Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me time and thank him for the job he has done on this very important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this morning I had the privilege of joining First Lady Laura Bush, Ambassador Tobias, Dr. Kent Hill at an event announcing Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Senegal as the newest countries to be added to the President's Malaria Initiative, $1.2 billion over its 5- year program. Mrs. Bush also announced Admiral R. Timothy Ziemer as the new U.S. Malaria Coordinator.

I think Members should be aware if they are not already that every 30 seconds an African child dies of malaria moreover about 1.2 million people die each year, mostly in Africa, from this preventable disease.

The President's Malaria Initiatives (PMI) goal is to cut malaria deaths by 50 percent in 15 African countries and hopefully to also mitigate morbidity. The plan includes disseminating insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, life-saving drugs called ACTs, and treatment for pregnant women known as intermittent preventive treatment or IPT.

The money in this bill will advance this initiative and will now include four new countries. Let me also thank the chairman and the committee for modestly upping the amount of money to try to effectuate cures for those women suffering obstetric fistula.

The amount has now risen to $7.5 million. My hope is, and perhaps in conference, we can bump that up even further to $10 million. Two million women suffer from this debilitating condition, the result of which is incontinence. I have visited hospitals in Africa, and seen that for a mere $150 a woman's life can be given back to her through a surgical repair.

Obviously, there is also prevention, but there are these 2 million women who have a fistula today, and it seems to me we need to do even more to try to end their misery.

Having met with many of these women, to see the smiles on their faces, having gotten their lives back, going back to their villages knowing that they will no longer be ostracized because incontinence obviously is not just a health hazard and leads to sickness, it results in very serious odor as well.

Let me remind my colleagues that anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 new cases occur every year, and certainly if we were to increase our effort on obstetrical services, especially midwives in Africa, such an effort would go a long way to preventing this condition when an obstructed delivery or some kind of sexual trauma causes obstetric fistula.

I would hope the chairman would try to increase that number even further, and I thank him for what he has done.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-Hyde-Lantos amendment because the lifesaving interventions that would be effectuated by the amendment to enhance by $50 million money for PEPFAR and another $50 million to meet the needs for refugees and IDPs in Darfur are compelling.

The money diverted from Egypt, I want to make very clear, will be very well used. I have actually visited camps in Darfur, Mr. Chairman, and they are underfunded. Despite our best efforts and many of the efforts of the international community, people do need more, food, medicines, as well as the shelter and security that ensures that the food and medicines can go to the people.

Let me also point out that the PEPFAR program did not receive in this bill the amount of money that the President had asked for. Some of that money was put into the Global Fund. And I think it is unfortunate that PEPFAR, that has worked so well and is still growing in its capabilities as well as its impact, should be funded at least at the level the President has asked for. This gets us closer to that number.

I recently visited a number of the programs that are funded by PEPFAR in Uganda and saw firsthand how there is behavioral change that is occurring as part of the abstinence, be faithful approach. But especially for those under the age of 30, there is a profound change. The infection rate is dropping dramatically, and has been for a few years now in places like Uganda.

We went out into the bush and into areas where U.S. funded teams are going out two by two to bring the message of health, including testing as well as what needs to be done if one is found to be infected by HIV/ AIDS. We also saw that the PEPFAR monies were being used very efficaciously using faith-based initiatives and others to get the antiretroviral drugs to those infected. But clearly, there is not enough medicine available. Whether it be for young people or people who are older, there is just not enough antiretroviral medicine being funded to reach all of those who could get their lives back if indeed that money was there. So this money, at least $50 million of it, will be put there.

Let me also say with regards to Egypt, we all know pursuant to the Camp David agreement, and because of the boycott, the Egyptians did receive significant amounts of money, as they should have, and they do so every year. They continue to do so even if the Obey-Hyde-Lantos language is adopted. But I am very concerned, as someone who spends a great deal of time working on human rights, that there has been a deterioration of human rights in Egypt, Christians and others, the government has not done all it can do to try to mitigate these abuses.

Yes, I like Mubarak. We all like him. He is a very affable and a very effective leader in many ways. But it seems to me much more has to be done on a human rights record that the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices this year again has said is poor, as well as the International Religious Freedom Report with regards to Egypt.

So for all of these reasons, I strongly urge that we support this amendment. It is a good amendment. And, again, we are still, even if this passes, major providers of U.S. taxpayer funds to Egypt, even if this amendment passes. So I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 740, which I introduced with bipartisan support, will do just what it says: provide a way forward for the Northern Ireland Peace Process.

I thank my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Thad McCotter, for managing this bill so ably on the floor. I thank Chairman Henry Hyde, Reps. Elton Gallegly, Peter King, Jim Walsh, Tom Lantos, the Ranking Member of the House International Relations Committee and many others for their work and support on this bill.

Yesterday, the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly met for the first time since 2002. Yet it still faces crucial challenges over community policing, and acceptance by the nationalist community of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). For the population of Northern Ireland to fully transfer its trust to the police, it must have confidence that the police and the authorities deserve trust and will be held accountable.

A key stumbling block to that greater acceptance has been the lack of resolution of charges of official collusion in the murder of human rights lawyer Patrick Finucane, who was gunned down in his home, in front of his wife and three small children, in 1989. Pat Finucane was not only a courageous human rights activist, but also a loving father and husband. His murder symbolizes the depth and danger of official State sponsored collusion in

Northern Ireland. Resolving the questions surrounding this murder will help restore confidence in the agencies of government in the north, and allow Northern Ireland's still fragile peace to flourish in a new atmosphere of trust.

That is a major reason why this inquiry needs to be done, and done right, as soon as possible. This is the purpose of H. Res. 740, which calls on the British government to establish the kind of full, public, independent, judicial inquiry into Patrick Finucane's killing called for by Judge Peter Cory, an esteemed Supreme Court judge from Canada who was asked by the British and Irish Governments to investigate this murder and make a recommendation regarding the possibility of collusion.

H. Res. 740 calls for exactly the type of inquiry that nongovernmental human rights organizations, including British Irish Rights Watch, the Committee for the Administration of Justice, Human Rights First, and Amnesty International have demanded. This is what the Irish Government and Parliament have urged. It is what we in Congress have supported. In 1999 the House passed House Resolution 128, which I authored, and in 2003 the full Congress passed, and the President signed into law, Chairman Hyde's Foreign Relations Authorization Act (Public Law 107-228).

But most of all, this is what the Finucane family, which for 17 years has courageously campaigned for justice, for Pat Finucane and all the victims in Northern Ireland, has demanded. Let us once again join them in their struggle.

I have held eleven hearings on human rights and police reform in Northern Ireland since 1997. In every one of those hearings witnesses have testified to the central role the Finucane murder has played in advancing an atmosphere of distrust and no confidence in state agencies. We've had family members, other Northern Ireland attorneys, non-governmental human rights activists, as well as Mitch Reiss, President Bush's special envoy for the Northern Ireland Peace Process and Param Cumaraswamy, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur all testify that properly investigating this case is key to securing a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

This is a crucial moment in the peace process in Northern Ireland. A credible public, independent, judicial inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder will help ensure confidence in the rule of law in the north of Ireland and will help bring the people of both sides of the divide to a just, stable and lasting peace which they richly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again express my deepest condolences to the Finucane family and thank them for their courageous and tireless efforts on behalf of justice not only for their loved one but also for others who may have been victims of state-sponsored collusion in the north of Ireland. Similarly, I would like to acknowledge the work and support from many human rights activists including Jane Winter of British Irish Rights Watch, Elisa Massimino from Human Rights First formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights), and Maggie Beirne, Martin O'Brien and Paul Mageean who have testified before Congress on behalf of the Committee on the Administration of Justice. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to remind my colleagues of the riveting testimony offered on this matter in 1998 by Rosemary Nelson, an attorney from Northern Ireland who told Congress that defense attorneys there feared that they could be murdered themselves because no one had been held accountable in the murder of Patrick Finucane. Six months after her testimony, Rosemary Nelson was killed, the victim of a car bomb.

For the Finucanes, for Rosemary Nelson and her family, and for peace and justice in Northern Ireland, I urge my colleagues to vote to pass this important resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the statement from the Honorable Judge Peter Cory, March 15, 2005 and a copy of the resolution adopted by Dail Eireann on March 8th urging an independent, judicial, public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.

The Honorable Peter Cory,

Mr. Speaker, recently I chaired a hearing of the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee regarding the deadly combination of international sporting events and legalized prostitution, which creates an increased risk that women and children will be trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. In approximately one month, athletes and fans will be gathering for one of the premiere, world-wide sporting events of our day, the 2006 FIFA World Cup. The Subcommittee heard testimony on reports that the World Cup will sadly be an impetus for the exploitation of women. For most soccer fans like myself, this quadrennial spectacle is the showcase of world class athleticism and teamwork, but looming in its shadow is the very real potential that the World Cup matches will be a catalyst and magnet for sex trafficking into Germany.

The World Cup opens on June 9, and over the course of one month at 12 venues throughout Germany, national soccer teams from around the world will be playing. Millions of fans will join in the festivities. For the last year, the German Government has been preparing for this sports bonanza, coordinating security efforts with all neighboring countries, and attending to the myriad of details associated with such major international events. There is no doubt that human traffickers have also been working overtime to exploit this opportunity to improve their illicit revenues through the expected rise in demand, especially in the so-called sex industry.

Today we join our counterparts in the European Union who have expressed their worries that there will be an explosion of prostitution and trafficking during the time of the World Cup. The European Parliament rightfully recognized in their resolution passed on March 15 that major sporting events result in a ``temporary and spectacular increase in the demand for sexual services.'' A number of actions were outlined that should be undertaken by Germany and their European neighbors, as well as by the sports associations involved, to warn potential victims and assist those who are trafficked, to ``roundly condemn trafficking in human beings and forced prostitution'', and to inform and educate the general public and potential clients in an effort to curb the demand.

