Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, next week, Kassymzhomart Tokaev, the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan, will be visiting Washington. Given Kazakhstan's growing strategic and economic significance, his agenda with U.S. Government officials and Congress is likely to be broad-ranging. But a key focus of Minister Tokaev's discussions will certainly be Kazakhstan's bid to serve in 2009 as Chair-in-Office of the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Kazakhstan has been avidly pursuing this prestigious leadership post since 2003. The consensus decision must be made by this fall, in time for the December OSCE Ministerial Meeting.

While I support the idea of Central Asian leadership of the OSCE, my purpose today is to point out the very serious problems with Kazakhstan's candidacy. As many of my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission have concluded, awarding Kazakhstan the political leadership of OSCE in 2009 would be unwarranted and potentially dangerous for the Organization. President Nursultan Nazarbaev, in his opening statement at a recent OSCE meeting in Almaty, even admitted: ``We do not . . . have established democratic principles.'' Therefore, allowing Kazakhstan to assume the chairmanship by default is not acceptable. Kazakhstan's chairmanship bid must be deferred until the country substantially implements its OSCE commitments, especially those on human rights and democratization.

Defenders of Kazakhstan's candidacy have pointed to the country's economic reforms and relative freedom, compared to the rest of Central Asia. I concur that Kazakhstan is far ahead of the police states of Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. But that is no great achievement. Surpassing the worst of the worst does not confer an automatic right to hold the chairmanship of the OSCE which is dedicated to upholding human rights and promoting democracy.

It has long been the State Department's position ``that any Chair of the OSCE must be in substantial compliance with all OSCE commitments.'' Over several years now, high-level U.S. Government officials have provided Nazarbaev and other Kazakh officials clear, concrete indicators of the progress necessary before serious consideration could be given to U.S. support for Kazakhstan's Chair-in- Office bid.

Yet long-promised political reforms in Kazakhstan have not materialized and the human rights climate remains poor, as documented in the State Department's annual reports. Kazakhstan's oil riches, strategic location and cooperation with the United States in antiterrorism programs cannot conceal the fact that the country remains an authoritarian state. President Nazarbaev has manipulated constitutional referendums and falsified elections to stay in power, while his relatives and friends have gained monopoly positions in the most profitable sectors of the economy. Independent and opposition media have been consistently harassed and pressured, and opposition politicians have been excluded from elections, or worse.

Such was the state of affairs before last December's presidential election, which was widely seen as a ``make-or-break'' moment for Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, the government failed to uphold its international commitments before, during and following the election. Despite repeated pledges from Nazarbaev to hold a free and fair contest, the OSCE observation mission stated the election ``did not meet a number of OSCE commitments'' due to ``restrictions on campaigning, harassment of campaign staff and persistent and numerous cases of intimidation by the authorities'' which ``limited the possibility for a meaningful competition.''

The election was a serious blow to Kazakhstan's chances to chair the OSCE. The recent establishment of the State Commission on the Development and Realization of the Programme of Political Reforms comes after the major elections, too late to have any definitive liberalizing effects. In addition, a string of events has accentuated the disturbing gap between OSCE commitments and Kazakhstan's implementation.

Last November, opposition politician and former Mayor of Almaty Zamanbek Nurkadilov was found dead in his home. According to Kazakh authorities, he shot himself three times--twice in the chest and once in the head. The official version of his death is, kindly put, implausible in the extreme.

In February, opposition politician Altynbek Sarsenbaev, along with his driver and unarmed bodyguard, was shot in an apple orchard outside Almaty. The official investigation has placed the blame for this brazen crime on Erzhan Utembaev, head of the administration of the Senate, who allegedly engaged the services of some security officers.

It is fair to say that this explanation for Sarsenbaev's death has failed to satisfy many observers. What is indisputable, however, is that anyone involved in opposition politics in Kazakhstan risks, in the worst case scenario, not merely electoral defeat but murder.

Furthermore, Kazakh officials have backed Russian plans to eviscerate the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which, among other important democracy promoting activities, undertakes the OSCE's election observation missions. This would pose a grave threat to the OSCE as an institution and as the most credible election monitoring organization in the world.

Recent statements and actions by local Kazakh authorities against a Hare Krishna community outside of Almaty and actions to penalize minority religious communities for unregistered religious practice run counter to OSCE norms and Kazakhstan's stated commitment to inter- religious tolerance.

On March 20, President Nazarbaev praised Uzbek President Islam Karimov's handling of unrest in Andijon in May 2005. Praise for the Andijon massacre that left hundreds dead in Uzbekistan--and which moved the OSCE, the U.S. Government and international organizations to call for an independent, impartial investigation--are hardly the ``reforms'' one expects of a country that hopes to chair the OSCE. The forced repatriation of Uzbek refugees to Uzbekistan was equally alarming.

Just today, Kazakhstan's upper house passed a highly restrictive media law that has been criticized by the OSCE's Representative

on the Media and the U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan. It is hoped that President Nazarbaev will not sign this problematic bill into law.

