successfully requested the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct an investigation in Brick Township, New Jersey after learning and listening to the community's concerns about high numbers of autism cases--a study that showed that cases of both classic autism and autism spectrum disorders were significantly higher nationwide than expected.

The Combating Autism Act, that was introduced in the Senate by my good friend Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and was unanimously passed by the Senate, reauthorizes major components of Title I of the Children's Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310), and also adds significant new provisions to broaden and strengthen activities related to autism.

Specifically, within its provisions, this legislation: requires the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to expand, intensify, and coordinate ASD-related research and to conduct an NIH- wide study of research centers of excellence, and reauthorizes provisions, which I had authored in the Children's Health Act, to grant HHS the authority to award grants for the collection, analysis, and reporting of state-level epidemiological data on ASDs and other developmental disabilities, as well as the authority to award grants for the establishment of regional centers of excellence in autism spectrum disorders epidemiology.

Importantly, the bill directs that NIH-funded research include investigation of possible environmental causes of ASDs and that CDC- funded epidemiological centers develop expertise in specialty areas, including environmental exposures. I applaud this recognition of the need to pursue research into environmental factors and epigenetics to further advance and clarify the science. While not specifically addressed in this bill and although some are fearful to even mention the issue, I believe that we do not yet have the answers we need regarding the biological effects of thimerosal, and I am hopeful that research on environmental factors will include further study to find those important answers.

The bill does much more, such as, facilitates the creation of state- level agencies to serve as clearinghouses for public information; reauthorizes the proven successful Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee; and also includes a very robust section ``Autism Education, Early Detection, and Intervention,'' to improve the early screening, diagnosis, interventions, and treatments for ASDs.

As many as 1.5 million Americans today have some form of autism and the number is on the rise. Each and every day across America, 66 children are diagnosed with autism and as many as 1 in 166 children born today will eventually be diagnosed with autism. Just 10 years ago, the estimate was 1 in 500.

A complex neurobiological disorder that generally appears in the first 3 years of life,

autism impairs a person's ability to communicate and to relate to others; the condition is often associated with rigid routines or repetitive behaviors. About 40 percent of children with autism do not talk, and others only repeat what is said to them. Children with autism may experience a range of medical problems which can be very debilitating. Because these patients have such extreme communication problems, behavioral symptoms such as agitation, sleep difficulties, and other behavioral problems may be attributed to the disability rather than to the pain and discomfort of a medical condition. Adolescents with autism may develop a strong sense of isolation, socially and emotionally, and show signs of depression or increased challenging behaviors.

Autism generally is a life-long disability; it also is a spectrum disorder that affects each individual differently and at varying degrees. 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.

Our Nation is in the midst of an autism crisis that becomes more severe each passing month, a crisis that costs our nation tens of billions of dollars annually in medical care, behavioral therapy, special child care, and a range of child and adult services needed to care for these individuals. While we have significantly increased our government's commitment to surveillance and biomedical research in the last decade in an effort to find a cause or cure, it is incumbent upon us to act now to reauthorize, intensify, and expand those and other efforts to identify individuals with autism and to provide them with more effective care and treatments.

Thanks to the incredible work of Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton and his staff in finalizing this bill and getting it here today to the floor of the House of Representatives, we have a tremendous opportunity to join together in carrying it over the finish line. I strongly encourage everyone of my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Perhaps the greatest thanks should go to the very many individuals and organizations in the ASD community who coalesced and advocated so effectively for this bill. Some, but certainly not all, of those organizations are: Autism One, Autism Society of America, Autism Speaks, Cure Autism Now, Dan Marino Foundation, First Signs, Organization for Autism Research, Southwest Autism Research & Resource Center, TalkAutism, Unlocking Autism, and the US Autism and Asperger Association. I know that there are numerous other organizations and individuals who also deserve thanks and recognition.

I know that all of us here share the commitment to dramatically improve the lives for the well over a million American children and adults who have an autism spectrum disorder and improve the outlook for their families and other loved ones. I humbly encourage you not to let this opportunity pass without casting your vote in support of this much needed and much desired legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate Bill (S. 2125) to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, in describing American foreign policy after World War II, General George Marshall said, ``Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit an emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.''