During the February meeting in Vienna, as Head of the U.S. Delegation and as Special Representative on Human Trafficking for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I vigorously raised concerns about the trafficking prevention efforts for this event. I was joined by other European parliamentarians who were sobered by the expectation that, especially since the matches are being held in Germany which legalized pimping and prostitution in 2001, the World Cup fans would be legally free to rape women in brothels or even in mobile units designed specifically for this form of exploitation. Of the approximately 400,000 prostitutes in Germany, it is estimated that 75 percent of those who are abused in these houses of prostitution are foreigners, many from Central and Eastern Europe.

Europeans and Americans are not the only ones who have trained their eyes on this explosive situation. Vivi Akakpo, West Africa coordinator for the All Africa Conference of Churches said, ``It is now public knowledge that organized syndicates have plans to bring in young women, particularly from Eastern Europe and from other poor countries, to Germany in time for the World Soccer Cup 2006.'' The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting last week adopted a commendable list of best practices which should be undertaken by member states holding major international events. Among the seven initiatives was the commitment to develop and implement measures that discourage the demand for trafficking victims.

All EU member states to some extent are affected by trafficking in women. Significant numbers of trafficked women coming to Germany are from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania and Romania. Law enforcement reports that large enterprises and international networks run an organized ``industry'' with political support and economic resources in countries of origin, transit and destination. Corrupt officials are often implicated.

Traffickers use a variety of methods to recruit and move their victims, often utilizing legal avenues to illegally traffic women and children. Legitimate travel documents can be obtained for ``trips to Germany'' for the women and such documents as visas and passports are used to cross international borders, after which the trafficking victims disappear or overstay their visas. Traffickers, however, also use fraudulent documents to obtain genuine travel documents or use altered or counterfeit papers, thus making it more difficult for law enforcement to detect a trafficking victim.

Those that work with the victims of human trafficking have reported that trafficking of women and girls for the so-called sex industry usually heightens during international sports events. According to the BKA (the German Federal Criminal Investigation Office) annual report in 2001, an inquiry of 414 trafficked women revealed that 45 percent were forced into prostitution through violence, torture, rape or intimidation. Research conducted by Melissa Farley at Prostitution Research & Education found that 71 percent of women surveyed were physically assaulted while engaged in prostitution and 89 percent wanted to escape prostitution.

I am aware that the German Government is supporting public awareness efforts regarding trafficking for forced prostitution in the context of the World Cup. This is a somewhat absurd effort given that the infrastructure of legalized prostitution allowed in Germany is gearing up to expand its capacity during the World Cup and there is every reason to believe that the ``new recruits'' into prostitution will be trafficked women and girls. I see this as flagrant state complicity in promoting sex trafficking.

As Sister Lea Ackermann, the Catholic nun in Germany who founded SOLWODI--SOLIDARITY with Women in Distress, has declared, ``We have decided to flash the `red card' to those prostitution profiteers'' who are taking advantage of the World Cup crowds. The president of the German Soccer Federation, Theo Zwanziter, came to the conclusion that they needed to change the Federation's position on prostitution after he became aware of the horrors that women forced into prostitution face. As the federation president has recognized, ``We did underestimate the whole issue [of prostitution] and I regret that, I say it quite openly.''

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for Chancellor Merkel to take a stand and speak out against the exploitation of women and children in the name of sport. I would encourage her government to turn the tables beginning now with the World Cup, and commit to reversing Germany's laws on prostitution. We can all join together in the fight to combat human trafficking and make the forced prostitution of women and girls more difficult for the traffickers.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act requires that every year the United States Department of State analyze and report on the problem of trafficking in persons around the world. If Germany is providing direct or indirect sanction for sex trafficking, then Germany does not deserve to be ranked as a tier one country.

As the world will turn its attention to soccer, those committed to ending the tragedy of trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation will be watching how Germany protects the most vulnerable. I hope that the German Government is ready.

Mr. Speaker, 17 years ago, my dear friend and colleague, Rep. Frank Wolf, and I traveled to the Soviet Union, to visit the notorious Perm Labor Camp No. 37, located in the shadows of the Ural Mountains. There were three camps in the Perm labor camp complex that had been set up specifically in 1972 for political prisoners and others whom Moscow considered ``especially dangerous.'' Fortunately, by the time of our visit many of the incarcerated had been released and by 1991 the camp had emptied out completely in the closing chapter of the USSR. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I can vividly recall that glimpse into life in the Soviet GULag, both a memorable and sobering experience.

I mention that trip because Friday of this week, May 12, will mark the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Moscow Helsinki Group, a leading human rights organization devoted to monitoring the Kremlin's adherence to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. The Helsinki Final Act was signed by the United States, Canada and thirty-three European countries, including the Soviet Union. While much of this document was focused on military security, economics and trade, there were important provisions on human rights and humanitarian issues, such as freedom of conscience and family reunification, which the Soviet Government and the other signatories promised to uphold.

At a May 12, 1976, Moscow press conference organized by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dr. Andrei Sakharov, the Moscow Helsinki Group announced that it would collect information and publish reports on implementation of the Helsinki Accords by the Soviet Government. The initiator of this effort was Dr. Yuri Orlov, a physicist who had already been repressed by the Kremlin and the KGB for his human rights activism. Orlov was joined by ten other founding members; with time others joined in the group.

As might be expected, the Soviet Government did not welcome this initiative. Members were threatened by the KGB, imprisoned, exiled or forced to emigrate. The Soviet press went into full-scale attack mode, accusing the Moscow Helsinki Group of being subversive and charging that some members were on the payroll of foreign intelligence services. I might mention that a thinly veiled version of this canard against the group was recently resurrected by a representative of the KGB's successor, the FSB, on national television.

Arrests of members of the Moscow Group began within a year of its founding. In 1978, Dr. Orlov himself was sentenced to 7 years labor camp and 5 years internal exile. In 1986, he was brought back to Moscow, put on a plane and deported to the United States in exchange for a Soviet spy. Other Moscow Helsinki Group members found themselves at the notorious Perm Labor Camp complex that I mentioned earlier. For his criticism of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Dr. Sakharov was exiled to the closed city of Gorky beginning in January 1980. His wife and Moscow Helsinki Group member, Dr. Elena Bonner, joined him there in 1984 after having been convicted of ``anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.'' Founding member Anatoly Marchenko died while on a hunger strike at Chistopol Prison in December 1986,

By the end of 1982, less than 7 years after the group's founding, it appeared that the KGB and the Soviet Government had triumphed over the small band of idealists who pressed their leaders to live up to the promises made at Helsinki. With only three members at liberty and those under intense KGB pressure, the Moscow Helsinki Group was forced to suspend its activities. By 1986, only one member of the group, Naum Meiman, continued to meet with foreign visitors and Western correspondents. Meiman's wife, Irina, died of brain cancer after waiting years for Soviet authorities to give her permission to leave the Soviet Union for specialized treatment abroad, a reminder of the personal costs to human rights activists and their families under a cruel regime.

But the Helsinki spirit lived on. In the West, supporters and sympathizers demonstrated on behalf on imprisoned Helsinki Monitors. The cases of imprisoned or exiled Helsinki Monitors were often raised at diplomatic meetings between the United States and the Soviet authorities. In the Soviet Union itself, enlightened leaders began to understand that repressive governments may squelch the voices of dissenters for a time, but their message will heard by other means.

And on February 14, 1987, less than 5 years after the Moscow Helsinki group was forced to suspend its activities, a small item in ``Izvestiya'' announced the possibility of certain prisoners being released from labor camp. It was the beginning of the end for the repressive Soviet system.

In July 1989, the Moscow Helsinki Group was reestablished by several longtime human rights activists: Larisa Bogoraz, Sergey Kovalev, Viatcheslav Bakhmin, Alexey Smirnov, Lev Timofeev, and Boris Zolotukhin. Today, Ludmilla Alexeyeva, who had been exiled to the United States by Soviet authorities for her earlier work, now chairs this respected organization.

Mr. Speaker, 30 years after its founding and 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the re-established Moscow Helsinki Group remains active in speaking out in defense of human rights, civil society, and rule of law in Russia. I congratulate the members of the Moscow Helsinki Group for their achievements in the past and pledge my support for their vital ongoing work.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the Davis amendment seeks to turn our military hospitals into abortion mills. With all due respect to my friend and colleague from California, the amendment will result in babies being brutally killed by abortion, and women will be harmed and prolife Americans will be forced to facilitate and subsidize the slaughter of innocent children.

Abortion is violence against children, Mr. Chairman, and it harms women. Some methods including dismembering and ripping apart the fragile bodies of these children. Other methods include chemical poison. RU-486, a baby pesticide that was rushed to approval by the Clinton administration bypassing safety protocals along the way isn't just lethal to babies; it kills women as well. It is poison. Several women have died after taking RU-486.

Mr. Chairman, one of the methods depicted to my left is the D&E method. It is a common later-term method of abortion in which the arms and the legs and the torso of the baby are painfully hacked into pieces. The Davis amendment, make no mistake about it, would authorize this kind of child abuse.

Mr. Chairman, we can't allow that to happen. We can't kill babies like this. With all due respect to my friend, this is child abuse and it harms women. Vote against the Davis amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I thank him for his affirming the inherent value and dignity of both mothers and children.

Mr. Chairman, 90 percent of the hospitals in the United States today refuse to abort unborn children, and the trend is for hospitals to divest themselves of this violence against children.

Yet as hospitals in our country repudiate abortion, because abortion kills, the Davis amendment seeks to turn our overseas military hospitals into abortion mills. With all due respect to the gentlewoman from California, the amendment she offers will result in babies being brutally killed by abortion. It will harm women, and it will force pro- life Americans to facilitate and subsidize the slaughter of innocent children.

Abortion is violence against children and it harms women. Some methods of abortion dismember and rip apart the fragile little bodies of children. Other methods chemically poison kids. RU-486--a baby pesticide that was rushed to FDA approval by the Clinton Administration by waiving numerous safety protocols including the use of Subchapter H--isn't just lethal to babies, but has killed several women. It is poison. Abortion has turned children's bodies into burned corpses, the direct result of the caustic effect of the chemicals.