Mr. Speaker, in light of these circumstances, Kazakhstan's bid to chair the OSCE in 2009 cannot be supported. I strongly believe that backing Kazakhstan's candidacy would cause more difficulties than will result from Astana's disappointment over not winning this prize.

None of this means that we should not strive to develop the best possible relations with Kazakhstan, on a mutually beneficial basis. There are many areas of current and potential cooperation between our countries, including Kazakhstan's entry into the WTO, energy, military security and anti-terrorism. Nor does my inability to support Kazakhstan's candidacy for the OSCE Chairmanship in 2009 mean that I do not hope to be able to back a future bid. Nothing would please me more than to report to this Chamber that Kazakhstan has met its commitments on democratization and human rights and richly deserves to lead the OSCE. A Kazakh chairmanship would also move the Organization eastward in the symbolic sense, bridging what has become an uncomfortable gap between the former Soviet republics and Europe.

But that moment has not yet come, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage the Kazakh leaders to avail themselves of the opportunity of additional time to constructively engage the OSCE. Working to ensure that the Organization succeeds would aid Kazakhstan's bid for a future chairmanship, while expressing sour grapes over a denial can only add to the impression that Kazakhstan is not ready for a leadership role.

The OSCE Chairmanship represents acknowledgement of progress already made, not a stimulus to future, unproven progress. Urging the Kazakhs to defer their bid would leave the door open for Astana, should demonstrable reforms on human rights and democratization be forthcoming. That progress was promised by President Nazarbaev, when he signed the Helsinki Accords as his country joined the OSCE in 1992.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I chaired a hearing to examine the important issue of the availability of safe blood

within the medical systems of sub-Saharan Africa.

My extensive travels to Africa have included visits to HIV/AIDS clinics and other health care facilities, and I have long been concerned about global health issues including HIV/AIDS, malaria, and maternal health. It is disturbing, to say the least, to visit district hospitals in remote areas of Africa that have only one or two pints of blood in their refrigerator and to see rooms filled with expectant mothers and emaciated children experiencing an emergency.

One also has to experience a long drive on the narrow sub-Saharan two-lane highways to appreciate the significant danger of serious road accidents and the resulting need for blood to save the injured. One dodges past overloaded trucks broken down in the middle of the road and passes within feet of adults and children walking on the road's edge, intermingled with goats and other livestock. The increased dangers and health crises in Africa call for increased means to address them, including adequate and safe supplies of blood.

A medical benefit related to safe blood that I have long promoted is umbilical cord-blood stem cells. On December 20, 2005, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which I sponsored, was signed into law. This law provides $265 million for life saving stem cell therapy, cord blood and bone marrow transplant. Today, in America, umbilical cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells are curing people of a myriad of terrible conditions and diseases.

One of my greatest hopes is that these current-day miracles will become common medical practice and available to tens of thousands of I patients, including one day to the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. This hope is inspired by people who have overcome incredible odds thanks to cord blood stem cells transplants, like Keone Penn who was born with severe sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia afflicts more than 70,000 Americans and a disproportionate number of African-Americans. It is also a serious problem in Africa. According to a WHO report on sickle cell anemia, over 200,000 infants are born each year with sickle cell disease in Africa.

After years of suffering, when no other treatments worked, Keone's doctors decided as a measure of last resort to perform a transplant with cord blood from an unrelated donor. This was the first time such a transplant had been tried for sickle cell disease, and it proved successful. One year after the transplant, Keone's doctors pronounced him cured.

Cord blood stem cells hold enormous promise, and have already been used to treat thousands of patients of more than 67 diseases. This potential should not be limited to the developed world, but should also be explored for the benefit of the peoples in Africa and around the world.

My good friend and colleague Congressman Chakah Fattah knows of my interest in health issues in Africa, and shares my related interest in cord blood stem cell research and medical treatments. Therefore, I was happy to take up his suggestion that the Sub-committee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations conduct a hearing on the availability of safe blood transfusions in Africa.

In its recent report for FY 2007, the House Appropriations Committee expressed its continued concern about the existence of unsafe blood as a source of HIV infection in the developing world. The report notes that contaminated blood is of particular concern for women who require a blood transfusion to address complications from pregnancy and childbirth and for children whose lives are threatened by anemia.

Based on these concerns, the Committee requested that the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, together with the Agency for International Development, the Department of Health and Human Services and other relevant parties, develop a comprehensive multi-year strategy for the PEPFAR focus countries. The strategy should aim at achieving a sufficient supply of blood for each country's needs, the recruitment of voluntary, non-remunerated blood donors, universal testing of donated blood for infectious diseases, and the reduction of unnecessary transfusions. A separate strategy is requested for non-focus countries that would provide for the standardized operation and control of blood collection, adequate training, documentation and assessment measures.

