Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 480) to correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3127, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 723) calling on the President to take immediate steps to help improve the security situation in Darfur, Sudan, with a specific emphasis on civilian protection, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 14 months ago, Greg Simpkins on our International Relations staff and I visited Darfur and met some of the heroic survivors of genocide at two camps, Mukjar and Kalma. When the helicopter landed at the remote Mukjar camp, thousands of women and children danced, clapped and sang beautiful traditional African

songs. The people of Darfur have a remarkable generosity and spirit, and it was awe-inspiring.

At first glance, most of the people had a superficial glow of physical wellness, thanks in large part to the brave NGO workers bearing food, clothing and medicine. However, now even those necessities are disappearing due to the insecurity in the camps, further exacerbating the genocide with even more starvation and more disease.

In addition to the horrific loss of life in Darfur, estimated to be at upwards of 400,000 dead and 2 million displaced, I was struck by the appalling fear and trepidation that is ever present, just below the surface, just below the smiles that greet any visitor. Among the refugees and IDPs, emotional woundedness and brokenness is everywhere.

Like you and me, Mr. Speaker, all that the wonderful people of Darfur want is to love God and their families and friends and earn a living and to live in peace. Yet they have had atrocities imposed upon them that no human being should ever have to bear. Just about everyone that we spoke with, especially the women, told us personal stories of rape, senseless beatings and massacres by the Janjaweed and by Sudanese militias.

On that same trip, Mr. Speaker, I also met with Sudanese President Omar Hassan El-Bashir at his presidential suite in Khartoum. Perhaps like some others before me and after me, I pushed hard for the end of genocide. I argued, if peace and a fledgling reconciliation was achievable in southern Sudan, the other genocide that killed 2 million people and displaced 4 million, why not peace in Darfur?

The exchange was not encouraging. All Bashir wanted was to talk about ending U.S. trade sanctions, not the horrific loss of life.

Mr. Speaker, the very important resolution before us today, authored by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lantos, H. Res. 723, reflects congressional concern about the recent escalation of violence in Darfur and the government of Sudan's continued refusal to create a permissive environment for the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers. It also speaks to the fear that a security vacuum could be left in Darfur if the African Mission in Sudan, AMIS, is not immediately reinforced and transitioned to a larger, more capable UN peacekeeping mission.

On August 31, Mr. Speaker, the administration's skillful and resolute efforts to build international consensus on the need for action in Darfur resulted in the passage of Resolution 1706 by the United Nations Security Council. This urgently needed resolution approved a robust peacekeeping force for Darfur of up to 22,000 soldiers and police officers to relieve a severely undermanned and overfatigued African Union mission which has valiantly struggled against acute disadvantages to maintain some level of protection for innocent civilians.

Still, every day it becomes clear that the government of Sudan is more interested in imposing its own solution in Darfur than in pursuing a swift and lasting resolution to the conflict. Even as the UN Security Council's Resolution 1706 was being debated, the Sudanese government was preparing a major military offensive in Darfur, in direct violation of a peace agreement that it signed on May 5. And despite the government's agreement to accept the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur upon conclusion of the Darfur Peace Agreement, the government then turned around and categorically rejected the passage of Security Council Resolution 1706, renouncing the UN mission as a ``western invasion of Sudan'' and threatening attacks against peacekeepers.

H. Res. 723, Mr. Speaker, calls upon the Sudanese government to comply immediately with UN Security Council Resolution 1706, to support the transition of AMIS to a U.S. peacekeeping mission and to facilitate the deployment of UN peacekeepers. It also demands that the Sudanese government immediately withdraw all offensive military aircraft and personnel from the region, cease all support for the Janjaweed militias and rebels from Chad and disarm the Janjaweed militias themselves.

H. Res. 723 makes clear that the deployment of a capable UN force is our paramount objective, but also calls on the African Union to work closely with UN and NATO to strengthen its capacity to deter violence in the Darfur region during the interim. And while the resolution does not suggest the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces, it does call upon the President to continue urging NATO to extend and expand upon the support it currently is providing to AMIS.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisan resolution, and I urge its passage.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3127) to impose sanctions against individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes again humanity, to support measures for the protection of civilians and humanitarian operations, and to support peace efforts in the Darfur region of Sudan, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

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

For as long as I can remember, we have received conflicting messages about the situation in Sudan. My staff and I, like many people in this body, have met with Sudanese government officials. We have met with African Union officials and Darfur rebel leaders in Khartoum, Darfur, Addis Ababa, Abuja, and in Washington; and we have gotten varying accounts and assurances between the northern and southern officials in the Sudan government,

between the African Union military and political departments, and between the SLM factions and the JEM.

Unfortunately, the past few months have brought more of the same. On May 5, 2006, we welcomed the news that the government of Sudan had signed a peace agreement with the largest rebel group in Darfur, the Minni Minnawi-led faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement Army. Modeled after the peace agreement which ostensibly ended over 20 years of war in southern Sudan, the Darfur Peace Agreement was hailed as a breakthrough in the peace process that had seen little progress in 2 years.

Our hopes for peace in Darfur were further raised on August 30 as the United Nations Security Council finally approved Resolution 1706, authorizing the transition of the well-meaning but severely constrained African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS, to a larger, more capable U.N. peacekeeping mission with a robust mandate providing for civilian protection.

Before the microphones were silenced and the ink had dried, however, it became clear that eloquent speeches and agreements on paper would do little, if anything, to protect human life in Darfur.