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has seen more than its fair share of hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Since 1998, an estimated 4 million people have died as a result of war, famine and disease, and thousands more die each and every day. More than 40,000 women and children have been systematically raped and tortured at the hands of the armed forces of the Congo, perpetrators of genocide from neighboring Rwanda and an increasing intricate array of militia groups.

Life expectancy in Congo has plummeted to 49 years, and years of war and rampant corruption have decimated an economy that should have been one of Africa's strongest.

Fortunately, hope for an end to the constant conflict and chaos that have plagued the Congo since independence has been raised following the historic elections that took place in July and October of this year. An estimated 70 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote in the face of great difficulties, and international monitors agreed that the election results were uncompromised by irregularities.

But the conduct of elections represent only an initial step towards normalcy. A legitimate result in the October runoff that is accepted by both parties and the population at large is vitally important. Further, the establishment of inclusive political institutions, the restoration of critical infrastructure and essential public services, and the creation of viable economic opportunities for development will be critically important if Congo is to flourish.

During a recent visit to Kinshasa earlier this month, U.N. Under Secretary of Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egelund asserted that ``the Congolese people were still suffering one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.'' Unfortunately, this is a fact that has largely escaped the attention of many of us, particularly as we focus on other well-deserved crises such as that which is occurring in Darfur and northern Uganda and, as a result of U.S. policy towards Congo, really has gone adrift and needs to be re-energized.

S. 2125 recognizes the importance of a coherent, forward-leaning U.S. policy toward the Congo. It identifies key U.S. policies in Congo, including the promotion of free, fair and democratic elections in the future; support for security sector reform and disarmament;

demobilization, repatriation, reintegration and rehabilitation programs; and the promotion of accountability for those who have committed atrocities and gross human rights violations.

It also asserts that the United States will work to ensure that a stable Congolese government is committed to the principles of good governance and resource management, rule of law, and peaceful coexistence with its regional neighbors. The bill suggests that the U.S. partner with other governments with similar goals for the Congo.

Finally, it compels the U.S. to work to strengthen the mandate of the United Nations peacekeeping force in the Congo, MONUC, to include specific authority to prevent and effectively counter imminent threats, protect civilians, enhance intelligence gathering capabilities, and monitor arms trafficking, and of course, also to look into the terrible problem of child soldiers.

S. 2125 further authorizes $52 million for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, an increase of $5 million, to carry out these objectives and expresses support for additional funding in future years. However, the bill makes it clear that U.S. assistance to Congo cannot continue in perpetuity. It calls on the Secretary of State to withhold such assistance if the government is not making sufficient progress towards accomplishing the stated U.S. foreign policy goals.

Mr. Speaker, this is a timely bill. While providing a road map for U.S. policy towards Congo during this critical stage in its transition, it rightly places the burden of success on the Congolese themselves. After all, solutions for Congo's ills cannot be imposed from the outside. The Congolese themselves must seize the opportunity for peace and prosperity that is before them. Still, this bill helps support them in that effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we likewise yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to pay tribute to Orest Deychakiwsky for his 25 years of faithful service to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. Orest began his work as a member of the professional staff on November 15, 1981, just six years after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, a period marked by ruthless Soviet repression and widespread violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Driven by a deep commitment to aid the victims of Communist oppression, Orest devoted himself to documenting the human rights cases, particularly those involving divided families, an especially poignant task given his own family's history under Soviet domination and repression. He was responsible for compiling and maintaining the lengthy lists of individuals seeking to emigrate from the Soviet Union and Romania. Each spring would bring an opportunity to secure the exit of some of the thousands effectively held hostage in Romania by the Ceausescu regime. Orest was faithful in making representations to the Romanian Embassy on behalf of all those seeking to exercise their right to leave their country. When Moscow began to accept emigration lists from the Commission in the mid-80s, Orest's diligent efforts on behalf of refuseniks began to pay off for families, including some with American spouses, who were finally allowed to leave the Soviet Union after a decade or more of waiting.