The hearing provided the opportunity to examine the extent of the current need in sub-Saharan Africa for an adequate and safe supply of blood. We heard from our distinguished witnesses about the challenges as well as the opportunities that this region faces in providing this essential medical service. We also learned about what we need to do to overcome the difficulties and the best means to accomplish our common goal: a safe and adequate supply of blood to meet the needs of the people of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, President Bush traveled to Hungary to participate in events marking the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Uprising. I commend the President for making this trip and for recognizing the sacrifices made on the streets of Budapest in the name of liberty and justice.

Fifty years ago, at the height of the Cold War, Central Europe, was a prisoner, and Moscow was its jailer. Confronted with overwhelming Soviet domination, the Hungarian response was to reaffirm the core values of democracy: individual freedom and national independence.

On October 23, 1956, these two powerful forces--tyrannica1 communism and the principles of democracy--met and clashed in the middle of Europe. Within the Soviet Empire, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution presented an alternative to a deceptively dangerous idea, the idea that the best solution to a war-ravaged world is to eliminate political, cultural, religious, economic and national differences by imposing a single, universal ``truth.'' This idea represented the incontestable dogma of communism.

At the heart of the clash was Imre Nagy who assumed the post of Prime Minister even announced Hungary's intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact. But, when the Soviet Union crushed Hungary's bid for freedom during those day in October, Imre Nagy and his colleagues were arrested, convicted in secret trials, and eventually executed as ``traitors'' on June 16, 1958. To prevent the inevitable expressions of support for Nagy and what he stood for, he and the others executed with him were buried by the Moscow-backed regime in Budapest in unmarked graves.

The significance of his and countless other Hungarians' sacrifice is etched onto the political map of the 21st century and echoed in the recent developments throughout the world. As President Bush observed, ``The lesson of the Hungarian experience is clear: liberty can be delayed, but it cannot be denied.'' That is the real moral of the events of 1956 and the subsequent human sacrifices of Imre Nagy and his fellow freedom fighters.

As we remember and mourn those who gave their lives defending freedom those fifty years ago, I would like especially to remember the towering courage of a reluctant hero and a great Hungarian patriot, Imre Nagy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming majority of U.S. forces have performed their mission in an exemplary, professional fashion and deserve both our praise and profound thanks.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Iraq remains a dangerous place today because hate-filled fanatic, perhaps even psychotic, mass murderers bomb and shoot innocent men, women, and children. The terrorists have a morbid fascination with all things violent. There is nothing whatsoever benign or noble or praiseworthy about these people. They are mass murderers.

If left unchecked, the terrorists would impose dictatorship once again on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would result in more mass killings, systematic torture, rampant fear, political prisoners, and an end to freedom and liberty.

While I respect the right of those who criticize our Iraq policy and our solidarity with the Iraqi people, I do remain deeply disappointed that those who protest U.S. policy outside of this Chamber seldom, if ever, criticize the terrorists. No harsh, mocking words of condemnation of George W. Bush is left unspoken. You hear it on TV, talk shows, and at war protests; but no such righteous anger is directed at the mass murderers who blow up our soldiers or incinerate pious worshippers in prayer or kidnap, torture and kill humanitarian workers.

American coalition soldiers in Iraq are peacemakers who have the toughest job in the world. They are peacemakers who put their own lives at risk to create sufficient space and order so that democracy and respect for human rights can grow and peace can be established.

I want our soldiers to come home and to come home soon, but that fervent hope must be tempered with reality on the ground and what our commanders on the ground think best. To leave prematurely or pursuant to an arbitrarily arrived at deadline established by Members of Congress may unwittingly put more lives at risk and strengthen the fanaticism and hope of the terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 861.

The Hyde resolution honors--and profoundly thanks--all those American, Iraqi, Afghan, and coalition forces who have so courageously fought the war on terror, especially those who have lost their lives in the defense of freedom.

Our war dead--and wounded--define anew what it means to be brave and honorable and good.

And our condolences and prayers go to the families of the fallen.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. forces have performed their missions in an exemplary, professional fashion--and deserve both our praise and profound thanks.

We all know that Iraq remains a dangerous place today because hate- filled, fanatic--perhaps even psychotic--mass murderers bomb and shoot innocent men, women, and children. In the past their thugs were in the government suites and Hussein's opulent palaces--now some remain in the streets--hopefully not for long.

The terrorists have a morbid fascination with all things violent. There is nothing whatsoever benign or noble or praiseworthy about these people.

They are mass murderers.

If left unchecked, the terrorists would impose dictatorship once again on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would result in more mass killing, systematic torture, rampant fear, political prisoners and an end to freedom and liberty.

While I respect the right of those who criticize American policy and our solidarity with the Iraqi people, I remain deeply disappointed that many of those who protest U.S. policy outside of this chamber seldom-- if ever--criticize the terrorists.

No harsh, mocking thoughts of condemnation of President George W. Bush are left unspoken. You hear it on TV and radio talk shows and at war protests, but no such angst is directed at the mass murderers who blow up our soldiers or incinerate pious worshipers at prayer in Mosques or who kidnap, torture, and kill humanitarian workers trying to save and enhance the lives of the vulnerable.