Given its conduct of the war in the south, it should have been come as no surprise to learn that the government of Sudan had launched a new major military offensive in north Darfur in late August, in direct violation of the peace agreement it had signed just 3 months earlier.

Rather than serving as a harbinger of peace, it appears that the Darfur Peace Agreement has emboldened the Sudanese government, the Janjaweed militias, and rebel groups in Darfur to act with even greater impunity in killing, abusing and displacing civilians as they seek to consolidate their positions before international peacekeepers are deployed.

And despite assurances that a U.N. peacekeeping mission would be accepted upon conclusion of a peace agreement, Security Council Resolution 1706 was greeted by the Sudanese government with unmitigated hostility.

Regardless of the fact that a U.N. peacekeeping mission already exists in southern Sudan, the Sudanese government now seeks to portray the proposed expansion to Darfur as a ``western invasion'' and has called upon jihadists to attack any U.N. peacekeepers who dare to deploy in Darfur.

While it is not require under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706, the Sudanese government's intransigence and inflammatory remarks have all but guaranteed that the long-awaited transition of AMIS will not take place before the end of this year.

It is these sharp contrasts between word and deed in Sudan which underlie the importance of today's consideration of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.

H.R. 3127, which was authored by Chairman Hyde and cosponsored by Mr. Lantos, Mr. Payne and me and 160 other Members, passed the House in April and was amended by the Senate just last week. It offers the President the tools he needs both to support the immediate expansion of AMIS and to facilitate its transition to a U.N. peacekeeping mission as soon as possible. It also provides the President with the authority to provide emergency economic and development assistance to marginalized areas in Sudan, including southern Sudan and Darfur.

H.R. 3127 also carries punitive measures intended to promote accountability in Sudan and act as a deterrent against further atrocities. It imposes targeted sanctions against individuals determined to be complicit in or responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity in Darfur. It calls upon the President to take all necessary actions to deny the government of Sudan access to oil revenues, which have been used to fund its genocidal campaign in Darfur. H.R. 3127 also calls for the suspension of the government of Sudan's rights and privileges at the U.N. until it has honored its commitments before that body.

The Senate amendment updates the bill to reflect events that have taken place following House passage last April and expresses the conviction of this Congress that AMIS must be transitioned to a larger, more capable U.N. mission. It also allows the President to provide limited military assistance to the government of southern Sudan, thereby fulfilling commitments to facilitate the transformation of the Sudan People's Liberation Army from a rebel group to a professional military force.

I note with considerable regret that the Senate amendment also strikes an important provision to make clear that nothing in this bill shall preempt State laws on divestment.

I am very proud of the fact that New Jersey has divested its pension fund investments from companies that do business with Khartoum. I would note that some States like Illinois are in court, in litigation, because they have done likewise. This provision would have made clear that nothing in the bill would preempt State laws on disinvestment. That is a loss, but there are many other things in this bill that I think warrant its passage.

Mr. Speaker, in their addresses to the U.N. Assembly last week, both President Bush and Secretary General Kofi Annan recognized the transcendent importance of a show of resolve on Darfur. While it is true that the bill before us as amended by the Senate requires Members to make difficult compromises, it is nevertheless a solid bill. It is a serious bill. It is an urgent bill. Far too much time has lapsed. Far too many graves have been filled since we first began debating this resolution. The time to show Congress's resolve is now.

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

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

I would like to just at this point thank the following congressional staff for their extraordinary work and persistence in shaping this bill. As my colleague from Minnesota pointed out earlier, we did mark this bill up 15 months ago in my subcommittee, and it has been a long, arduous journey to this night on this Hyde-Lantos legislation. So I want to thank Joan Collins, Gregory Simpkins, Pearl Alice Marsh, Noelle LuSane, Ian Campbell, Hannah Royal, Aysha House-Moshi, Greg Adams, Samantha Stockman, Walker Roberts, Jock Scharfen, David Abramowitz, Will Lowell.

And I hope I didn't leave anybody out because there was an extraordinary amount of give and take on this legislation. Again, some of its aspects that we would have liked to have seen dealing with disinvestment was dropped by the Senate. I think that was a setback. But it is still a very solid piece of legislation and deserves the full support of this body to advance our efforts to mitigate and hopefully end the genocide in Darfur.

This now goes to the President, as I have just been reminded, and I think he will sign it very quickly. I urge its passage.

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

Madam Speaker, as one of the cosponsors, I am pleased to rise in support of House Resolution 965. The people of Montenegro deserve this commendation for the fair and orderly manner in which they achieved independence. They also deserve commendation for their patience. Many Montenegrin citizens wanted independence much earlier, but they and their political leaders understood that following a process marked by democratic norms and mutual agreement would only add credibility to the result.

A significant number of Montenegrin citizens, I should add, did not see a reason to break its ties in a state union with Serbia and voted against independence in the May referendum. To their credit, they have nevertheless accepted the result. Just last week, Montenegro held new parliamentary elections which were favorably assessed by the OSCE, indicating that the republic remains committed to democratic norms where differences of opinion will be respected.

As noted in the text of the resolution, Serbian authorities and the people of Serbia deserve some credit here as well. While many in Serbia failed to understand why Montenegro felt a need to break with Serbia, there was a willingness to work out differences and, since the May referendum, to respect the results.

Things were not always so easy. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I recall holding hearings on Montenegro. At the time, this republic posed the only genuine and effective internal opposition to the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, and became his threatened next target as a result. Montenegro became a haven for those displaced by the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts, which was very challenging given its own, small yet ethnically diverse population. For some, it continues in that role. Montenegro needed to assess its own role in the violent disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, and to rebuild good relations with its neighbors. It has done just that. The Commission has maintained a dialogue with Montenegrin political leaders over the years, held hearings on the situation in Montenegro, observed elections there and most recently observed the referendum itself. Whatever concerns have been expressed in this ongoing dialogue, we have had a serious back and forth.