Now we know as well, Mr. Chairman, from science and from medicine that due to the nerve cell development, unborn children from at least 20 weeks onward, and most likely even earlier, feel excruciating pain. They feel pain, two to four times more pain than you and I would feel from the same assault. So abortion mills aren't just child killing mills--but they are torture chambers as well.

One of those methods depicted to my left on this poster board, the D and E method, it is a common, later-term method of abortion, in which the arms and the legs and the torso are painfully hacked into pieces. The Davis amendment would authorize this child abuse in military hospitals. We can't let that happen.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, has said, ``How can the dream survive if we murder the children?''

Dr. King, who has had two abortions herself, but is now pro-life and bravely speaks out, says, ``We can no longer sit idly by and allow this horrible spirit of murder to cut down and cut away our unborn. This is the day to choose life.'' Dr. King goes on to say, ``We must allow our babies to live. If the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King is to live, our babies must live.''

There is nothing benign or nurturing or curing about abortion. It is violence against children. It dismembers them. It chemically poisons them.

Vote down the Davis amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my voice with those of my colleagues who once again are commemorating the Armenian Genocide. On this somber day, we take time to recall the horrors of long ago, as Armenians are doing all over the world. Beginning in 1914, over 1.5 million people were systematically killed in what historians call the first genocide of the twentieth century, and over half a million Armenians had to leave their homeland.

Knowledge about the Armenian Genocide is spreading. Just recently, PBS broadcast an extremely detailed and heart-rending examination of the subject. Even in Turkey, where the government refuses to acknowledge what happened or consider accepting any responsibility for it, a growing number of historians and prominent individuals have openly defied Ankara to speak truth to power. They include Orhan Pamuk, the country's leading writer. Turkish officials sought to bring criminal charges against him for ``defaming Turkishness'' but in the end, thankfully, thought better of it.

Unfortunately, President Bush, in his annual message about the Genocide, did not use the word. Once again, terms like ``mass killings'' and ``forced exile'' mask the depth of the horror that took place, carefully avoiding the plain truth. In fact, as has been described in numerous newspaper articles, Ambassador John Evans, who was posted in Yerevan, is being recalled for having the courage to say publicly that what happened to the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire was Genocide. It saddens me that the U.S. Government would go to such lengths to deny the undeniable. I would like to commend Ambassador Evans for his bravery--as a career Foreign Service Officer, he must have known what the consequences might be.

I express solidarity with my colleagues in this Congress who called upon President Bush to call the Genocide a Genocide. I hope this is the last year when the United States Government will shrink from using the word in its description of what the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire endured.

Finally, in my annual statements on the Armenian Genocide, I often refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and comment on the status of the talks underway to resolve it. In the last year, official sources in Yerevan and Baku, as well as Washington, have occasionally indicated that a deal was close. Hopes were high for the meeting last month between Presidents Kocharian and Aliev in Rambouillet, France. Unfortunately, we did not see the desired outcome.

I hope that the negotiations will soon succeed in resolving this painful conflict. An Armenia at peace with Azerbaijan would not dampen the painful memories of events in the early twentieth century, but it would offer reassurance over the prospects of Armenia in the twenty- first.

Mr. Speaker, when current Ugandan President Yaweri Museveni overthrew the murderous regime of the late Milton Obote in Uganda in 1986, many had hoped that their nation would finally emerge from the nightmares of the Obote and Idi Amin regimes. Unfortunately, yet another horror lay ahead for the people of northern Uganda.

Many in the Acholi community were alarmed at the sudden loss of power when Obote was overthrown, and Alice Lakwena formed the Holy Spirit Movement to fight for the Acholi people. Despite her promises that her followers would have immunity from the bullets of the Ugandan army, they were defeated two years later, and she fled to Kenya.

Meanwhile, Joseph Kony, believed to be Lakwena's cousin, took up the battle, forming a group known as the Lord's Resistance Army or LRA. The LRA is often said to be determined to rule Uganda according to the Bible's 10 Commandments. In reality, this group has a philosophy that blends elements of Christianity, Islam and traditional Acholi beliefs into a murderous world view that has terrorized Kony's own Acholi people and set back development in the North by years if not decades.

Over the last 20 years, as many as two million persons--an estimated 90 percent of the population of the Acholi area in northern Uganda-- have been forced into internally displaced persons camps. More than 20,000 children have been forced to serve as either soldiers or sexual slaves for the LRA. Those children who have escaped kidnapping by the LRA are forced into the phenomenon known as night commuting, in which an estimated 50,000 children walk miles from the rural areas to towns in order to find relative safety in bus shelters, churches or even on the streets.

The impact of this war on Ugandans in the North, as reported by the Civil Society Organisations for Peace in Northern Uganda, is almost unbelievable:

--The rates of violent death in northern Uganda are three times higher than those reported in Iraq following the Allied invasion in 2003.

--Each month, nearly 3,500 Ugandans die from easily preventable diseases, extreme violence and torture;

--Each day, 58 children under the age of five die as a result of violence and preventable diseases.

--Three times more children under the age of five die in northern Uganda than in the rest of the country.

--One quarter of the children in northern Uganda over ten years of age have lost one or both parents.

--Half of the nearly two million internally displaced persons in northern Uganda are children under the age of 15.

--About a quarter of a million children in northern Uganda receive no education at all because of displacement and the fact that 60% of schools in northern Uganda no longer function due to the war.

Because of the war in the North, Uganda has developed a lost generation that has grown up in dire circumstances with fear and deprivation as their constant companions. Nearly half of all children in the northern town of Kitgum are stunted from malnutrition. They likely will never be able to recover what this war has cost them.

There is great concern that the Government of Uganda is insufficiently committed to improving the situation in northern Uganda. On at least two occasions when there appeared to be a chance for peace talks with the LRA--once in 1993 and again in late 2004-2005--the Government of Uganda launched offensives that ended any chance of peace and yet failed to end the terrorism of the LRA. More recently, the indictment of top LRA leaders by the International Criminal Court has effectively ended further peace efforts.

Because of its inability to end the LRA threat, the Ugandan government in 2003 began encouraging local leaders in northern and eastern Uganda to raise civilian militias to help protect civilians. Unfortunately, according to a study done by the Alan Shawn Feinstein International Famine Center at Tufts University, these militias were hurriedly recruited, poorly screened and incompletely trained. Furthermore, known criminals are part of these militias, which also contain boys and girls less than 18 years of age.

The Feinstein Center study also reports that there is a widespread perception among individuals and organizations in northern Uganda that the government has malevolent reasons for not ending the war with the LRA. They include revenge against northerners for human rights abuses under previous governments and neutralization of political challenge from the North. In the Uganda elections held earlier this year, President Museveni's main opponent Kizza Bessigye, won 80 percent of the vote in northern Uganda--a testimony to the government's unpopularity in the North.

Whatever the truth about the Government of Uganda's war effort, it is certainly a fact that not enough is being done to safeguard the endangered children of northern Uganda. With all the attention given to the genocide in Darfur, a similar crisis in northern Uganda has been eclipsed in both attention and resources.

Just as we have a moral obligation to rescue the suffering people of Darfur, we have a similar obligation not to ignore the terrorized population of northern Uganda. If the eyes and ears of the world are focused elsewhere, we must redirect them to Uganda's distressed northern population--especially the children. Uganda's future may depend on our efforts.

Regrettably, the phenomenon of child soldiers is not one confined to Uganda or Africa. It is a global tragedy in which as many as 300,000 children are involved in as many as 30 conflicts around the world. As in Uganda, children are used by governments or government-supported militias and rebel forces such as the LRA. Utilized in everything from combat to spying to clearing minefields, these children are often killed or maimed, and even those who can escape often find it difficult to reintegrate back into society. They desperately need our help.

To that end, I and some of my colleagues in the House and Senate are planning to introduce legislation shortly to address the issue of child soldiers. This legislation condemns the conscription, forced recruitment or use of children by governments or paramilitaries in hostilities and urges the U.S. Government to lead efforts to enforce existing international standards to end this horrendous human rights abuse.

This legislation would deny U.S. military assistance to 7 of the 26 nations believed to use children in their military forces: Burundi, Columbia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Paraguay, Sudan and Uganda.

Mr. Speaker, on April 19, the day before Chinese President Hu Jintao's official visit to President George Bush, I held a hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations to examine China's human rights record. The hearing focused on such areas as China's censorship of the internet, implementation of the right of Chinese citizens to worship freely, protection of minority rights, compliance with international labor standards, China's barbaric practice of organ harvesting, and the destructive effects on Chinese society--especially on women--of its government's coercive one-child policy.

Over the years, I have held more than 25 hearings on human rights abuses in China. While China's economy has improved somewhat, the human rights situation remains abysmal. So-called economic reform has utterly failed to result in the protection of freedom of speech, expression, or assembly.

President Hu Jintao' visit to the United States provided the U.S. Congress and people an opportunity to bring to the attention of U.S. policy makers and the world community the terrible human rights situation as it exists in China today. It also helped provide the vital context for any relationship we should have with China. And it conveyed our unshakeable regard and commitment to press Beijing for serious, measurable and durable reform. The people of China deserve no less. It is our moral duty to stand with the oppressed, not with the oppressor.