American and coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are peacemakers and they have the toughest assignment in the world. They are peacemakers who put their own lives at risk to create sufficient space and order so that democracy, respect for human rights, and peace can be established and grow.

I want our soldiers to come home--and soon.

But that fervent hope must be tempered with realities on the ground. What do our military commanders on the ground think? To leave prematurely or pursuant to an arbitrarily arrived at deadline established by members of Congress may unwittingly put more lives at risk and strengthen the fanaticism and hopes of the terrorists.

Still, public debate on exit strategy is important--even necessary-- because it puts pressure on us all to figure out how to prudently accomplish redeployment and it puts constructive pressure on Iraqi leaders to move more quickly to take ownership of their own security.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 794) recognizing the 17th anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that every one of us remembers the events that occurred in Tiananmen Square on June 3 and June 4, 1989. We may be hazy on the dates, but the images are as fresh today as they were then. We all remember the Chinese version of the Statue of Liberty being erected by thousands of peaceful, well-behaved demonstrators, mostly students.

We remember peaceful protests in Beijing and throughout China calling for the establishment of a dialogue with the government and party leaders on democratic reforms, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and respect for workers' rights and the elimination of corruption by government officials.

All over the Communist world, from Berlin to Beijing, there was a tremendous outpouring of hope that year, hope that freedom and democracy would soon triumph. Exhausted, obsolete, and morally bankrupt Communist regimes were turning on the people in the last desperate effort to retain their control and the enormous privileges such control gave them and to the party elites.

Later that year, the Berlin Wall, symbol of the physical, mental, and moral prisons that held over a billion people in chains, fell. We all remember the incredible joy felt throughout the world when this happened.

Also burned for all time in our memory is the image of the lone protestor on Tiananmen Square who held up the tanks sent to crush the demonstrators. Yet we also remember that the police grabbed that heroic figure and swept him away, like so many others, to an unknown fate. Those tanks, under orders of the Communist government of China, then crushed under their treads the movement for democracy in China. The Communist government killed, tortured and imprisoned thousands for daring to question its illegal monopoly on power. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, are still imprisoned and persecuted for exercising the rights guaranteed to them by their Constitution and the rules of all civilized societies. While millions in Europe now enjoy freedom, that right is still denied to Chinese people.

Right after Tiananmen Square, Mr. Speaker, Frank Wolf and I went to Beijing and visited Beijing Prison No. 1, a prison where some 40 Tiananmen Square prisoners were being held. They were like modern-day Nazi concentration camps, and these victims with their heads shaved were asking peacefully that the government allow some basic liberties that we all take for granted in the U.S. and in many other nations of the world. They were hunted down, tortured and jailed.

China declared war not only on the protestors but on history itself. The Communist government undertakes active measures to deny its citizens the truth even today about what happened

in Tiananmen Square. In December of 1996, Mr. Speaker, here in Washington at the invitation of President Bill Clinton, General Chi Haotian, the defense minister of the People's Republic of China, the general who was the operational commander of the soldiers who slaughtered pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Tiananmen Square in June 1989, said, ``Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.'' According to General Chi, the Chinese Army did nothing more violent than the ``pushing of people.''

To counter that big lie, I quickly put together and chaired a hearing of eyewitnesses to Tiananmen who definitively refuted General Chi's brazen lies, but then again, what did he care? General Chi got the red carpet treatment at the Clinton White House and full military honors. I believe he should have been charged with crimes against humanity.

Most Chinese today, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately have no accurate knowledge of what happened in Tiananmen Square. China blocks even today uncensored Internet sites and Web logs and places misleading information on Internet sites available in China, often with the collusion and cooperation of U.S. Internet companies such as Yahoo and Google. As part and parcel of its Tiananmen Square cover-up, the Communist government sentenced journalist Shi Tao to 10 years in prison, using information provided by Yahoo, for using his Yahoo e-mail account to send foreigners a copy of a Chinese Government memo warning of possible trouble during the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

We all know that torture does not stop with those who demand political freedoms. It is appropriate on this occasion to remember and seek freedom for all prisoners of conscience, all believers, democrats, and human rights activists who will one day triumph in China, but who now suffer grievously. There is ongoing aggressive repression of those who want to practice their faith as they see fit.

Matter of fact, it has gotten worse in the last few years. Falun Gong practitioners, for example, are routinely rounded up and beaten and abused, and hundreds have been tortured to death while held in captivity. Catholics loyal to the Pope and members of the Protestant house church movements are harassed, tortured and imprisoned. The Communist government of China subjects Buddhist Tibetans and Muslim Uighurs to cultural and physical genocide.

China also makes brothers and sisters illegal. China's coercive one- child-per-couple policy not only subjects millions of women to forced abortions and sterilizations; it has encouraged a massive increase in sex-selective abortions and female infanticide. The result is up to 100 million missing girls or women and one of the worst human trafficking problems now in the world. Matter of fact, it has been said by one China demographer that by the year 2020 as many as 40 million men will be looking for wives in China and will not be able to find them as a direct result of the one-child-per-couple policy.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Mao Hengfeng, a long-time activist to end this evil policy, was rearrested just a few days ago as part of a new crackdown on pro-democracy protests related to the Tiananmen Square anniversary. The Chinese Communists know, even if many Westerners still do not understand it, that democracy and the right to life are intrinsically connected. I held a hearing a year and a half ago on Mrs. Mao, and I continue to admire her incredible courage. Today, I pray for her and her family and will work again for her early release.