It is my hope that Montenegro, as the 56th participating State in the OSCE, will remain committed to the path it has chosen, and remain engaged with the Helsinki Commission on issues of common concern. Among those issues, few are as important as trafficking in persons. This criminal activity remains a widespread problem throughout southeastern Europe, and Montenegro must endeavor to stop it. I also want to encourage Montenegro to undertake the reforms necessary, especially regarding the judicial system and other aspects of the rule of law, in order to realize its aspirations for European and Euro-Atlantic integration. The people of Montenegro can count on my support.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I think it important to note that Montenegro's independent statehood has implications not only for Montenegro but for the region as a whole. With Montenegro's independent statehood accepted and recognized, another outstanding issue has been resolved, and this time, thankfully, in a peaceful and democratic manner.

Other issues still remain, including of course the question of Kosovo's status. Some would assert that Montenegro's achievement of independent statehood is a precedent that can be easily applied to Kosovo or elsewhere. I would argue, however, that it is not the result of the process Montenegro followed but the process itself, with its commitment to democracy and respect for human rights as well as to finding the most widely acceptable arrangements through compromise, that is the true precedent here that others should follow.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take his opportunity to recognize and congratulate Hal Pote on the occasion of his 60th birthday.

Hal, a friend of mine, diligently serves as the President of the Spina Bifida Foundation, SBF. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, I have had the privilege of working along side Hal and truly appreciate his commitment and dedication to improving the quality of life for individuals living with Spina Bifida.

Mr. Speaker, Spina Bifida--our nation's most commonly permanently disabling birth defect--occurs in the first month of pregnancy when the spinal column does not close completely. Spina Bifida occurs in approximately 7 out of 10,000 live births and currently there are 70,000 men, women, adolescents, and children living with Spina Bifida in the United States.

In addition to Hal's strong professional commitment to improving the lives of those living with Spina Bifida, Hal has a binding personal tie that unites his heart with his expertise. Hal's nephew, Gregory was born with Spina Bifida almost 20 years ago.

Supporting his nephew through more than 20 surgeries, Hal counts it a privilege to share in Gregory's many wonderful moments like in 2004 when Gregory carried the Olympic torch. Hal is dedicated to ensuring that Gregory and all other individuals living with Spina Bifida enjoy a high quality of life. Through Hal's vision and dedication to helping Gregory and the tens of thousands of people like him, he joined with a group of colleagues to form the Spina Bifida Foundation in 1999.

In its 7 years of existence, the Foundation has achieved many amazing things for the Spina Bifida community. Just a few years ago, people born with Spina Bifida did not live past their teenage years and yet today, thanks to the advances in medical research and the dedication of public advocates like Hal Pote, many children with Spina Bifida are living to be adults. With more and more people with Spina Bifida living into adulthood, Hal and the Spina Bifida Foundation are committed to addressing the new challenges these adults now face.

One of the specific projects in which Hal has been instrumental is urging Gruma--one of the world's largest producers of corn flour and tortillas--to begin research and product testing on enriching its corn products with folic acid, a known preventative of Spina Bifida. At the urging of the Foundation and with the full and strong support of the Spina Bifida Caucus, Gruma now has a year-end goal of enriching all its corn products sold within the United States.

This is an outstanding and notable achievement. In fact, studies show that if all women in the United States consumed the recommended amount of folic acid every day before and during early pregnancy, up to 70 percent of neural tube birth defects could be prevented. Members of the Hispanic/Latino Community are at a higher risk of Spina Bifida affected pregnancies than any other ethnic group and this important and commendable action by Gruma has significant implications for improving the health and well-being of the US Hispanic/Latino population.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Hal for his outstanding leadership of the Spina Bifida Foundation and his steadfast commitment to improving the quality of life not just for his nephew Gregory but for all individuals living with Spina Bifida. I wish him the

best on the occasion of his 60th birthday and am confident that he will continue to enjoy many successes in all of his charitable and professional endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, last week I chaired a hearing to examine issues related to the new United Nations Human Rights Council, which held its first session from the 19th to the 30th of June, this year, and two special sessions in July and August, respectively.

I believe it is tragic, and dismaying in the extreme to note that despite the self-congratulatory euphoria of many last March at its creation, the new human rights machinery remains broken, in need of serious repair and fundamental reform. The Human Rights Council has, thus far, continued the credibility deficit of its predecessor. The victims of abuse throughout the world deserve better. And, thus far, they haven't gotten it.

Not only did the Council unfairly and myopically criticize Israel at its inaugural session, but both special sessions convened to date--on July 5-6 and August 11--were held exclusively to condemn Israel with nary a mention of egregious abuse by Hezbollah or Hamas or the roles of Syria and Iran.

Amazingly, there has been no special session on the ongoing--and worsening--genocide in Darfur. No special session of the systematic use of torture by the People's Republic of China, even though Manfred Nowak, the U.N.'s own rapporteur on torture, recently issued a scathing report on the pervasive use of torture by the Chinese government; no special session on Cuba's abuse of political prisoners or on Burma or North Korea or Belarus or Iran or Zimbabwe. Just Israel.

Not only has the Council expended all its efforts on Israel, but it has also failed to do so in a ``fair and equal manner.'' The Council has made no reference to the roles of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran in the creation of the situations concerned or to the harm inflicted by parties other than Israel. Thus, the early evidence indicates that the Council has already been co-opted by an extremely biased and narrow agenda.