With a passion for Ukraine, his familial homeland, Orest helped document modern Soviet repression in that country including imprisonment of human rights activists, suppression of Ukrainian culture and language as well as harsh actions against the Ukrainian Catholic Church. He was at the forefront of efforts in support of the restoration of Ukrainian independence and the consolidation of democracy in that country following the demise of the Soviet empire. Despite setbacks, Orest was optimistic that the people of Ukraine would insist on a democratic future for their country. On a cold November night in 2004, he witnessed firsthand their determination as he stood in Kiev's Independence Square where tens of thousands of Ukrainians gathered to protest fraudulent elections.

Fifteen years earlier he had stood in the main square in Sofia, Bulgaria as peaceful demonstrators stood up to tyranny, ushering in the demise of Eastern Europe's longest standing dictatorship. In recent years, he has been active in confronting the repressive regime of Aleksandr Lukashenka in Belarus, Europe's last dictatorship.

Mr. Speaker, in this year when we observe the thirtieth anniversary of the Helsinki Commission, as a long serving Commissioner and Co- Chairman, I am pleased to recognize and commend Orest Deychakiwsky for his faithful service and tireless defense of human rights and dignity.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased o pay tribute to John Finerty for his 25 years of faithful service to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. John began his work as a member of the professional staff on November 8, 1981, just 6 years after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, a period marked by ruthless Soviet repression and widespread violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Driven by a passion for upholding the dignity of the downtrodden, John devoted himself to documenting the cases of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience cast into the Soviet gulag or banished because of their beliefs. His career at the Commission began in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a situation he followed closely. He also focused on the plight of Soviet Jewry, abuse of psychiatry and use of slave labor in the USSR, the persecution of human rights defenders, and repression of religious believers. His determined efforts were undertaken for well-known dissidents and the unknown alike without distinction. The resolution of hundreds of Soviet human rights cases were brought about in no small measure as a result of John's diligence.

The end of the Cold War brought new challenges and opportunities and once again John's talents proved invaluable to me and my fellow Commissioners as freedom began to take root in the former Soviet Union and the subjugation of the Baltic States came to an end. Throughout the turbulent transition, John remained focused on promoting peaceful democratic change while continuing his vigilant defense of human rights. He was part of the first teams to monitor elections in the former USSR. While the conflict in Chechnya has faded from the focus of many, John has not been willing to forget its victims. Similarly, he has helped draw attention to those who have fallen victim to terrorists in places like Beslan.

Mr. Speaker, in this year when we observe the 13th anniversary of the Helsinki Commission, as a long-serving Commissioner and Co-Chairman, I am pleased to recognize and commend John Finerty for his faithful service and tireless defense of human rights and dignity.

Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and Vice Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, today I introduce this resolution on systemic human rights violations in Turkmenistan. Freedom House recently ranked Turkmenistan as one of the most repressive countries in the world. Along with cosponsors Representative Joseph R. Pitts and Representative Mike McIntyre, we seek to put the Government of Turkmenistan on notice that these policies must change and that the Congress expects improvements in human rights observance and democratization.

The human rights situation in Turkmenistan remains abysmal. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, ``Turkmenistan is an authoritarian state dominated by president-for- life Saparmurat Niyazov. . . . The government continued to commit serious abuses and its human rights record remained extremely poor.''

Turkmenistan is a one-party state with all three branches of government controlled by President Niyazov, who was made ``president- for-life'' by the rubber-stamp People's Council in 2003. No opposition is allowed and the state promotes a cult of personality around President Niyazov, the self-proclaimed ``Turkmenbashi''--the father of all Turkmen. His likeness is on every public building and the currency. Authorities require that his self-styled spiritual guidebook, the Rukhnama, be taught in all schools and places of work.

There are consistent reports of security officials physically abusing, torturing and forcing confessions from individuals involved in political opposition or human rights advocacy. The regime also continues the dreadful Soviet practice of using psychiatric hospitals to jail dissidents.

In August, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Ogulsapar Muradova and two Turkmenistan Helsinki Foundation members were sentenced to 6 and 7 years of imprisonment, respectively, for their involvement in a documentary about Turkmenistan. Sadly, Muradova died while in custody just three weeks later.

The resolution therefore urges President Niyazov to, among other things, conduct a thorough investigation into the death of Muradova, free all political/religious prisoners, provide ICRC access to all Turkmen prisons, and allow peaceful political opposition parties to operate freely. The resolution also lays out recommended steps for U.S. action, should the government not improve respect for democratization, freedom of movement, human rights and religious freedoms.