Two other prisoners, Madam Speaker, especially Dr. Yang Jianli and Dr. Wang Bingzhang, deserve special recognition as well today. They are both American permanent residents. Their families are U.S. citizens, and they have for many years peacefully worked for freedom and democracy in the People's Republic of China. In a country with thousands of prisoners, their cases are particularly egregious examples of China's human rights violations. This bill calls for their immediate release, as well as the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience.

Madam Speaker, we cannot forget these people. Had the hopes of the Tiananmen Square been realized, we would not need to pass such a resolution as we do today. The more than 25 hearings that I have held on this subject would not have been needed and many resolutions, including two more that will follow this one to make a record three resolutions on China's egregious human rights abuse being considered on the House floor today.

Alas, all of this is necessary until China agrees to observe the fundamental human rights that belong to all people and are recognized as such under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. We must not collaborate with the Chinese Communists to erase history. We must honor the memory of those who protested and did so so valiantly.

This amendment in the nature of a substitute that we offer today has been updated to more tightly focus on the denial of fundamental human rights in China symbolized by the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance our time.

Madam 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 now under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 804) condemning the unauthorized, inappropriate, and coerced ordination of Catholic bishops by the People's Republic of China, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chief sponsor of this resolution, Mr. English of Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, as Mr. Lantos said, for authoring this very important resolution, but also for his very eloquent statement moments ago regarding the historical context of this resolution and the ongoing issue of religious persecution in China, meaning the lack of freedom there. I appreciate his focus on the Uniform Declaration of Human Rights which so clearly establishes the right of conscience and the right of all persons to practice their faith as they see fit.

As he so aptly pointed out, the Chinese have freely acceded to the Uniform Declaration, and to so many other human rights accords that have been promulgated by the U.N. Sometimes for international consumption and for PR purposes, and regrettably they do not live up to either the letter or the spirit of these agreements to which they have given their solemn word.

Madam Speaker, this resolution which condemns the People's Republic of China for its continued interference into the international efforts of the Catholic Church and its persecution of Catholics loyal to the Vatican is certainly a very timely resolution.

The state-controlled Catholic Church in China, which does not represent the majority of Chinese Catholics, continues to ignore the Vatican's wishes by consecrating new bishops without the consent of the Pope. In April and May of this year, the Chinese Government-sanctioned Catholic Patriotic Association of China conducted two unauthorized ordinations of priests to the office of bishop, and the unauthorized installation of another bishop, despite requests from the Vatican to delay these actions.

According to the Vatican, bishops and priests in China are subject to strong pressures and threats to take part in ordinations which have not been approved of by the Pope and are contrary to their faith. While I am saddened by these reports, I am not surprised. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reports that the China Government continues to systematically violate the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief and the testimonies of so many persecuted individuals. For example, Bishop Su of Baoding Province, is a gentle and kind man who I met in the 1990s. I point out to my colleagues that soon after our visit, he was rearrested on false charges, released and rearrested again. He spent 30 years of his life, this brave Catholic bishop, for loving God. Even today, we do not know about his whereabouts, although there have been sightings from time to time.

As my colleague pointed out, in defiance of the U.N. article 18 of the Uniform Declaration of Human Rights, the PRC continues to restrict religious activities to those not associated with the five officially sanctioned religious organizations. Men and women that attempt to practice their faith outside of

these five approved religions, such as the more than 10 million Roman Catholics, face harassment, imprisonment, torture and death.

We have no wish to sanction the worshipers in the Catholic Patriotic Association in China; rather, we wish to offer our support to the Catholic population of China that is persecuted by its government for their faith. We condemn the Chinese Government's persecution of the Catholics and its refusal to permit a Vatican-sponsored Catholic church to operate legally in China. This is a great resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 608) condemning the escalating levels of religious persecution in the People's Republic of China, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 608 condemning the escalating levels of religious persecution in the People's Republic of China, and I thank my colleague from Michigan, Mr. McCotter, for authoring this important legislation. I am very proud, along with many of my colleagues, to be a cosponsor of the resolution.

Despite China's repression of religion as arguably among the most despotic in the world, despite China's entrance in the world economy, its government refuses to grant its citizens universally recognized rights to freedom of religion and thought.

The People's Republic of China permits religious practice only for government-sanctioned organizations and registered locations of worship. Those who practice other faiths as their consciences demand risk disappearing into one of hundreds of Laogai, the forced education through labor system established by Mao Tse-tung decades ago.

Not only is religious persecution of numerous groups and movements ongoing, but it is actually worsening. In February, the BBC reported that China had warned Hong Kong's newly appointed cardinal, Joseph Zen, a well-known critic of China's suppression of religious freedoms, to remain quiet on political issues.