This development is of extreme concern, both for the international human rights community and for those of us convinced of the need for reform at the United Nations. The Human Rights Council, and through it the United Nations as a whole, have a vital role to play in the promotion and protection of human rights. It is critical that the United States and other human rights defenders do everything, and as quickly as possible, to reverse the direction in which the Council is heading.

By way of background, on April 19, 2005, the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee of Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, held a hearing on the Council's predecessor, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. In my statement at that hearing, I noted that the Commission had come under increasing criticism from numerous quarters. A U.N. High-Level Panel concluded in December 2004 that the Commission's capacity to fulfill its mandate had been undermined by eroding credibility and professionalism. The Panel pointed out that States with a poor human rights record cannot set the standard for human rights. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan later agreed with this assessment, and he told the Commission that ``unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself.''

On March 15, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution that replaced the discredited Commission with the Human Rights Council. The General Assembly gave the Council the mandate to promote ``universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner,'' and to ``address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations.'' The United States was one of four countries to vote against the resolution. The U.S.'s opposition was based on the absence of a stronger mechanism to maintain a credible membership, and thus the lack of assurance that the Council would be an improvement over its predecessor.

In my public statement issued immediately after the resolution's adoption, I expressed my deep disappointment that the General Assembly had settled for a weak and deeply flawed replacement for the Commission. The flaws I noted included the membership concerns expressed by the United States, as well as the lack of protection for Israel from unfair and biased special sessions.

Another potentially serious flaw that I have noted is the Council's mandate to promote follow-up to the goals and commitments related to the promotion and protection of human rights emanating from United Nations conferences and summits. My concern is based in large part on the serious distinction that exists between human rights treaties and consensus

documents resulting from U.N. conferences. Treaties are negotiated by U.N. member states, and they may or may not be subsequently ratified through the established approval process of each country. Those states that do ratify a treaty thereby agree to be bound by its provisions under international law. U.N. conference documents, on the other hand, are the result of policy debates and are agreed to by consensus at the end of the conference. These consensus documents are not negotiated as legally-binding instruments and are not subject to a ratification process. They do not have, and should not have, the same legal authority as treaties.

For this reason, the U.N. General Assembly was extremely misguided when it assigned the Human Rights Council the task of promoting these conference commitments. By doing so, it threatens to diminish the moral and legal persuasiveness of internationally-recognized human rights by equating them with mere policy directives. Even more troubling, the resolution calls for the promotion of human rights ``emanating'' from the U.N. conferences. The very word ``emanating'' implies that a characteristic or action need not be clearly defined in a conference document in order for the Council to undertake its promotion. This, together with the fact that these conference documents are consensus documents, raises the specter that any number of characteristics or actions may slide their way into the international human rights framework without the ratified agreement of countries who would then be pressured to abide by their provisions. Such a gaping loophole in the international legal process is antithetical to the democratic ideals of our own country and to the principles on which the United Nations is based.

This potential for the gross abuse of the United Nations human rights mechanisms is already being realized with respect to the issue of abortion. For several years now, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have been pressuring governments to legalize abortion even though no U.N. human rights treaty addresses the issue. These and other treaty bodies pursue this ideological agenda while ignoring the fact that abortion exploits women and is an act of violence against children. Just two weeks ago, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women published ``concerns'' about the illegality of abortion in Chile, Mauritius and the Philippines. In October 2005, the Human Rights Committee decided in a case from Peru presented to it under the ICCPR Optional Protocol that denying access to an abortion violates women's human rights. It made no reference to the unborn child's right to life and to be free from the terrifying effect of an array of child killing poisons currently on the market or dismemberment.

Even the Committee against Torture, which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is joining this assault on the unborn. In February of this year, pursuant to its review of Peru's compliance with the Convention, the Committee concluded that Peru's ``omission'' in failing to provide abortion constitutes ``cruel and inhuman acts.'' The Committee has no basis in the Convention for challenging a state party's refusal to provide an abortion. However, if one were to concede that the Committee is warranted in examining the issue of abortion under Article 16, then the Committee should have no choice but to conclude that the chemical poisoning and dismemberment of the fragile, sensitive body of an unborn child is itself a ``cruel and inhuman act.'' (And now we know that unborn children feel pain at least at 20 weeks gestation--perhaps earlier, which is why I have introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.)

In many of their decisions, these treaty bodies do not refer to the text of the treaty they are supposed to be monitoring, but to documents adopted at U.N. conferences. They do so out of necessity, since the countries they are pressuring have never agreed to legalize or provide for the destruction of the life of the unborn in the instruments that they have ratified. Based on this entrenched and growing manipulation of the U.N. human rights mechanisms to promote abortion, there is reason to believe that the Human Rights Council will also be co-opted into promoting ideological agendas at variance with the established human rights norms of the international community.

The skepticism generally about the ability of the Human Rights Council to promote human rights and address human rights violations, and to do so in a fair and equal manner, has increased with the election of its members and subsequent activity. Although the General Assembly resolution states that its members must take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights, such notorious human rights abusers as China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia were elected to the Council. Since it began its work less than three months ago, the Human Rights Council has issued three country- specific resolutions, all of them targeting just one country. Such egregious and long-time human rights abusers as Sudan, China, Cuba, Burma, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Belarus have not even been mentioned on the agenda.