State Department human rights reports and the consistent reporting from very reputable NGOs indicate that Chinese government repression of its citizens continues. In fact, the current Chinese regime is one of the very worst violators of human rights in the world, and continues to commit every single day egregious crimes against its own citizens. China was first named a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) by the State Department in 1999 for ongoing, egregious and systemic violations of religious freedom, and has been a CPC every year since. Few if any nations can even begin to match China's unseemly record, from the systematic denial of political freedom and use of torture to interference in the most private matters of family and conscience. At a rough count, the most recent State Department Human Rights Report for China ran to about 45,000 words. Before it even gets down to details, the report lists 22 major human rights problems:

Denial of the right to change the government;

Physical abuse resulting in deaths in custody;

Torture and coerced confessions of prisoners;

Harassment, detention, and imprisonment of those perceived

as threatening to party and government authority;

Arbitrary arrest and detention, including nonjudicial

administrative detention, reeducation-through-labor,

psychiatric detention, and extended or incommunicado pretrial

detention;

A politically controlled judiciary and a lack of due

process in certain cases, especially those involving

dissidents;

Detention of political prisoners, including those convicted

of disclosing state secrets and subversion, those convicted

under the now-abolished crime of counterrevolution, and those

jailed in connection with the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations;

House arrest and other non-judicially approved surveillance

and detention of dissidents;

Monitoring of citizens' mail, telephone and electronic

communications;

Use of a coercive birth limitation policy, in some cases

resulting in forced abortion and sterilization;

Increased restrictions on freedom of speech and the press;

closure of newspapers and journals; banning of politically

sensitive books, periodicals, and films; and jamming of some

broadcast signals;

Restrictions on the freedom of assembly, including

detention and abuse of demonstrators and petitioners;

Restrictions on religious freedom, control of religious

groups, and harassment and detention of unregistered

religious groups;

Restrictions on the freedom of travel, especially for

politically sensitive and underground religious figures;

Forcible repatriation of North Koreans and inadequate

protection of many refugees;

Severe government corruption;

Increased scrutiny, harassment and restrictions on

independent domestic and foreign nongovernmental organization

(NGO) operations;

Trafficking in women and children;

Societal discrimination against women, minorities, and

persons with disabilities;

Cultural and religious repression of minorities in Tibetan

areas and Muslim areas of Xinjiang;

Restriction of labor rights, including freedom of

association, the right to organize and bargain collectively,

and worker health and safety; and

Forced labor, including prison labor).

Beijing has increasingly viewed the information available on the internet as a potential threat to the Party's ability to control the population and monopolize political power. It has turned China into one of the most internet restrictive countries in the world. It is important to note that the freedoms that we enjoy in America allow individuals to publish information and news on the Web unfiltered. Those freedoms do not exist in China. Individuals who attempt to speak freely are imprisoned and even tortured. At the very least, U.S. corporations should not be aiding and abetting that process. Yet at a February hearing I chaired on the Internet in China, we learned in greater--and disturbing--detail, how some of the biggest corporations in America have partnered with the much-hated Chinese secret police to find, apprehend, convict and jail religious believers and pro-democracy advocates.

Yahoo told us at the hearing how profoundly they regret sending Shi Tao to prison for 10 years but they couldn't tell us--and didn't seem to know--how many others were condemned to jail and torture because of Yahoo's complicity with the secret police. When I asked under what terms and conditions--court order, police demand, a fishing trip--Yahoo surrenders emails and address files, Yahoo told us that they couldn't reveal this information to us because it would break Chinese law.

Google, for its part, created an exclusively Chinese search engine that only a Joseph Goebbels could love. Type in any number of vile words like human rights, or Tian An Men Square massacre, or Falun Gong, and you will get rerouted to government propaganda--much of it heavily anti-American and anti- President George Bush, and filled with hate, especially for the Falun Gong. How did Google respond to our deep concern about their enabling a dictatorship to expand its hate message? According to the New York Times report of late March, they hired big- time Washington lobbying firms like Podesta-Mattoon and the DCI group to put a good face on it all--and presumably kill my pending legislation, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006,

Amazingly, Cisco showed no seller's remorse whatsoever that its technology--especially ``Policenet''--a tool for good in the hands of honest cops and legitimate law enforcement, but a tool of repression in the hands of Chinese police has now effectively linked and exponentially expanded the capabilities of the Chinese police.

Microsoft also censors and shuts down blogs that ``Big Brother objects to. You can be sure that no serious discussion on human

rights was on the agenda at President Hu visit with Bill Gates at Microsoft.

China's continued repression of religion is among the most despotic in the world. 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. Citizens practicing a faith other than officially sanctioned religions are often subjected to torture, imprisonment, and death, at which time prisoner organs are frequently harvested to meet demand. Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, and Muslim Uyghurs are all being persecuted for their faith. Today, numerous underground Roman Catholic priests and bishops and Protestant pastors languish in the Lao Gai, China's infamous concentration camps, simply proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the early 90's I meet with Bishop Su Zhimin of Baoding Province--a gentle and kind man who celebrated Mass for our small delegation. I was deeply inspired by his faith (he had recently been let out of jail) and by his compassion for those who had jailed and mistreated him. He had no animosity for them--only compassion and forgiveness. What kind of regime incarcerates a truly noble man like this? Soon after our visit, he was re-arrested on false charges, released, and re-arrested and jailed again. He has now spent at least 27 years of his life in jail-- for loving God. What kind of barbaric regime hurts a man like this?

And then there is the special hate Beijing pours out on the Falun Gong. Nearly seven years ago the Chinese government began its brutal campaign to completely eradicate Falun Gong through whatever means necessary. Many Party Members and Army officials had begun to practice Falun Gong. Like all dictators and totalitarian terror systems, the PRC fears and hates what it cannot control. So it decided to destroy and intimidate those who practice Falun Gong. We see before us a Stalinist nightmare revived for the 21st century--hundreds, perhaps thousands, dead as a result of torture; tens of thousands jailed without trial, held in labor camps, prisons, and mental hospitals, where they are forced to endure torture brainwashing sessions.

Just over a year ago Beijing finally released the renowned human rights activist, Rebiya Kadeer, from prison, where she had been held for years on trumped up charges for defending the rights of her fellow Uyghur Muslims in China. We had hoped this signaled some sort of genuine improvement in Beijing's treatment of human rights, but now we know better: since Rebiya, who is now living in America, has continued to campaign for the recognition of the legitimate rights of her fellow Uyghurs, her relatives and business associates still in China are being subjected to renewed harassment by the authorities. Rebiya is with us here today to testify about China's continuing campaign against her peoples.

Coercive family-planning policy in China has slaughtered more innocent children than any war in human history. Coercive family planning has wounded Chinese women by the millions and the physical consequence is that 500 women commit suicide every day. China's one- child per couple policy, decreed in 1979, has killed hundreds of millions of babies by imposing Draconian fines--up to ten times annual salaries--on their parents to force them to abort. In China today brothers and sisters are illegal. Sex selection abortions--a direct consequence of allowing only one baby per couple, has led to gendercide--approximately 100 million girls are missing--in China. One Chinese demographer has admitted that by 2020, forty million Chinese men won't be able to find wives because Beijing's weapon of mass destruction--population control--destroyed the girls.

There is no recourse for millions of Chinese laborers trapped in poor working conditions. Those who protest unjust wage and labor practices outside of the government-controlled labor union are arrested and imprisoned. Chinese citizens are often persecuted just for going to court to secure rights which even current Chinese law, as restrictive as it is, guarantees them. And the lawyers who seek to help them are threatened, harassed, beaten, disbarred and jailed for doing their simple duty. They join countless prisoners of conscience in China's modern day concentration camps. These are found everywhere in China-- more than 1,100 by one count.

Finally, we heard testimony about China's barbaric policy of harvesting human organs for sale and transplant. China admits it does this. According to China's Ministry of Health, since 1993, there have been over 65,000 transplant procedures performed in China. China's Deputy Health Minister recently stated that 95 percent of the organs for organ transplants performed in China are from executed Chinese prisoners. Of course it claims it only harvests the organs of executed prisoners, and only if they or their families consent. But what value can such a statement have in a country where the death penalty is virtually an assembly line process? Where according to the Department of State's Human Rights Report for 2005, foreign experts estimate between five and twelve thousand people are executed every year? Chinese courts hand down the death sentence for an ever-expanding range of crimes, including nonviolent and political crimes. Appeals are conducted hastily, if at all. In an effort to boost profits, it is reported that some provincial or local officials in China have begun to allow mobile medical vans at execution sites to facilitate the ease and efficiency with which prisoners' organs may be harvested. We have all heard the recent horrific stories that China is now targeting the thousands of innocent Falun Gong prisoners it holds for organ harvesting, and perhaps not even waiting until they are dead. The State Department and the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture, Manfred Nowak, have been investigating. They must get to the truth of these blood- curdling stories, and do everything to stop this shameful practice.

Human rights are everyone's rights. Governments are instituted to secure, protect and safeguard those rights. Human rights aren't privileges. Human rights are worth fighting for, even when they are costly, and even when it is inconvenient. Our witnesses, Mr. Ethan Gutmann, author of Losing the New China: a Story of American Commerce, Desire and Betrayal; Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, Human Rights Activist, Former Political Prisoner, and President of the International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation; Mr. Joseph Kung, Director, Cardinal Kung Foundation; Ms. Thea Lee, Director of Public Policy, AFL-CIO; Mr. Steven Mosher, President Population Research Institute; Mr. Harry Wu; Executive Director, Laogai Research Foundation; and Mr. Lu Decheng, 1989 Tiananmen Square Protestor, who spent 9 years in jail, all provided vitally useful testimony today.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 365) urging the Government of China to reinstate all licenses of Gao Zhisheng and his law firm, remove all legal and political obstacles for lawyers attempting to defend criminal cases in China, including politically sensitive cases, and revise law and practice in China so that it conforms to international standards.

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 concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank our good friend, Mr. Mark Kennedy, for sponsoring this important human rights legislation. It is very well crafted. It sends a clear and unambiguous message to the People's Republic of China. Having worked the China issue for 26 years as a Member of Congress, I want to thank him for his extraordinary leadership on this. It is an excellent resolution.

This resolution can probably be summed up in one phrase: Rule of law. When you get past the details, it asks China simply to adhere to the rule of law. First, it demands that China adhere to its own Constitution, its own procedure law, and its own law on lawyers. This is not asking a great deal. These instruments give very few rights, it is true, but unless China protects the rights it already acknowledges, nobody in China can have any genuine fundamental human rights.

China acknowledges the right of defendants to a lawyer, the right of a citizen to seek redress of their legitimate grievances through the courts, and the duty of lawyers to represent clients. Yet China tramples on even these minimal rights.