I have personally known some of the remarkable people that the Chinese Government targets for persecution. In the early 1990s, and I mentioned this earlier when we considered Mr. English's resolution, I met with Bishop Su of Baoding Province, a man who celebrated mass for our small delegation. I was amazed by his lack of animosity, by his lack of anything that even comes close to hate. He actually loved those who persecuted him and said he spent a considerable amount of time praying for his persecutors. He has now spent some 30 years of his life in prison and has suffered time and time again the ravages of torture by his persecutors. What kind of barbaric regime hurts a man like this?

Last summer, our Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations heard compelling testimony from Mr. Chen Yonglin, formerly a diplomat for the Chinese Government who said, ``According to my knowledge, the persecution of the Falun Gong by the Chinese Government is a systematic campaign.''

To my horror, we have heard reports of the Chinese government targeting the Falun Gong for organ harvesting. According to the State Department's 2005 International Religious Freedom Report, the China Government's respect for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience remains poor, especially for many unregistered religious groups and spiritual movements.

Members of unregistered groups, including Protestants and Catholics, are subject to restrictions including intimidation, harassment, detention, arrest, and add to that torture.

Those who perhaps read the scathing report that was written by the rapporteur for the United Nations on torture that was released last December cannot help but be repelled by the ongoing systematic use of torture against those who are trying to promote either worker's rights, basic fundamental human rights, but especially those who espouse religious freedom and religious liberty.

Given all of these disturbing facts, Madam Speaker, Mr. McCotter's resolution condemning the government of China's systematic persecution of religious freedom is both appropriate and timely.

Let me also say, Madam Speaker, and I do hope the press takes some notice, today we are considering an unprecedented three resolutions on China. Each and every one of these is bipartisan. Mr. Lantos, as Mr. Wolf said a moment ago, has been a great champion of human rights all over the world, including in China, has joined with Henry Hyde, the chairman of the committee, and myself, along with Mr. Wolf and Mr. English. This is bipartisan. We talk a lot about bipartisanship or lack of it in recent weeks and months in this Chamber, but when it comes to human rights, especially as it relates to China, we are together.

Now that we know what the problem is, we need to speak more about solutions. Hopefully as we move forward in this congressional session, we will talk more about what we need to be doing to try to get this government to roll back its repression.

President Hu's visit was an opportunity. I would respectfully submit that it was a missed opportunity to raise these issues in a powerful way. He went back home to China thinking he had won over the American people. He has not. His record is deplorable, especially as it relates to religious persecution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for the State Department, Frank Wolf of Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Wolf for his very powerful statement, as well as Mr. Lantos, on this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 338) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the activities of Islamist terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere.

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

I rise in strong support of this House concurrent resolution regarding the activities of Islamic terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere. This is a Ros-Lehtinen/Lantos/Burton/Engel resolution. It pulls together the oversight and investigative efforts of two regional subcommittees of the House International Relations Committee. This resolution also builds upon measures previously adopted by the House related to the Jewish Community Center bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

In addition to outlining the emerging threat of Islamic terrorist organizations in our hemisphere, H. Con. Res. 338:

One, calls on all governments to intensify their efforts against terrorists and their financiers;

Second, calls for establishment of a special task force of the Inter- American Committee Against Terrorism to assist governments in the hemisphere in combating the proliferation of Islamist terrorist organizations from a national and regional perspective; and,

Third, urges the OAS member countries to designate Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda and its constituent elements and other such groups as terrorist organizations if they have not already done so.

In recent years, there has been increasing numbers of reports of a growing presence of Islamic terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere. Areas of concern include fundraising and remittance to terrorist cells in Arab countries, material support for terrorist organizations, recruitment of terrorist black market activity and involvement in global narcotrafficking. There has also been an increase in anti-Semitism, not unlike what we have seen in Europe and in the Middle East.

H. Con. Res. 338 recognizes the presence of Islamic terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere. It details terrorist activities that have taken place, and the presence of terrorists in many Western Hemisphere countries, including but not limited to the United States, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Panama.

Madam Speaker, there is a large Arab community of roughly 30,000, primarily Lebanese and Syrian immigrants, involved in business enterprises in the tri-border area, both illegal and legal. Hezbollah and Hamas have a history of using the tri-border area, TBA, for fundraising and other support. Although the area has been monitored for some time, in 1992 and 1994, bombings in Buenos Aires caused increased scrutiny there.

Madam Speaker, the area has been, and remains, a haven for illicit activities by organized crime and most likely by terrorist groups. These groups use the TBA for smuggling, money laundering, product privacy and drug and arms trafficking. Numerous organized crime groups, including the Lebanese and Chinese mafias, are known to use the area for illicit activities.

The level of financial transactions, Madam Speaker, is staggering. The Paraguayan city of Ciudad del Este generated $12 to $13 billion in cash transactions annually as of 2001, making it the third largest money handler worldwide behind Hong Kong and Miami.