I therefore convened the September 6th hearing to examine what needs to be done to prevent the Council from repeating or further regressing from the failures of the Commission on Human Rights, as well as to support any signs of improvement over its predecessor. The Subcommittee explored how the Council is being assisted by the United States and others to fulfill its mandate, the areas in which further assistance and reform is required, and the standards that the Human Rights Council will need to meet in order to qualify as a credible international human rights body.

In his address in April 2005 to the Commission on Human Rights, the UN Secretary-General argued for a new, reformed human rights council on the basis that it would ``allow for a more comprehensive and objective approach. And ultimately it would produce more effective assistance and protections, and that is the yardstick by which we should be measured.'' It is not too soon to start measuring the Council by this yardstick, and members of the Subcommittee benefited from the testimony of our distinguished witnesses that provided us with the means for such an evaluation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sympathy over the terrible tragedy that took place just over two years ago in the southern Russian city of Beslan. This nightmare began on September 1, 2004, the first day of school when over 1000 students, parents, and teachers were forced by terrorists at gunpoint into a gymnasium rigged with explosives. These young students and others were held hostage for three days without access to food or water while the sick and wounded were denied access to medical treatment. In the end, nearly 400 people lost their lives, including 186 children, and over 700 people were wounded in the savage and senseless acts of violence that occurred in Beslan.

Words alone cannot adequately convey the heartache and sorrow over this barbaric act of terrorism. Having an entire Russian school taken hostage by terrorists was shocking. As the world watched, hoping against hope that this would somehow be resolved peacefully, it was horrible to learn on September 3rd that there had been massive loss of innocent lives in the early afternoon of that day.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to grieve for those children and their families and join with other Americans in solidarity with the Russian people on this somber second anniversary of the Beslan massacre.

As Americans we know what it is like to watch--helplessly and in horror--as merciless acts of terrorism are committed against innocent people. We will never forget the tremendous outpouring of sympathy from the people of Russia following the tragic events of September 11, 2001. This support was much appreciated by our wounded nation and helped us through the dark days in the immediate aftermath of the senseless violence of that fateful day.

As both our nations mourn the losses of September 3rd and September 11th, let us find hope in the countless stories of humanitarian acts that surrounded those horrible events. Colleagues, let us remember the heroism of our first responders, the valor of our troops, and the generosity of our communities in their collective response to these tragedies. May the God of mercy grant His peace to all those who continue to suffer from the violence of those tragic days.

Mr. Speaker, August 24th marked the fifteenth anniversary of Ukraine's rebirth as an independent state, finally being freed from the shackles of Soviet misrule that included a reign of terror, cultural suppression and a genocidal famine.

The last fifteen years have witnessed peaks and valleys as the Ukrainian people have struggled to overcome the legacy of communism and Moscow's imperialism. While the process of Ukraine's restoration is still a work in progress, great strides have been made to consolidate that nation as an independent, free and democratic state. The December 1, 1991 referendum on independence, the 1996 Constitution and especially the 2004 Orange Revolution stand as highlights, demonstrating Ukrainian resolve for independence, rule of law, democracy and freedom, and the continuing promise of a better life.

In contrast to the first 13 years of independence, Ukraine is now ``free'', and not merely ``partly free.'' The March 26 parliamentary election was one of the freest and fairest ever held among post-Soviet states. The Ukrainian economy is on the road to recovery and development after the initial post-Soviet decline of the 1990s. Ukraine is a responsible neighbor and has shown its mettle as a partner for peace and security in the world.

Of course, challenges remain despite the real progress that has been made. There have been missed opportunities. Many of the promises of the Orange Revolution are only partially fulfilled. The rule of law, including a truly independent judiciary, remains to be consolidated. Corruption, although not as egregious as before the Orange Revolution, still rears its ugly head. Many Ukrainians believe all too many among the political elites look first toward their personal interests rather than to the good of the people and of the nation they are supposed to serve. As the last months have demonstrated, political stability can be elusive, and it remains to be seen what direction the new government will take. Nevertheless, Ukraine continues to show tremendous potential, and I am firmly convinced that this still relatively young 15-year-old independent state will fulfill its potential.

Mr. Speaker, in looking over the last fifteen years, we must not forget the sacrifices of millions who fought for Ukraine's liberty over the course of the last century, often against great odds and at great personal risk. Whether in the struggle for Ukraine's short-lived independence in 1918-21, or the insurgent armies that fought against both Nazi and Soviet rule during and after World War II, many Ukrainians made the ultimate sacrifice.

More recently, in the final decades of Soviet domination, Ukrainian Helsinki Monitors and other human rights activists challenged the system, calling upon the Kremlin to live up to commitments voluntarily undertaken when Leonid Brezhnev signed the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. One such renowned activist, Ukrainian Helsinki Monitor Nadia Svitlychna, who served three years in a Soviet labor camp for her tireless defense of human rights and freedom, died last month. We honor the memory of Mrs. Svitlychna, recalling that it was courageous and dedicated individuals like her who, as much as anyone, paved the way for an independent, democratic Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the role that the Helsinki Commission, which I Co-Chair, has played throughout its 30-year existence in firmly supporting human rights and freedom for Ukraine. I am pleased that the Congress has stood firm in support of Ukraine and am confident that the United States will continue to extend the hand of friendship as Ukraine moves toward its rightful place as a fully integrated member of the Euro-Atlantic community of nations.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, a bipartisan measure to provide 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. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Representives Lantos and McCotter, as original cosponsors.

Three years ago, I introduced the Belarus Democracy Act which passed the House and Senate with overwhelming 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. Belarus continues to have the worst rights record of any European state, rightly earning the country the designation as Europe's last dictatorship. Bordering on the EU and NATO, Belarus is truly an anomaly in a democratic, free Europe.