Lawyers like Gao Zhisheng, who dare to follow the law and represent clients, are harassed, threatened, beaten, forbidden to practice, detained and imprisoned. Defense lawyers are faced with the constant threat of indictment for perjury if and when the government decides their clients have lied. These practices must stop.

Secondly, the resolution demands that China cease its assault on basic human rights, an assault that is the real reason behind the persecution of Gao Zhisheng and other Chinese lawyers.

They are being punished for their courageous defense of religious freedom, the right of women not to be violated by China's coercive population control program, the right of citizens to protest corrupt officials, the rights of citizens to petition their government to redress grievances. Such rights are not Western or American inventions. They are universal. No rule of law can exist unless such rights are acknowledged and protected.

Last week, Madam Speaker, on the eve of President Bush's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, I held a hearing to examine China's human rights abuses, and it was my 26th hearing on human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China. Our witnesses included three individuals-- survivors--who have spent considerable time in Chinese concentration camps--Laogai--including Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in prison. The hearing focused on some of the worst abuses, including Chinese censorship of the Internet, the use of the Internet as a tool of repression, violations of the rights of Chinese citizens to worship freely; also the trampling of labor rights, and coercive family planning, which continue to be a serious and highly pervasive abuse by the Chinese Government.

Madam Speaker, Beijing has increasingly viewed the information available on the Internet as a potential threat to the party's ability to control the population and monopolize political power. It has turned China into one of the most repressive and restrictive Internet countries in the world. It is important to note that freedoms that we enjoy in America allowing individuals to publish information and news on the Web unfiltered is not something that Chinese individuals have. Those freedoms do not exist in China. Individuals who attempt to speak freely are imprisoned and tortured.

At the very least, U.S. corporations should not be aiding in that process. Yet at a February hearing I chaired on the Internet in China, we learned in greater and disturbing detail how some of the biggest corporations of America have partnered with the much-hated Chinese secret police to find, apprehend, convict and jail religious believers, labor activists, and prodemocracy advocates.

Yahoo told us at the hearing how they profoundly regretted sending Shi Tao to prison for 10 years, but then they couldn't tell us and didn't seem to want to know how many others were condemned to jail and torture because of Yahoo's complicity with the secret police. When I asked under what conditions, a court order, police demand, a fishing trip, Yahoo surrenders e-mails and address files, Yahoo told us that they couldn't reveal this information because it would break Chinese law. Give me a break.

Google, for its part, created an exclusively Chinese search engine that only a Joseph Goebbels could love. Type in any number of vile words like ``human rights'' or ``Tiananmen Square massacre'' or ``Falun Gong,'' and you get rerouted to government propaganda, much of it heavily anti-American, much of it heavy anti-President Bush, and filled with hate, especially for the Falun Gong.

How did Google respond to our deep concern about their enabling of a dictatorship to expand its hate message? They hired big-time Washington lobbying firms like Podesta-Mattoon and the DCI Group to put a good face on it all, and presumably kill my pending legislation, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006.

Amazingly, Cisco showed no seller's remorse whatsoever that its technology, especially Policenet, a tool for good in the hands of honest cops and legitimate law enforcement, but a tool of repression in the hands of Chinese

police, has now effectively linked and exponentially expanded the capabilities of the Chinese secret police.

Microsoft also censors and shuts down blogs that Big Brother objects to. You can be sure that no serious discussion of human rights was on the agenda at President Hu's visit with Bill Gates at Microsoft.

China's continued repression of religion is among the most despotic in the world. In February, a BBC report said 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. Citizens practicing a faith other than officially sanctioned religions are often subjected to torture, imprisonment and death, at which time prisoner organs are frequently harvested to meet demand. Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, and Muslim Uighurs are all being persecuted for their faith. Today numerous underground Roman Catholic priests and bishops and Protestant pastors languish in the infamous concentration camps known as the Laogai for simply proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the early 1990s, Madam Speaker, I met a bishop, Bishop Su Zhimin of Baoding Province, a gentle and kind man who celebrated mass for our small delegation. I was deeply inspired by his faith. He had recently been let out of jail, and his compassion was overwhelming even for those who jailed and mistreated him. He had no animosity for his jailers, only compassion and forgiveness. Soon after my visit--he was sent back to prison. What kind of regime incarcerates a truly noble man like this? Bishop Su has now spent 30 years of his life in prison for loving God and for loving his neighbor and even loving the despotic dictatorship that so hates him. What kind of barbaric regime hurts a man like this?

And then there is the special hate that Beijing pours out on the Falun Gong. Nearly 7 years ago the Chinese Government began its brutal campaign to completely eradicate the Falun Gong through whatever means necessary. Many party members as early as 7 years ago or so and army officials began to practice Falun Gong. Like all dictators and totalitarian terror systems, the PRC fears and hates what it cannot control, so it decided to destroy and intimidate those who practice Falun Gong. We see before us now a Stalinist nightmare revived for the 21st century, hundreds, perhaps thousands, dead as a result of torture; tens of thousands of jailed individuals without trial held in labor camps, prisons and mental hospitals where they are forced to endure torture-brainwashing sessions.

I would note parenthetically that when a woman protested on the White House lawn when President Hu was making his speech, it may have been impolite for her to do that, but had she done that in China, Madam Speaker, she would be dead now, having been subjected to torture and then an execution. That is the reality on the ground in the People's Republic of China.

Just over a year ago, Madam Speaker, Beijing finally released the renowned Uighur human rights activist Rebiya Kadeer, who also testified at our hearing from prison, where she had be held on trumped-up charges and lived there in prison for over 6 years. We had hoped this signaled some sort of genuine improvement. Maybe things were beginning to turn. However, we have now learned that nothing could be further from the truth, and the Muslims, like the Tibetan Buddhists and like so many others, are being continually harassed and put into prison.

Madam Speaker, coercive family planning in China has slaughtered more innocent children than any war in human history. It is a weapon of mass destruction. Coercive family planning has wounded Chinese women by the millions. And one psychological consequence is that some 500 women commit suicide each and every day in the People's Republic of China. China's one child per couple policy decreed back in 1979 has killed hundreds of millions of babies by imposing Draconian fines up to 10 times annual salaries for both husband and wife on their parents who are told they must abort their child. Brothers and sisters in China, Madam Speaker, are illegal.

Sex selection abortions, a direct consequence of the one child per couple policy, has led to gendercide. Approximately 100 million girls are missing in China, killed by sex selection abortion. One Chinese demographer has admitted that by the year 2020, 40 million Chinese men will not be able to find wives because Beijing's weapon of mass destruction, population control, destroyed the girls.

Then there is the whole issue of labor rights. We heard from the policy director of the AFL-CIO who raised significant and profound issues of labor rights violations by the Government of China, Ms. Thea Lee, who spoke at our hearing. We all know that solidarity in Poland made the difference in ushering in respect for human rights in Central and Eastern Europe and then Russia, and that in China there are no labor rights, and there is no recourse for hundreds of millions of Chinese laborers trapped in these poor working conditions. Ms. Lee pointed out that those who protest unjust wage and labor practices are often put into prison. They, like religious and prodemocracy advocates, are tortured and cruelly mistreated by the Government of China.

So let me just say, Madam Speaker, this resolution puts us on record as a Congress in a bipartisan way; Mr. Lantos, who has been just outstanding and a champion on behalf of the human rights in China, Mark Kennedy and Frank Wolf and so many others who daily speak out against these abuses. This resolution gives us all an opportunity to speak truth to a despotic power that is literally getting away with murder that they must stop these egregious violations of human rights, and they must stop now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the author of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Kennedy for his eloquent statement as well as Tom Lantos for his always eloquent statements on behalf of human rights.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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 pass the bill (H.R. 282) to hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

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 bill under consideration.

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

I rise in very strong support of H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act. And I want to thank our colleague from Florida, Chairman Ros- Lehtinen, for sponsoring this important legislation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

The United States and the world community, Madam Speaker, are at a crucial point in our efforts to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Let us be clear: Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will be a devastating blow to peace and security not only in the Middle East but in the entire world.

Iran has been designated, as we know, as a ``State Sponsor of Terrorism'' for over two decades. The Department of State has declared in its most recent Country Reports on Terrorism that Iran ``remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world.'' Iran maintains ``a high profile role,'' they go on to say, ``in encouraging antiIsraeli terrorist activity, both rhetorically and operationally,'' according to the State Department. Supreme religious leader Khamenei does not just praise Palestinian terrorist operations; Iran also provides Lebanese and Palestinian terrorist groups, most notably Hamas, with funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. Iran has now pledged to contribute $50 million to Hamas so that the Hamas regime in Palestine can continue to resist international pressure to recognize Israel's right to exist.

In October Iran's President Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map.'' In December he declared the Holocaust ``a myth.'' Last Monday he attacked Israel as a ``fake regime'' that ``cannot logically continue to live.'' Can we doubt that such people are capable of carrying out their threats if they ever acquire the means to do so? Have we learned nothing in 60 years?

This prudent measure will strengthen our sanctions regime against Iran's nuclear weapons proliferation. To keep up economic pressure, the bill tightens the existing sanctions against Iran by requiring a yes- or-no decision on whether to impose sanctions on firms reported to be making investments in the Iranian petroleum sector. The bill also amends the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, or ILSA, Public Law 104-172, to eliminate the 5-year sunset clause included in the original ILSA. We should certainly not give the Iranians the impression that they can wait us out on the sanctions issue.

The bill requires that all bilateral U.S. sanctions, controls, and regulations on Iran related to weapons of mass destruction remain in effect until Iran has verifiably dismantled its WMD programs. The bill also provides the means and moral pressure to encourage American investors and American pension plans to divest from companies

that invest in Iran's energy sector. Such investment can be a powerful tool in our efforts to stop Iran's march towards nuclear weapons.

In February, Madam Speaker, H. Con. Res. 341 passed overwhelmingly by this House, 404-4. We called on all members of the U.N. Security Council, in particular the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, to take expeditious action in response to Iran's noncompliance with the mandate of the Security Council, and it calls on ``all responsible members of the international community'' to impose economic sanctions designed to deny Iran the ability to develop nuclear weapons.