The abuses don't end with repressive actions against dissidents and reporters. Niyazov is also reportedly diverting billions of dollars of state funds into his personal off-shore accounts. The ``father of all Turkmen'' is pillaging his country and jeopardizing the future of its citizens.

Consequently, the resolution urges the Government of Turkmenistan to ``end the diversion of state funds into President Niyazov's personal offshore accounts, and adopt international best practices as laid forth by the International Monetary Fund regarding the disclosure and management of oil and gas revenues.'' In addition, the resolution urges the U.S. Government to encourage companies dealing in Turkmen gas to increase transparency, and to encourage the European Union and other countries not to enter into trade agreements with Turkmenistan until the ``government demonstrates a commitment to implementing basic norms of fiscal transparency.'' To further demonstrate the level of Congressional concern regarding the misappropriation of state resources, the resolution recommends the U.S. Government issue ``a report on the personal assets and wealth of President Niyazov.''

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to bring to the attention of the Congress and the world the appalling human rights record of the Government of Turkmenistan. The resolution is timely, as the European Parliament will soon consider an enhanced trade relationship with Turkmenistan. I hope this resolution will be a catalyst for change and that President Niyazov will initiate serious and far-reaching reforms.

Mr. Speaker, today I chaired a briefing and hearing of the House International Relations Committee to examine means to enhance the global fight to end human trafficking.

When I held the first hearing on trafficking as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights back in 1999, only a handful of countries had laws explicitly prohibiting the practice of human trafficking. Individuals who engaged in this exploitation did so without fear of legal repercussions. Victims of trafficking were treated as criminals and illegal immigrants, and had no access to assistance to escape the slavery-like conditions in which they were trapped. Few seemed to even be aware that this modem form of slavery was taking place, and those who did failed to recognize it as a violation of fundamental human rights.

However, the situation has changed markedly over the past 6 years. Significant credit for improvements must be attributed to the enactment of the trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, together with two reauthorizations of that Act in 2003 and 2005, all of which I sponsored. These three laws created a comprehensive framework for combating trafficking in persons abroad, as well as the trafficking of American girls and young women within the U.S. As a result of these three laws, our government has been a leader in addressing this serious human rights violation and encouraging other governments to do the same.

Just this past weekend, I experienced the impact of this leadership during a trip to Iraq. Millions of people who lack job opportunities are misled by ads for well-paying jobs and leave their countries for what is presented to them to be the chance of a lifetime. Last year, the Chicago Tribune did a series of articles detailing a practice by employment brokers and subcontractors to bring laborers into Iraq through fraud or coercion. The seizure of the workers' passports and recruitment ``fees'' made it diffIcult for them to escape employment in a war zone. After the State Department trafficking report confirmed this practice, my Subcommittee held a hearing in which Colonel Robert Boyles testifIed that the military had issued an order that all contracts include a clause allowing termination without penalty, prohibits the use of unlicensed employment brokers, and ends the practice of confiscating worker passports.

With the compliance inspections set to begin this month, one of the major objectives of my visit to Iraq was to ensure that the order on labor trafficking would be enforced. Major General Bruce Moore, the Chief of Staff for our military in Iraq, assured me that compliance was being checked on this. As of the time of our subcommittee hearing, 90 percent of the contracts had been modified, and the military is ensuring that the other 10 percent will be modified and that implementation of the order will be complete.

Also on my trip this weekend, I spoke with State Department officials about trafficking in Kuwait and Germany. According to reports earlier this year, more than 40 Indian youth had been stranded in Kuwait when their passports had been confiscated by unscrupulous job brokers and had been penalized by Kuwaiti police. State Department officials told me that they have launched an aggressive program entitled FALCON for Fostering Awareness of Labor Conditions to let foreign workers know their rights. In Germany, State Department officials described efforts to discourage patronage of brothels during the World Cup earlier this year in which women and girls were coerced into prostitution. Efforts were especially concentrated on ensuring that the U.S. military did not patronize such establishments. Since the end of the World Cup, the U.S. has continued to work with the German government to ensure that coerced prostitution is ended to the extent possible and facilities are established to help prostitutes who want to escape that life.