The need for a sustained U.S. commitment to foster democracy and respect for human rights and to sanction the regime of Belarus' tyrant, Alexander Lukashenka, is clear from the intensified anti-democratic policies pursued by the current leadership in Minsk. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the United States is not alone in this noble cause. Countries throughout Europe have joined in a truly trans- Atlantic effort to bring hope of freedom to the beleaguered people of Belarus. Prompt passage of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help maintain the momentum sparked by adoption of the 2004 law and the further deterioration of the situation on the ground in Belarus. Indeed, with the further deterioration in Belarus with the massive arrests of recent weeks, this bill is needed now more than ever.

One of the primary purposes of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 is to demonstrate sustained U.S. support for Belarus' independence and for those struggling to promote democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus despite the formidable pressures and personal risks they face from the anti-democratic regime. The bill authorizes $20 million 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 also authorizes $7.5 million for each fiscal year for surrogate 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 break through Lukashenka's stifling information blockade.

In addition, this legislation would impose sanctions against the Lukashenka regime, and deny senior officials of the regime--as well as those engaged in human rights and electoral abuses, including lower- level officials--entry into the United States. In this context, I welcome the targeted punitive sanctions by both the Administration and the EU against officials, including judges and prosecutors, involved in electoral fraud and other human rights abuses.

Strategic exports to the Government of Belarus would be prohibited, except for those intended for democracy building or humanitarian purposes, as well as U.S. Government financing and other foreign assistance, except for humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions would be encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs. Furthermore, the bill would block Belarus Government and senior leadership and their surrogates' assets in property and interests in property in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons. 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 absolutely clear that these sanctions are aimed not at the people of Belarus, whose desire to be free we unequivocally support, 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 the people.

Mr. Speaker, Belarus stands out as an even greater anomaly following Ukraine's historic Orange Revolution and that country's March 26th free and fair parliamentary elections which stand in glaring contrast to Belarus' presidential elections held just one week earlier. The Belarusian elections can only be described as a farce. The Lukashenka regime's wholesale arrests of more than one thousand opposition activists, before and after the elections, and violent suppression of post-election protests underscore the utter contempt of the Belarusian authorities toward the people of Belarus.

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.

Lukashenka, the Bully of Belarus, has repeatedly unleashed his security thugs to trample on the rights of their fellow citizens. Indeed, they demonstrated what Lukashenka truly thinks about his own people. Nevertheless, courageous peaceful protesters on Minsk's central October Square stood up to the regime with dignity and determination. Almost daily repressions constitute a profound abuse of power by a regime that has blatantly manipulated the system to remain in power.

Albeit safely ensconced in power, Lukashenka has not let up on the democratic opposition. On July 17, in a particularly punitive display against those who dare oppose Lukashenka, former presidential candidate Aleksandr Kozulin was sentenced to an obviously politically motivated 5\1/2\ years' term of

imprisonment for alleged ``hooliganism'' and disturbing the peace. Democratic opposition leaders such as Anatoly Lebedka and Vincuk Viachorka have been arbitrarily detained and sentenced to jail terms which have been as much as 15 days. Last month, opposition activists Artur Finkevich received a two-year corrective labor sentence and Mikalay Rozumau was sentenced to three years of corrective labor for allegedly libeling Lukashenka. Other opposition activists, including Syarhey Lyashkevich and Ivan Kruk have received jail sentences of up to six months.

In a patent attempt to discourage domestic observation of the fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, authorities arrested activists of the nonpartisan domestic election monitoring initiative ``Partnerstva''--Tsimafei Dranchuk, Enira Branitskaya, Mikalay Astreyka and Alyaksandr Shalayka. They have been in pre-trial detention since February 21, charged with participation in an unregistered organization.

Lukashenka's pattern of anti-democratic behavior began a decade ago, and this pattern has only intensified. Through an unconstitutional 1996 referendum, he usurped power, while suppressing the duly-elected legislature and the judiciary. His regime has repeatedly violated basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, association and religion. In its May 3 annual report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom included Belarus on its watch list, as Belarus appears to be adopting tougher sanctions against those who take part in unregistered religious activity. The democratic opposition, nongovernmental organizations and independent media have been subject to intimidation and a variety of punitive measures, including closure. Political activists and journalists have been beaten, detained and imprisoned. Independent voices are unwelcome in Lukashenka's Belarus and anyone who, through their promotion of democracy, would stand in the way of the Belarusian dictator puts their personal and professional security on the line. Their courage deserves our admiration, and, more importantly, our support.

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. I welcome President Bush's decision to personally meet with two of the widows in the Oval Office to discuss the situation on Belarus. An Administration report mandated by the Belarus Democracy Act and finally issued on March 17 of this year reveals Lukashenka's links with rogue regimes such as Iran, Sudan and Syria, and his cronies' corruption. Despite efforts by the U.S. Government, working closely with the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other European organizations, and non-governmental organizations, the regime of Lukashenka continues its grip on power with impunity and to the detriment of the Belarusian people.

Colleagues, it is my hope that the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 and efforts by allies in Europe will help put an end to the pattern of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of OSCE commitments by the Lukashenka regime and will serve as a catalyst to facilitate independent Belarus' integration into democratic Europe in which democratic principles and human rights are respected and the rule of law is paramount. The Belarusian people deserve better than to live under an autocratic regime reminiscent of the Soviet Union, and they deserve our support in their struggle for democracy and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I want to bring to the attention of the Congress a number of alarming arrests recently made by the Government of Turkmenistan. Last month between June 16-18, three human rights defenders were detained by Turkmen security forces and have been held for over a month. Considering Turkmenistan's abysmal human rights record, I greatly fear for their safety as they are certainly at risk of torture.