We were severely criticized by many members of the world community, Madam Speaker, for not relying on the Security Council and on sanctions in our confrontation with Saddam Hussein. Now is the time for the world community, for China and Russia especially, to show that they are indeed responsible members of the international community and take effective action to stop this terrorist regime in Iran.

Time is running out. The world needs to act now. The Bush administration deserves high praise for working with our friends to get Iran to the Security Council where once again next week it will be on the agenda.

This bill renews our call for diplomatic and multilateral action and will strengthen the President's hand with our international partners.

Finally, we must work to change Iran itself by working to promote democracy and human rights within Iran. This bill authorizes the President to provide democracy assistance to individuals who are working through exclusively peaceful means to support democracy and promote democracy in Iran. It does not in any way authorize the use of force.

The bill was introduced, as I noted, by our friend and colleague Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, who has devoted tremendous efforts to secure its passage. She now has 360 cosponsors. Chairman Hyde had asked her to manage the bill, but she has a family emergency in Florida that required her to leave for Florida and to be with her family. Our thoughts and prayers are with her during this time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am attaching an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairmen Davis, Thomas, McKeon and Oxley concerning the bill H.R. 282 ``The Iran Freedom Support Act'' for printing in the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, April 13, 2006.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to consideration of H.R. 282, the

Iran Freedom Support Act, which the Committee on

International Relations ordered reported on April 13, 2006.

In the bill as ordered reported by your Committee, section

206, specifically the provisions providing Senses of Congress

urging U.S. government pension plan and thrift savings plan

managers to take certain actions (section 206(c) and (d)) and

the provision requiring certain disclosures by managers of

U.S. government pension plans and thrift savings plans

(section 206(e)) are within the jurisdiction of the

Government Reform Committee.

I thank you for your agreement to support the removal of

section 206(e) from the bill and to modify sections 206(c)

and (d) with the addition of language recognizing the

fiduciary duties of U. S. government pension plan managers,

as you work to move this important legislation forward. Given

the importance and timeliness of the Iran Freedom Support

Act, and your willingness to work with us regarding pension

issues, I will not request a sequential referral of this

legislation to the Committee on Government Reform. However, I

only do so with the understanding that this procedural route

should not be construed to prejudice the Committee on

Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives

on these provisions or any other similar legislation and will

not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters

of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future.

Furthermore, should these or similar provisions be considered

in a conference with the Senate, I would expect Members of

the Committee on Government Reform be appointed to the

conference committee on these provisions.

Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our

exchange of letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 282 and

in the Congressional Record during the consideration of this

bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please

do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your

consideration.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to join Chairmen Hyde and Gallegly, Mr. Lantos and others in commemorating the Chernobyl disaster, a tragic event that has left a legacy of pain and suffering felt by the people of Ukraine and Belarus to this day. I welcome this resolution and especially its emphasis on encouraging national and international health organizations to focus their research on the public health consequences of Chernobyl.

As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I can recall the Commission hearing I chaired on the 10th anniversary of Chernobyl, at which witnesses, including then Ukrainian Ambassador Yuri Shcherbak offered compelling testimony addressing the health and demographic consequences of the world's worst nuclear disaster. I am pleased to inform colleagues that on the 25th of this month the Helsinki Commission will hold a hearing commemorating Chernobyl. I am pleased that Ukrainian Ambassador Shamshur has accepted my invitation to testify along with health experts and others.

Madam Speaker, as a strong advocate of the health of all children, including the unborn, Chernobyl is of special concern.

In Ukraine and Belarus, there is growing evidence of a steep increase in birth defects, especially an alarming 4-fold increase in spina bifida that has been documented by the Ukrainian-American Association for the Prevention of Birth Defects. Many other forms of birth defects have doubled since Chernobyl, including cataracts, deformed limbs and fingers, and cleft palates. Recent Israeli-Ukrainian studies have shown that children born to Chernobyl liquidators have a 7-fold increase in chromosome damage as compared to their siblings born prior to the Chernobyl disaster.

Last year, I authored language that was included in the State Department Authorization Act authorizing funding for assistance to improve maternal and prenatal care, especially for the purpose of helping prevent birth defects and pregnancy complications. The monies would be for individuals in the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine involved in the cleanup of the region affected by the Chernobyl disaster. We need to make sure that Chernobyl health studies and efforts to prevent birth defects through the distribution of folic acid and better prenatal care receive sufficient funding. These are funding priorities that I will continue to pursue.

Madam Speaker, the public health research community was caught off guard by the massive 80-fold increase in thyroid cancer among Chernobyl children in Belarus in 1993, and the

world community needs to remain vigilant for other forms of cancer that may begin to emerge now that the 20-year latency period has ended.

We need to remember that the half-life of radioactive cesium is 30 years. Thousands of children are still being exposed to dangerously high levels of radionuclides in contaminated areas of southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, as well as far-flung areas in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe that also suffered from radioactive fallout. There is still much that remains to be done to overcome the devastating effects of Chernobyl, and it is important for the international community--both governments and nongovernmental organizations--to remember that Chernobyl is not just a Ukrainian, Belarusian or Russian problem. The fallout will require continued international attention and commitment.

I also want to take this opportunity to commend the work of nongovernmental organizations that devote considerable time and effort in helping the victims of Chernobyl. One such organization is the Children of Chernobyl Relief and Development Fund, which has worked tirelessly to provide state-of-the-art medical technology, physician training and humanitarian aid to give Ukrainian children a fighting chance to overcome cancer and leukemia.

Finally, I welcome the resolution's support for continued U.S. assistance to the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, the Shelter Implementation Plan, and other efforts to mitigate the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. We need to do everything possible to protect people and the environment from the large quantity of radioactive remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant even as we work to assist the victims of the world's worst nuclear disaster.

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, I co-chaired a hearing to examine the results of the recent Human Rights Dialogue with the government of Vietnam, and the progress, or lack thereof, in Vietnam's respect for human rights and religious freedom. While the hearing revealed that there have been some improvements in Vietnam's human rights record, the testimony showed that the evidence of abuse is still too strong for us to relax our efforts.

It would be inappropriate, in any discussion of Vietnam, not to first raise the issue that engages more Americans, more deeply, than any other when we talk of Vietnam--the need to complete a full, thorough and responsible accounting of the remaining American MIAs from the Vietnam conflict. As my colleagues know well, of the 2,583 POW/MIAs who were unaccounted for--Vietnam (1,923), Laos (567), Cambodia (83) and China (10)--just under 1,400 remain unaccounted for in Vietnam. During my last visit to Vietnam in December 2005 I met with LTC Lentfort Mitchell, head of the Joint POW-MIA Accounting Command (JPAC). While JPAC is making steady progress and is able to conduct approximately four joint field activities per year in Vietnam, I remain deeply concerned that the government of Vietnam could be more forthcoming and transparent in providing the fullest accounting. It is our sacred duty to the families of the missing that we never forget and never cease our pursuit until we achieve the fullest possible accounting of our MIAs.

This hearing took place in the context of the recently concluded Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam, which our distinguished witnesses from the State Department, the Honorable Barry F. Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, the Honorable John V. Hanford III, Ambassador-at-Large for the Office of International Religious Freedom, and the Honorable Eric John, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, reported on.

The State Department had suspended the Human Rights Dialogue since 2002 because it was clear Hanoi was not serious about our concerns. Since that time Hanoi was designated a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for egregious and systematic violations of religious freedom in both 2004 and 2005. Vietnam is currently anxious to receive Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the U.S., to gain admittance to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and to have President Bush attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in November. Indeed, this is the ``APEC Year'' in Hanoi. Now that the dialogue has been resumed, at Hanoi's request, it is both imperative and opportune for the administration and Congress to pressure Hanoi for more deeds than words. Vietnam needs to show that it is not merely trying to smooth out some minor ``misunderstandings'' which get in the way of Vietnam's important economic and political goals, but rather that it has made a fundamental commitment to human rights and reform, and to fulfilling its international commitments, a fundamental commitment which will not be forgotten after it has achieved those goals.

Section 702 of Public Law 107-671 requires the Department to submit a report on the U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue within 60 days of its conclusion ``describing to what extent the Government of Vietnam has made progress during the calendar year toward achieving the following objectives:

(1) Improving the Government of Vietnam's commercial and criminal codes to bring them into conformity with international standards, including the repeal of the Government of Vietnam's administrative detention decree (Directive 311/CP).

(2) Releasing political and religious activists who have been imprisoned or otherwise detained by the Government of Vietnam, and ceasing surveillance and harassment of those who have been released.

(3) Ending official restrictions on religious activity, including implementing the recommendations of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance.

(4) Promoting freedom for the press, including freedom of movement of members of the Vietnamese and foreign press.

(5) Improving prison conditions and providing transparency in the penal system of Vietnam, including implementing the recommendations of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

(6) Respecting the basic rights of indigenous minority groups, especially in the central and northern highlands of Vietnam.

(7) Respecting the basic rights of workers, including working with the International Labor Organization to improve mechanisms for promoting such rights.

(8) Cooperating with requests by the United States to obtain full and free access to persons who may be eligible for admission to the United States as refugees or immigrants, and allowing such persons to leave Vietnam without being subjected to extortion or other corrupt practices.

So far, all the evidence suggests, however, that Vietnam still has a long way to go before it can convince us that it has made any fundamental and lasting change in its human rights policy. The State Department's Human Rights report on Vietnam for 2005, upgraded Vietnam's Human Rights record from ``poor'' to merely ``unsatisfactory.'' Freedom House still rates Vietnam as ``unfree,'' but it is no longer at the absolute bottom of the repression scale. These are not exactly ringing endorsements.