Corruption and weak governance, fragile democratic institutions and weak law enforcement and adherence to the rule in parts of Latin America presents opportunities for terrorists to exploit. There is evidence that terrorists are tapping into drug, arms and human trafficking networks. We need to enhance regional engagement and cooperation, strengthen monitoring efforts, and fight criminal activities. This resolution casts much needed attention on a growing threat in our hemisphere and calls for vigilance among the community of nations which is collectively threatened. Islamic terrorist organizations are skilled at exploiting these weaknesses around the globe and here in our own hemisphere as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 338.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 408) commending the Government of Canada for its renewed commitment to the Global War on Terror, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution properly recognizes the government of Canada for its commitment to the global war on terror.

As you know, Madam Speaker, we have forged strong relations with our neighbor to the north, and we are united by common ideals and shared interests. Relations between the U.S. and Canada are strong, and our cooperation in the global war on terrorism is productive and robust.

The arrest of 17 alleged homegrown Islamic jihadists in Canada last week was a vivid reminder that we are in this war together. Canadian prosecutors claim the men plotted to storm the Canadian Parliament building in Ottawa, take hostages, and behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper if the Canadian Government refused to withdraw its 2,300 troops now stationed in Afghanistan. The group also considered bombing a nuclear power plant, the Toronto Stock Exchange, and other targets in Toronto or Ottawa. I praise Canadian law enforcement and their security forces for their excellent work in closing down that terror cell.

Last month, Madam Speaker, the Canadian Parliament voted to extend Canada's peace and security mission in Afghanistan for another 2 years, until 2009. Canada is a steadfast partner in the global war on terror. Canada has roughly 2,300 defense personnel in Afghanistan and is leading the efforts against a resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda force in southern Afghanistan and is working to combat narcotics trafficking there.

Canada has also pledged $650 million in developmental aid to Afghanistan; and Afghanistan, as it turns out, is Canada's largest recipient of bilateral development aid.

Madam Speaker, it is worth remembering that 24 Canadian citizens were killed as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Seventeen Canadian military personnel have been killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan. Last month Canadian Captain Nichola Goddard was killed in the line of duty in Kandahar, Afghanistan. This is the ultimate sacrifice, and we certainly mourn her loss and the sacrifices made by her fellow soldiers.

We appreciate in America the role Canada plays in hemispheric and global peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Afghanistan, in Haiti, in Darfur, and in other conflict areas.

Madam Speaker, President Bush met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada and President Vicente Fox of Mexico 2 months ago to move ahead with new initiatives to promote competitiveness and security. The Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, for North America is a bold set of activities to strengthen our borders, promote free and secure commerce and air transportation, and to harmonize the regulatory process.

Canada is taking actions on flashpoints around the world. After Hamas' election victory and refusal to repudiate violence, Canada was the first nation in the world to cut off contacts and suspend assistance to the Palestinian Authority, while preserving humanitarian support for the Palestinian people. Canada listed in like manner the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or the LTTE, as a terrorist group under their criminal code, impeding terrorist financing of the LTTE and other forms of support.

Prime Minister Harper intervened personally with Afghan President Karzai to insist that the religious and civil rights of a Christian convert, Abdul Rahman, be fully protected and to convey Canada's concern that his treatment not undermine Afghanistan's international rehabilitation. At the U.N., Canada is, and hopefully will always be, a steadfast supporter for Israel.

In sum, though we may not always be in lock-step in our policies and our approach, Canada remains a steadfast ally on the war on terrorism and a promoter of democracy and freedom throughout the world.

I urge support for the concurrent resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I do want to thank Chairman Burton for sponsoring this very important resolution. We often forget just how important our friend is to the north. Canada is a reliable ally, a good friend in thick and thin; so, again, I want to thank Chairman Burton for sponsoring this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 408.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 792) recognizing the 40th anniversary of the independence of Guyana and extending best wishes to Guyana for peace and further progress, development, and prosperity.

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

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 792. The resolution, offered by my good friend from New York, Mr. Meeks, congratulates the Co-operative Republic of Guyana for reaching its 40th anniversary as an independent nation.

H. Res. 792 is a timely and appropriate measure to let our friends in Guyana know that we support them as they pursue a strong and sustainable democracy. The resolution recognizes the 40th anniversary of Guyana's independence and extends best wishes to that nation for peace and further progress, development, and prosperity.

Guyana has been a real friend, Madam Speaker, to the U.S. and an ally in the fight against terror. The friendship between our two nations has been strengthened by large numbers of folks who have migrated to the United States. Here the Guyanese diaspora makes significant contributions to both the U.S. and Guyana. Guyana Americans are law- abiding people who contribute to American society as good citizens while respecting the values of our society.

Guyana joins the United States in promoting political and economic freedoms; combating poverty, crime, disease, and drugs; and promoting security, regional stability, and prosperity.