Amankurban Amanklychev, Ogulsapar Muradova, and Sapardurdy Khajiev are affiliated with the Turkmenistan Helsinki Foundation, a non- governmental organization that monitors human rights in Turkmenistan. In addition, Ms. Muradova has served as a journalist for Radio Liberty, a private communications service funded by the Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Apparently Turkmen authorities arrested these three individuals because of their connection to a documentary about President Saparmurat Niyazov's cult of personality and

their use of hidden video equipment in making this film. The three now face the trumped-up charges of illegal weapons possession and allegations of ``espionage.'' Given the absence of any media or speech freedoms in Turkmenistan, the government's allegations are simply not credible, and the detentions are unjustifiable.

Human rights organizations report that the detainees are being abused. Most troubling are allegations of psychotropic drugs being administered to Amanklychev and Muradova in an effort to force their confession to ``subversive activities.'' The reports concerning psychotropic drugs are quite believable, as Turkmenistan is known to use these drugs in psychiatric hospitals to punish individuals.

In April, 54 members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives wrote to President Niyazov, urging the unconditional release of a prisoner of conscience held in a psychiatric hospital. While that individual was released, soon thereafter Congress learned of an almost identical case--69-year-old Kakabay Tedzhenov. He has been held in incommunicado detention in a psychiatric hospital since January 2006 for peacefully protesting government policies. Considering that just three months ago a significant number of Senators and Members of the House wrote President Niyazov about this barbaric practice, I am particularly disappointed that the Turkmen President continues to allow the misuse of psychiatric institutions as prisons for political dissidents and that Mr. Tedzhenov remains jailed.

With Ms. Muradova's ties to Radio Liberty and the Congress, as well as the letter from 54 Members of Congress to Niyazov regarding the use of psychiatric hospitals, the continuation of these inexcusable actions will affect the relations between Turkmenistan and the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am urging President Niyazov to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of Amankurban Amanklychev, Ogulsapar Muradova, and Sapardurdy Khajiev, as well as Kakabay Tedzhenov.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me time, and for his leadership today and every day.

Mr. Speaker, never in my 26 years as a Member of Congress have I seen so much hyperbole, misinformation and misattribution of success as in the embryonic stem cell debate.

Dispute recent revelations of massive fraud by prominent stem cell researchers in South Korea, despite the fact that there hasn't been anything even close to success of any kind in treating any human being anywhere in the world with embryonic stem cells, despite all of this and so much more, embryonic stem cell proponents demand that tens of thousands of perfectly healthy human embryos be destroyed for taxpayer- funded research.

This is especially troubling in light of the stunning breakthroughs and successes announced almost daily of adult and cord blood stem cell therapies that are today helping men and women with leukemia, sickle cell anemia, and a myriad of other diseases. Ethical stem cell research, Mr. Speaker, has given not only hope, but it has given us real, durable therapies that work.

Arguments were made on this floor, Mr. Speaker, that we are just using spare or leftover embryos as if they exist as a subclass of surplus human beings that can be experimented on or slaughtered at will.

A few hours ago at the White House, several of us met with some of those snowflake children, all of whom were adopted while they were still in their embryonic stage and frozen in what we like to call frozen orphanages. Believe me, watching snowflakes children laugh, smile and act, well, like kids underscored the fact that they are every bit as human and alive and precious as any other child. Under the Castle bill, these so-called surplus humans are throwaways. Adopt them, don't destroy them.

Mr. Speaker, finally, make no mistake about it, those of us who oppose the Castle bill support aggressive stem cell research and judicious application of stem cells to mitigate and cure diseases. That is why I sponsored the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. It provides $265 million for comprehensive cord blood, bone marrow. That is why we support the $609 million in FY 2006 currently been expended under the NIH for ethical stem cells.

Yesterday, Hannah Strege, the first known snowflake embryo adoption, told a small group of us: ``Don't kill the embryos, we are kids and we want to grow up too.'' How come a 7-year-old gets it and we don't. Sustain the veto.

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

Mr. Speaker, the events in Lebanon during the past week are yet another wake-up call to those who have perhaps complacently thought or believed that the global war on terrorism has somehow abated. It has not. Israel is, in fact, on the front lines of this war as we meet.

Mr. Speaker, we all know there is nothing whatsoever benign or noble or praiseworthy about the terrorist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah and their state sponsors Syria and Iran. They not only refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, they want Israel wiped off the face of the map.

They actively seek Israel's demise, its destruction, by both their words and their deeds. Their hate-filled, fanatic, perhaps even psychotic, suicide bombers bomb, shoot and wreak havoc on the lives of countless unarmed innocent men, women and children through the terrorist intifada campaign.

It is abundantly clear that Hezbollah has violated the sovereign territory of Israel by launching unprovoked rocket attacks and ground forces incursions into undisputed Israeli territory, resulting in the death and hostage-taking of Israeli soldiers.

While Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, in full compliance with U.N. Security Resolution 425 in June of 2000, and unilaterally withdrawn from Gaza in September of last year, the Government of Lebanon has been unable or unwilling to disband and disarm Hezbollah in implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559.

I want to thank Dr. Boustany for his comments earlier. And I think it was important that he injected it into the debate that there is this inability, perhaps, on the part of the government. And I think we need to do more ourselves to help them to rid themselves of this cancer called Hezbollah. Hezbollah clearly is not only a grave threat to Israel, as we all know, but it is a grave threat to the freedom-loving people of Lebanon as well.