There are fewer religious and political dissidents in jail, but there still are too many. Even those let out, like Father Ly, Father Loi, Dan Que, are subject to continued forms of house arrest or harassment. Restrictions on the legal churches have eased, but requests to build churches, to receive back confiscated properties, and provide charitable and educational services, which are allowed under current law, are never answered quickly, and often never answered at all. Hundreds of churches have been closed in the past 5 years. Last year, a few dozen were opened, which does to begin to redress the earlier harm. And still large numbers of believers who belong to ``illegal churches'' suffer continued harassment--not everywhere, not everyone, not always, but their rights to believe and practice are still not secured by rule of law. Too often all of the improvements are based on local and arbitrary decisions which can be reversed at any time. The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) is still illegal, and its leaders, the Venerable Thich Quang Do and Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang remain under strict ``pagoda'' arrest, and 13 other senior figures remain under similar restrictions. The independent Hoa Hao Buddhists are also illegal, and their church was singled out for repression last year. Evangelical Protestant house churches, Mennonites, Bahai, Hindus, and others exist in a legal limbo: technically illegal, sometimes tolerated, but sometimes repressed. Those officials who violate government guaranteed religious rights appear never to be punished. This is not the way a rule of law society is constructed.

Reports of forced renunciations of Christianity in the Montagnard regions have diminished--but they have not ended. Montagnard house churches are allowed to operate, but have not received their registration. The UNHCR, and various diplomats, are allowed to travel, sometimes, to some Montagnard regions, but only when carefully monitored. Montagnards eligible for resettlement in the U.S. get their passports and exit visas, but not all, not everywhere. And hundreds of Montagnards languish in detention.

Vietnam reportedly weakened its two-child policy several years ago, after coercive policies involving contraception, birth quotas, sterilization and abortion cut Vietnam's fertility almost in half in 20 years. Yet last year the Deputy Prime Minister called for ``more drastic measures'' to cut the birth rate further. It is not clear that this has yet been enforced, but it hangs there as a storm cloud over all families, but especially over Vietnam's long-abused indigenous minorities. Like China's one child policy, Vietnam's two-child policy has led to a large and growing imbalance in male and female births, which will only increase its already severe problems as a source, transit and destination country for human trafficking. According to last year's State Department's Human Trafficking report, Vietnam remained a

Tier II country because of its serious trafficking problems, but was removed from the Watch List. Many of us think this was an error, and that Vietnam's response to its trafficking problems remains inadequate.

In December I met with over 60 people: government officials, political and religious activists, archbishops, heads of churches and ordinary believers. I have had several, somewhat stilted, I must admit, conversations recently with mixed delegations of religious leaders and government officials. That the Vietnamese government even consented to send these delegations was an important step. It does seem that some of the government officials at least are beginning to understand our concerns. What they will now do is the question. I believe that Michael Cromartie, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, has made the crucial observation: ``We are not arguing over whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. We just do not know if the glass, so recently constructed, will continue to hold any water. Will legal developments hold in a country where the rule of law is not fully functioning? Are changes only cosmetic, intended to increase Vietnam's ability to gain WTO membership and pass a Congressional vote on PNTR? . . . Though promises of future improvement are encouraging, we should not reward Vietnam too quickly by lifting the CPC designation or downplaying human rights concerns to advance economic or military interests.''

I could not agree more. We have seen various thaws in other Communist regimes. The Khrushchev thaw was followed by the worst persecution of religion in 30 years, and then the long stagnation of the Brezhnev regime. In the 60's we thought Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania would be the next Tito, I remember when we thought that was an advance; instead, he decided to be the next Kim Il-Sung. Finally, who can forget the democratic opening in China which was crushed at Tienanmen Square.

We must be sure that the change in Vietnam is real. We have a unique opportunity this year to achieve real and lasting progress in Vietnam. We should use the leverage we have, and seek to increase it. The House of Representatives has twice passed legislation authored by me on human rights in Vietnam. H.R. 1587, The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004, passed the House by a 323-45 vote in July 2004. A similar measure passed by a 410-1 landslide in the House in 2001. The measures called for limiting further increases of non-humanitarian United States aid from being provided to Vietnam if certain human rights provisions were not met, and authorized funding to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia and funding to support non-governmental organizations which promote human rights and democratic change in Vietnam. Regrettably, both bills stalled in Senate committees and have not been enacted into law. But we are again ready to work with the administration to find ways to encourage and promote civil society in Vietnam. I have re- introduced the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2005, H.R. 3190. I would be delighted to hear what sort of measures we could add to the bill to cooperate with Vietnam's government if it is indeed serious about strengthening civil society and the rule of law: to help promote genuine NGO's, especially faith-based NGO's, to deal with Vietnam's problems with trafficking, addiction, HIV/AIDS, street children; to create an independent bar association, and help train lawyers who can defend the rights already guaranteed to Vietnam's people by Vietnam's own constitution and laws.

Human rights are central. They are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any region of the world. Our non-governmental witnesses: Ms. Kay Reibold, project development specialist for the Montagnard Human Rights Organization; Mrs. H'Pun Mlo, a Montagnard refugee who after many years of abuse, was finally allowed to join her family in the U.S.; Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang, the executive director of Boat People SOS; and Mr. Doan Viet Hoat, the president of International Institute for Vietnam, gave us valuable independent testimony, so that the world will get a true and complete picture of this government with whom we are growing ever closer.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3127) to impose sanctions against individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against 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, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of the International Relations Committee for drafting a bill that has the best chance of becoming law and dealing with the genocidal situation in Sudan. Despite sometimes difficult and complex efforts needed to move this legislation, Mr. Hyde has remained steadfast in moving forward and that is why I have continued to support his efforts throughout this process.

Madam Speaker, no single country in Africa has been subject to greater partisan and bipartisan attention and deliberation by the United States Congress than the Republic of Sudan. Over

the past 3 years, at least nine major bills and resolutions regarding Sudan have been passed by this body, including an historic declaration that genocide was occurring in the Darfur region of western Sudan in September of 2004.

For its own part, the administration of President Bush has led both humanitarian and diplomatic efforts to address the crisis in Darfur. The United States has provided more than $617 million in assistance to help ease the suffering of those most affected by the conflict, and more than $150 million to support the African Union mission in Darfur.

I would say parenthetically, last August Greg Simpkins, our expert on the subcommittee, and I went to Darfur. We spent several days in Khartoum and then made our way up to Mukjar and Kalma camp. Mukjar is a very remote camp, where we saw the beneficiaries of that aid, men and women and children, who have suffered so much, lost so many of their loved ones to this genocide. But it was reassuring and quite gratifying, to be blunt, to see American aid providing them with healthy and nutritious meals as well as the medicines and at least some of the security that they so desperately need.

We also knew, especially with Mukjar, that if you traveled just a kilometer outside camp, the Janjaweed and other killers were waiting to continue their genocidal deeds. It was very sobering to know the risks and the security fright that they face each and every day knowing that they cannot go past the perimeters of the refugee camps.

We also met in Khartoum with not only Salva Kiir, the Vice President, who is doing an extraordinarily good job to try to bring peace to the region, but we also met with President al-Bashir. He and his junta continue to be largely responsible for many of the crimes committed both in Darfur and earlier in the south of Sudan.

Let me finally point out to my colleagues that at the direction of the President, President Bush, the United States Ambassador to NATO has pressed for NATO reinforcement of the African Union mission. We all know they do not have enough people to do the job. The mission was designed and configured in a way that almost doomed it to failure despite herculean efforts on their part. We are now pressing for reinforcement of those AU troops.

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, continues to seek authorization to incorporate the African Union Mission into a larger, more robust U.N. peacekeeping mission. As Mr. Lantos knows when we traveled to New York just a week ago and met with Kofi Annan and others, that was one of the key topics we talked about: How do we get this AU mission blue helmeted so they can grow the mission, as well as boots on the ground to try to mitigate this misery.

The United States also continues to play a significant role in facilitating peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria, between the Government of Sudan and the rebels of Darfur.

Notwithstanding the multiple legislative initiatives and the best efforts of this administration and many of our friends in Europe, and despite the conclusion of a peace agreement for southern Sudan, the passage of six U.N. Security Council resolutions and the deployment of nearly 7,000 African Union peacekeepers in Darfur and the conduct of seven rounds of peace talks, the crisis in Darfur continues with catastrophic consequences. This conflict is real. It is ongoing, it is every day, and it demands our resolute attention.

Madam Speaker, as many as 400,000 people have died and more than 2 million people have been forced from their homes. Entire villages have been looted and destroyed, and countless men, women and children have been abducted, murdered, abused and raped. Weapons continue to flow into the region unabated despite the existence of an arms embargo, and attacks against civilians, humanitarian convoys, and African Union peacekeepers increase almost daily as peace talks in Nigeria flounder.

Despite 14,000 aid workers that make up some 82 NGOs, 13 U.N. agencies and the International Committee for the Red Cross, a lack of security and reliable transportation means that food aid and other humanitarian assistance is becoming increasingly more difficult to deliver. While it is clear that something must be done, it is also clear that we cannot legislate an end to the atrocities and no number of forces from the African Union, NATO, U.N. or even the U.S. can impose a permanent peace without the commitment of the Sudanese themselves to lay down their arms.

Still, as humanitarians we cannot stand by idly as the Sudanese government officials and rebel commanders jockey for power while tragedy continues to unfold in Darfur and threatens to return to the rest of Sudan.

According to a recent International Crisis Group report, Sudan's ruling National Congress Party lacks the will to implement the North- South peace agreement and has frustrated the Darfur peace process by ``facilitating increased chaos on the ground and promoting divisions within the rebels.''

We are all aware of the complexity of the situation in Sudan and must respond accordingly to all of its facets and manifestations. This legislation, I believe, attempts a comprehensive effort to deal with the tragedy of that country. The committee amendment before you, which is the result of 8 months of bipartisan collaboration, contains the following measures:

One, while it does not authorize the use of United States Armed Forces in Darfur, it confers upon the President the authority to provide assistance to reinforce the deployment and operations of an expanded AU mission with the mandate, size, strength and capacity to protect civilians and humanitarian operations.

Two, it encourages the imposition of targeted sanctions against the Janjaweed commanders and coordinators.

Three, it calls for the extension of the military embargo established pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1556 and 1591 to include the government of Sudan.