One of the key components of the 2000 Act is the requirement that the Secretary of State provide Congress with a list of those countries whose governments are not fully complying with minimum standards to eliminate trafficking

and are not making significant efforts to do so. These countries, designated as ``Tier 3,'' may be subject to certain sanctions, including the withholding of non-humanitarian, non-trade-related assistance. These sanctions can be waived if the government makes significant efforts to comply with the minimum standards, or pursuant to a determination by the President that the provision of assistance would promote the purposes of the statute or is otherwise in the national interest of the United States. The President is to submit a notification to Congress no later than 90 days from the submission of the annual report as to the determination made for each Tier 3 country. I have received numerous reports from our government representatives and non-governmental organizations as to how the implementation of this tier ranking and the consequent threat or imposition of sanctions have dramatically impacted the trafficking practices in the relevant countries.

The determinations for 2006 were due on September 1st and it was the intention of the Committee to examine those determinations at the hearing. It was therefore deeply disappointing that the determinations still had not been provided by the President three weeks later. This raises grave concerns that were examined later in the hearing, including whether the Administration is giving due priority to its stated commitment to combat human trafficking. This delay past the legislative mandate sends the wrong message to these Tier 3 countries as to the urgency with which this serious human rights violation needs to be addressed. And in this instance, it was a missed opportunity to apply additional pressure on these countries through the attention that would have been focused on them at this important hearing.

We did, however, have the opportunity to inquire about the implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services' assistance program as mandated by the 2000 Act. The purpose of such programs is to expand benefits and services to trafficking victims in the United States without regard to the victim's immigration status. Unfortunately, evidence of the need for such assistance within our own country is growing. Just this month, it was reported that a woman from my home state of New Jersey pled guilty to being part of a smuggling ring that brought in more than 20 young women and teenagers from Honduras to work in a bar. These women were virtually imprisoned in apartments, and are alleged to have been beaten, raped, and subjected to forced abortions.

Such horrific stories make us all too aware that this modern form of slavery has silently infiltrated and poisoned the fabric not only of the U.S., but of virtually every society around the world. It is extremely important that this awareness be amplified, so that public outrage will further motivate those of us in government, shame those who are creating the demand for trafficking victims, and ultimately stop those responsible for perpetrating these human rights violations. We were privileged to have with us at the hearing a prominent public figure who is using his position on the world stage to publicize the reality and prevalence of human trafficking. Not only has Ricky Martin given his time and talent to promote the cause as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Children's Fund, but he has also established a foundation that is engaged in numerous activities on behalf of trafficking victims and children. As just one indication of his personal commitment to the most vulnerable among us, he visited the affected areas in Thailand following the 2004 tsunami. In April 2005, he entered into a partnership with Habitat for Humanity to construct over 220 homes to provide shelter and safety, particularly for those children orphaned by the disaster.

All three of our witnesses provided the Committee with valuable information and perspectives with which we can indeed enhance our global fight to end human trafficking.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his great leadership on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, young girls desperately need the modest protections against exploitation contained in the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, and they need these protections now, without any further delay.

It is inhumane and unjust that abortion mills in New Jersey and some other States aggressively advertise and market secret abortions for pregnant minors living in States that have enacted and enforce parental involvement statutes. The Yellow Pages in Pennsylvania, for example, are filled with ads for children to procure secret abortions in my home State. That is unconscionable.

The fact that older men, including statutory rapists, can secretly transport and perhaps pressure or coerce teenagers to go to abortion mills for an abortion even as late as 6 months is wrong.

Who protects the teenagers from abuse? The abortionist? The male who wants the baby dead to evade responsibility?

Policies that enable abortion clinics to circumvent State parental involvement laws recklessly and irreversibly endanger the health, safety, and well-being of young girls.

Mr. Speaker, not only are babies being slaughtered at abortion clinics, and let's not kid ourselves, the soothing rhetoric of the abortion industry has anesthetized many people to the inherent violence against children of every abortion. Chemical poison and dismemberment is violence against children. But minor girls as well have become physically wounded and emotionally wounded by the abortion. They become the walking wounded.