This resolution puts us clearly on the record stating where we stand, and I am so glad that I think there will be great support for it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, fetus farming, the growing of embryos and fetuses so as to derive tissue or organs and other cells for research or treatment, turns human beings into commodities.

Fetus farming is a grave violation of human rights and is an act of research violence that Congress must stop.

The harbinger of human fetus farming, Mr. Speaker, can be found in animal fetus farming studies already under way. We know that researchers are not doing this research to advance veterinary medicine.

Dr. Robert Lanza, for example, of Advanced Cell Technology, attempted to clone cows for their liver stem cells. The cloned cow fetuses were implanted and grown in the womb for 3 to 4 months before being aborted so their liver tissue could be harvested. Dr. Lanza said ominously, ``We hope to use this technology in the future to treat patients with diverse diseases.'' He is not talking about cows. He is talking about human beings.

Another researcher, Dr. Smadar Evantov-Friedman of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, conducted research to determine the best ``gestational time windows for the growth of pig embryonic liver, pancreas, and lung precursors.'' They determined that the best windows for tissue ranged from more than 2 months to more than 6 months, and that is 6 months of gestation.

This is not science fiction, Mr. Speaker. This is actual animal research. I have no doubt that Dr. Lanza and Evantov-Friedman and others are not investing enormous amounts of money and talent in research for cures for animals.

And the loopholes to allow fetus farming already exist in State laws. In my home State of New Jersey, a law was enacted in 2004 that defines a cloning ban in such a bizarre way so as to ban it only if the cloned human being is grown to the newborn stage.

Thus, in my State, a cloned embryo could be grown to the later fetal stage and then aborted for research. I would point out parenthetically that many of us raised these issues with our Governor, then Gov. McGreevey. I gave him a letter outlining these concerns about the legislation. They knew that what they were doing would allow the harvesting, the fetus farming of these individuals.

S. 3504 makes it unlawful to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue or knowingly acquire or receive or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in a nonhuman animal.

Fetus farming is dehumanizing. It is a serious violation of human rights. Every human life is precious, Mr. Speaker, and has innate value and dignity. Every human life, regardless of age, maturity or condition of dependency deserves respect. Every human life, no matter how small, deserves protection from harm, inhumane experimentation or slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that Mrs. Capps, Mr. Markey, Ms. Baldwin and others have attacked our motives on this floor. I think it degrades the debate. This is not about political cover, but how we can support stem cell research that is ethical and works, and promote research on pluripotent cells that do not destroy human embryos.

Let me remind my colleagues that way back on September 11, 2001, Dave Weldon and a group of us began working on the umbilical cord blood bill that was finally, several years later, signed into law by the President. That legislation, signed on December 20, 2005 provides $265 million over 5 years to create a new, aggressive, robust, cord blood and bone marrow transplantation program.

That is not cover. That is all about trying to find cures. We take a back seat to no one. We have all had sicknesses in our families, every one of us. We just believe that we need to promote research that is both ethical and not embryo destroying.

Let me also remind my colleagues, and this may come as a pleasant surprise, this year we will spend $609 million on stem cell research. Is that cover too? Of course not. We want to find cures. And we want to do it in an efficacious manner as well as an ethical manner. I support Roscoe Bartlett's legislation which he has brought to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, following the collapse of the Soviet Union when there were virtual open-air arms bazaars taking place across the territory of the former USSR, the United States Government purchased twenty-one fighter aircraft from the newly independent Republic of Moldova. The Moldovan official who negotiated this sale was then Defense Minister, Valeriu Pasat. This purchase was intended to keep these aircraft out of the hands of potentially hostile regimes.

Just last year, Mr. Pasat was charged with malfeasance in connection with this transaction that occurred nearly a decade ago. Allegedly, the planes were worth more than the Moldovan Government received for them in the deal approved by Chisinau. In January of this year, Mr. Pasat was convicted by a secret tribunal and received a 10-year labor camp sentence. His sentence is now awaiting appeal. Mr. Pasat maintains that the charges against him are political and linked to his work with those who oppose Moldova's current communist government. To further complicate matters, he is reportedly in poor health and is rumored to be suffering from hepatitis--a potentially life-threatening condition. Last month, a team of Ukrainian doctors was reportedly denied permission to examine him.

In response to the Pasat verdict, the U.S. Embassy in Chisinau issued a statement expressing disappointment and regret over the non- transparent manner in which his trial was conducted, as well as the judge's refusal to admit sworn statements from former U.S. officials directly involved in the matter. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the European Union recently passed a resolution calling upon the Moldovan authorities to ``ensure that the appeals process [in the Pasat case] will be allowed to proceed in a transparent fashion in accordance with international legal norms.'' While I make no presumption of Mr. Pasat's innocence or guilt, I share the concerns voiced by our Embassy and by the EU.

As Vice Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations and Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I am well aware of the difficulties Moldova has experienced on its path to democracy. I would also like to note the positive progress Moldova has made toward shedding its Soviet legacy and integration into the Euro-Atlantic community. This is why I am so troubled by the retrograde manner in which the Pasat trial has been conducted. It is critical that the Moldovan judicial system afford its citizens the basic legal protections common throughout the civilized world, such as due process, procedural transparency, and hearing the testimony of relevant witnesses. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it is especial and urgent that the Moldovan authorities take all the necessary steps to protect the life and health of Mr. Pasat or any other prisoner of the state.