Four, it amends the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 to impose an asset freeze and travel ban against individual perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur.

Next, it asserts that existing restrictions imposed against Sudan shall not be lifted until the President certifies to the Congress that the government of Sudan is acting in good faith to:

One, peacefully resolve the crisis in Darfur;

Two, disarm, demobilize and demilitarize the Janjaweed;

Three, adhere to U.N. Security Council resolutions;

Four, negotiate a peaceful resolution to the crisis in eastern Sudan;

Five, cooperate with efforts to disarm and deny safe havens to the Lord's Resistance Army; and

Six, fully implement the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

The legislation also amends the International Malaria Control Act to enable the United States Government to continue providing assistance to southern Sudan and other marginalized areas and lift restrictions on imports and exports for those same areas.

It also adds a section regarding the preemption of State laws that prohibit investment of State pension funds in Sudan.

Madam Speaker, Sudan is a very sensitive and emotional issue for Members of this body. While Sudan may be providing the United States with valuable information relevant to the global war on terror, or so it says, it is still on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. It is a country where the government has unleashed campaigns of terror and genocide against its own citizens.

It is a country where slavery still exists. Back in 1996, I chaired the first hearing ever on the continuing use of chattel slavery in Sudan, something that we thought was abolished in the 1860s.

For many, the National Congress Party-led faction of the Sudanese government represents pure evil. Although we may differ on our views on how best to confront the regime in Khartoum, the need to promote peace and accountability throughout Sudan is not a partisan issue. Members, such as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), have been tenacious on this. Of course the ranking member, Mr. Lantos, and all of us have worked on both sides of the aisle to try

to ensure that this body remains focused on Sudan in a meaningful and constructive way. Their leadership has been inspiring, and I want to thank them all.

That being said, the bill that lies before you today is the result of 8 months of inclusive consultations and intense negotiations, and represents a truly bipartisan compromise on the efforts to address genocide in Darfur while supporting the consolidation of peace in southern Sudan.

And while it represents a compromise, don't be mistaken. This is a strong bill. It is an important bill. It is an urgent bill. The people of Darfur cannot afford to wait while we continue discussions on how best to confront Khartoum. They need our help now.

I would also like to thank our esteemed ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the chairman and ranking member, Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers, for acting so quickly to allow us to get this measure to the floor without further delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my good friend and colleague from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in closing, how grateful I am to Members on both sides of the aisle for working so steadfastly on this legislation. There were some glitches, there were some areas where there was broad agreement as well as disagreement. We worked out those differences, and I want to thank the Members, but also the staff. Joan Condon has done an incredibly good job in walking us through this legislation and writing many parts of it. Greg Simpkins, our Africa specialist on the subcommittee, who also worked on this legislation, as I said earlier, accompanied me to Darfur last August. We saw firsthand the devastating impact of this horrific genocide on men, women, and children in that beleaguered land. Pearl-Alice Marsh is always a great friend of the Africa Subcommittee, who provides very good insights. I want to thank her, as well as Noelle Lusane, Don Payne's lead staffer who works very well with us, and Ted Dagne. Together we were able to work through these differences.

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

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 H.R. 3127.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 578) concerning the Government of Romania's ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 578 expresses deep disappointment that the Romanian government has instituted a virtual ban on intercountry adoptions with serious implications for the well-being of orphaned and abandoned children in Romania.

Immediately after the December 1989 revolution, Mr. Speaker, which ousted the much-hated dictator Nicholae Ceausescu, the world learned that tens of thousands of underfed, neglected children were living in institutions, called orphanages, throughout Romania. A month after the fall of Ceausescu, Dorothy Taft, who is our deputy chief of staff at the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and I traveled to Bucharest and visited those orphanages. We also met with government officials and spoke about the hope for democracy in that country. But one of the most lasting impressions that I have from that trip is being in an orphanage in Bucharest, where dozens of children were lined up with no one to turn them, to change their diapers and, in some cases, even to feed them with the frequency that their little bodies required. It left a lasting impression upon me.

Sadly, all these years later, Mr. Speaker, Romania's child abandonment rate that we witnessed firsthand on that trip has not changed significantly over those years. As of December 2005, 76,509 children are currently in the child protection system.

While the Romanian government deserves at least some credit for reducing the number of children living in institutions from 100,000 to 28,000, this is only part of the picture. The government statistics do not include the abandoned infants living for years in maternity and pediatric hospitals, where donations from charities and individuals keep the children alive; and more than 40,000 of the children moved out of the institutions are living in nonpermanent settings or foster care, or with maternal assistance, paid by the government or with a distant relative who do not intend to adopt them, but do accept them for a stipend.

In the context of Romania's ascension to the European Union, unsubstantiated allegations have been made about the qualifications and motives for those who adopt internationally and the fate of those adopted children.

Intercountry adoption, Mr. Speaker, was falsely equated with child trafficking, and Romania faced relentless pressure to prohibit intercountry adoptions. Sadly, rather than focusing on the best interest of the children, Romanian policymakers acquiesced to the European Union's pressure, especially its rapporteur, Lady Emma Nicholson, by enacting a law in 2004 that banned intercountry adoption, except by biological grandparents. By foreclosing foreign adoptions, the laws codified the misguided proposition that a foster family, or even an institution, is preferable to an adoptive family outside of the child's country of birth.

Between 1990 and 2004, I would note, more than 8,000 Romanian children found permanent families in the United States and thousands more joined families in Western Europe and elsewhere. This possibility is now gone. Some Romanians and Europeans argue that this law, this misguided law, is somehow consistent with Hague Convention on the Intercountry Adoptions and the Rights of the Child Convention. They also allege that ``there is little scope, if any, for international adoptions in Romania because there are so few children who are legally adoptable.''

Mr. Speaker, the low numbers declared ``legally adoptable'' is not something to be proud of. It is a contrivance. Indeed, it is a denunciation of the child welfare system, which now places such an unrealistic priority on unification with blood relatives that it is nearly impossible to determine any child is adoptable, no matter how old and how long they have been in state care without contact with the blood relatives.

If more children were made available for adoption, there would be a great need for intercountry adoption. Barely a thousand children have ever been domestically adopted in Romania in any given year. As a result of the new laws, only 333 children were entrusted for domestic adoption last year.

For thousands of children abandoned annually in Romania, domestic or intercountry adoption offered the hope of a life outside of foster care or an institution. That hope has now been dashed and destroyed.

Last September, Mr. Speaker, I chaired a hearing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe at which Maura Harty, the Deputy Under Secretary of State, rebutted the argument that the adoption ban is somehow consistent with Romania's intercountry international treaty obligations. Likewise, our witnesses, including Dr. Dana Johnson, Director of the International Adoption Clinic and Neonatology Division at the University of Minnesota's Children's Hospital, testified that Romania's concentration on reunification of an abandoned child with his or her biological family is only superficially consistent with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

He also talked about the deleterious effect of such waiting, being held in foster care and especially in institutions, has on a child's mental, as well as their physical health.

When Romania enacted its intercountry adoption ban, there were 211 pending cases in which children have been matched with adoptive parents in the United States. Approximately a thousand more have been matched with parents in Western Europe, Israel and Australia. In the past few weeks there have been unofficial reports that pending applications are being rejected across the board and the dossiers returned to the adoptive parents.

A document from the Romanian Office for Adoption acknowledged that fewer than 300 of these children have been placed in permanent situations, either returned to biological parents or adopted within Romania. The vast majority remain in limbo. This cannot be the last word of what we often call ``the pipeline cases.''

The Romanian government repeatedly promised to analyze each pending case thoroughly, but the review that has supposedly been done was not transparent, was not done on a case-by-case basis, and was not conducted according to clear and valid criteria that is in the best interest of each individual child. These cases involve prospective families who have proven their good faith, by waiting for years for these children. Many cases involve children who will not be domestically adopted due to their special needs, medical or societal prejudices.

In at least three cases, Mr. Speaker, children are already living in the United States with their prospective adoptive parents while receiving life-saving medical treatment, including a child with spina bifida. These children were legally adoptable until Romania's new law took effect.

Let me say that when I introduced this resolution in November, I asked the question, who in the European Union will stand with Members of our Congress, to protect these defenseless children?

Today I am happy to say, members of the European Parliament are challenging the anti-adoption monopoly over this issue and that is encouraging. On December 15, the European Parliament urged Romania to act in the pending cases with the goal of allowing intercountry adoptions to take place where justified and appropriate. In March, the European Parliament's rapporteur for Romania's EU accession, Mr. Pierre Moscovici, reported that he notably differs on the issue of international adoption of Romanian

children from the previous rapporteur, Baroness Emma Nicholson, whose virulent anti-adoption views that hurt the children of Romania are now very, very well known.

I applaud the European Parliament and I am glad that our parliament, this Congress, is poised to go on record very strongly in trying to resolve these pipeline cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), who has several cases in his own district that he has been advocating for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much and his work on behalf of his constituents.

General Leave

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 I may consume.

In closing, I want again to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their tremendous support for this resolution and the underlying issue of trying to encourage intercountry adoption in a country, Romania, that has now, in a misguided fashion, turned their back on those children who could find loving, durable homes with the adoption option.

Let me also thank so many other people who were a part of this, but especially Maureen Walsh, who is our General Counsel for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, for her extraordinary expertise and work on the issue and this resolution. We have had an ongoing process, contacting the highest levels of the government of Romania, from the President on down. It has been ongoing. It has been frequent.

Our hearing that Ben Cardin and I put on last year I think brought all of these issues to the fore in a way that were very persuasive on the part of the pipeline families, as well as the issue itself. The intercountry adoption is a

loving, compassionate option, and certainly is far better than languishing in an orphanage somewhere where the child is warehoused.

Mr. Speaker, so we call upon the Romanian government again to reverse its position, to cease its mucking under Lady Nicholson's pressure, which is now going into reverse. The European Union, as I said before, is showing clear signs that it concludes it has made a profound mistake.

I want to thank Mr. Cardin, who is our ranking member on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, who has been working on these issues side by side.

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