The government of Guyana is, as we speak, placing emphasis on every sector of society to ensure improved efficiency, competitiveness, and sustainable development. These policies will therefore focus on strategies for development which expand and promote employment opportunities, increase foreign exchange earnings and private investment into the nation.

Guyana is an integral member of the Caribbean region and constructive partner of the United States in fulfilling the agenda of the Western Hemisphere, that is, promoting peace, security, democracy, and development throughout the hemisphere.

I urge all of our Members to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam 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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from Florida yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I appreciate the gentlewoman's willingness to withdraw this amendment.

I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have worked for years going back to the creation of the International Fund for Ireland in the 1980s on providing funding and direction for the IFI. I have visited its projects and witnessed the cross community cooperation. As a direct result of the IFI and U.S. support for the fund, we have seen tremendous job creation. I would agree, in the Republic of Ireland there has been a significant growth, economic recovery, particularly in the Dublin area, not necessarily in western Ireland, but certainly in the Dublin area.

But in Northern Ireland, in Belfast, and in the counties in the north, there remains serious problems, problems that fuel social unrest. One of the things that I find so encouraging is that, we have worked well with the leaders of the IFI. They are on a glide path to ending foreign support for this program. But they are doing so in a way that encourages police corporation and sustains good programs. They did it frankly directly at our request.

The remaining problem is that the Catholics and the Protestants still haven't collaborated enough where prejudices have broken down. There are 5,700 projects that have been funded under the IFI, and I am glad the gentlewoman is withdrawing her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) and I am pleased that the gentlelady from Florida has withdrawn the amendment to eliminate it's funding.

The International Fund for Ireland is widely recognized for creating comprehensive programs that have helped promote peace and reconciliation in the north of Ireland and the border counties in the Republic of Ireland.

Twenty years ago the U.S. Congress, with overwhelming bi-partisan support, passed the Anglo-Irish Support Act of 1986. This landmark legislation created the means for the U.S. to contribute to the IFI--a Fund established by the Irish and British governments to promote economic development and peace in Northern Ireland. The Fund receives support from the United States, EU, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. it's been a most effective way for the international community to help end the terrible war raging in Northern Ireland.

Four U.S. Presidents and 10 Congresses have endorsed the efforts of the IFI. At the joint hearing I held this March--the eleventh I have convened on the peace process in Northern Ireland--U.S. Special Envoy for Northern Ireland Ambassador Mitchell Reiss strongly praised the outstanding work being done by the IFI, and urged continued support for it.

Since the inception of the IFI, the United States has contributed nearly $460 million and the results have been remarkable. As of 2004, the IFI has created nearly 38,000 direct jobs, and 18,000 indirect ones. In the 1990s Northern Ireland's GDP increased 53 percent, employment increased 17 percent and unemployment fell by 40 percent. Eighty percent of these investments have been in disadvantaged areas. The IFI has contributed to over 5,700 projects in Northern Ireland and the bordering counties of the Republic of Ireland and has provided 17,000 young people from cross-community areas with jobs. This is a tangible success in our struggle to end the conditions of despair and hopelessness which are the breeding grounds for terrorism.

Earlier in this Congress, and also in the 108th Congress, the House passed my legislation (H.R. 2601 and H.R. 1208 respectively) reauthorizing the program at more than $20 million and urging the Fund to shift its focus from primarily economic programs to those that have a greater emphasis on peace and reconciliation.

I am pleased to say, the Fund has responded. This year they released a Strategic Framework of Action 2006-2010 which strongly emphasizes cross community and reconciliation programs. The strategic plan also puts in place an exit strategy in which the Fund will wind down its reliance on international support. With this strategic plan in place, we cannot falter on our commitment. We are near to lasting peace in Ireland, but this is no time to falter in our efforts or rest on our laurels.

Much remains to be done as Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahem has said, ``The next five years will be vital to ensure a lasting legacy for the Fund and for 25 years of international engagement with the peace process. . . . Once again the United States has demonstrated the importance of its relationship with Ireland and of our efforts to bring the peace process to a conclusion.'' Among the most important work it is doing now, in response to urgent requests from this Congress, are programs that enhance relations between the police and the communities they serve and promote human rights training for police. Without our continued funding, it will be near impossible for the IFI to do this vital work for lasting peace and finish the work it has begun.

As IFI Chairman Rooney has stated, ``(The Appropriation Committee's) recommendation is a real vote of confidence in the young people and communities which benefit from the programs of the IFI. These programs address the root causes of conflict in our society: economic and social disadvantage, sectarianism and marginalisation. With a contribution of this level (i.e., $10.8 million) we can continue to target the areas of greatest need and ensure the goals we set ourselves. . . . The goodwill and support of the American people will be critical to our efforts. I would like to thank the many friends of Ireland in Congress for their continued generosity.''

Now is not the time for the United States to pull the plug on our support for this successful peace and reconciliation program; such a move would have a dramatic impact on programs that emphasize reconciliation among school children and young adults. The IFI has developed its own exist strategy enabling a thoughtful transition to self-reliant cross-community and social advancement. It is a good strategy and one that deserves our support until the end.