Ask yourselves, when health or emotional complications occur, do we really think a young girl and her shocked and broken parents return to the abortion mill? I think not.

Finally, I want to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff for the exemplary work they have done on this bill, especially the highly persuasive, heavily footnoted majority commentary in the report accompanying the bill. I wish more Members had the time or made the time to read it. It makes a cogent case for this bill, and I urge support for this important bill.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me make it very clear. What I just said was that if you go to the Yellow Pages and look at some of the ads and in newspapers and in other media, the abortionists actively try to solicit young girls 13, 14, 15, 16, to go across State lines. And you know as well as I do adult males, including predatory males, read those ads and act. All they have to do is go to New Jersey or some State other than Pennsylvania, where there is no parental involvement law, and thereby circumvent the parental notification, parental consent in that particular State.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 992) urging the President to appoint a

Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the challenges we face today in Sudan are perhaps among the most difficult of our time. The interminable war between Khartoum and the rebels in the south claimed the lives of over 2 million people and was punctuated by brutalities that strain our credulity. The United States poured hundreds of millions of dollars into humanitarian relief for Sudan, but never bothered to effectively engage in a high-level effort to resolve the conflict until 2001 when President Bush appointed Senator John Danforth to serve as a Special Envoy to Sudan.

With Senator Danforth's leadership, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan was signed in January of 2005, presenting a historic opportunity for peace, economic development, and democratic aspirations in southern Sudan. Unfortunately, implementation of the peace agreement has been slow and many difficult challenges lie ahead.

While the international community focused on resolving the war in the south, a genocidal campaign was unleashed by the government of Sudan in the Darfur region of western Sudan. As many as 400,000 people have died since 2004, and more than 2 million others have been forced from their homes. Once again, the U.S. Government provided millions of dollars to meet the immediate humanitarian needs of those most affected by the conflict, including more than $150 million to support the deployment and operations of the African Union peacekeepers in Darfur. This time, however, the U.S. immediately engaged at the highest levels to seek a resolution to the conflict.

Two years of intense negotiations, with significant engagement by President Bush himself, finally yielded a peace agreement between the Government of Sudan and the largest rebel faction in Darfur, the SLA, in May of this year. Unfortunately, the agreement has not held and the Sudanese Government has launched military operations against its own civilian population in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has significant human rights and security

interests at stake in Sudan. Recall that in 1996 the Sudanese Government made Osama bin Laden available to American law enforcement officials, a point that Salah Gosh reiterated to me with a great deal of sarcasm when I met with him 14 months ago in Khartoum. That offer, as we know, was refused.

We cannot afford to repeat those mistakes of the past. The United States needs a rational, well coordinated policy towards Sudan that puts an end to the violence and terrorism and human rights abuses at the core of our relationship. It is in this context that I welcome, and we welcome as a body, the President's appointment of Andrew Natsios to serve as the Presidential Envoy for Sudan.

The resolution before us today, authored by our good friend and colleague, Chairman Frank Wolf, H. Res. 992, strongly supports the appointment of the Special Envoy for Sudan and suggests a roadmap for the formation of a comprehensive responsible policy towards Sudan.

It states that the Special Envoy's mandate should include all efforts to consolidate peace throughout Sudan, including by ensuring full implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The mandate should also include helping to secure a just and equitable peace in eastern Sudan, supporting reconstruction efforts and the return of displaced persons to the Darfur and southern Sudan and addressing the inextricably linked conflict in northern Uganda.

In essence what will be the Special Envoy's responsibility to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past by focusing solely on the crisis in Darfur at the expense of solidifying the north-south peace accord and resolving the conflict in the east; by allowing the potential for peace in southern Sudan to blind us to the grave human rights tragedies continuing to unfold in Darfur; and by allowing the government of Sudan's reported cooperation in the war on terror to outweigh human rights concerns in the region. They must be paramount. And also to allow those same human rights concerns to compromise our ability to protect our own citizens.

Again, this is a good resolution. I would note parenthetically that originally it called for the creation, this resolution by Mr. Wolf, of a Special Envoy. Thankfully, events have overcome the resolution and now we are congratulating the administration for doing just that, creating a Special Envoy for Sudan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Frank Wolf, author of the resolution.

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

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

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

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