Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 320) calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Pham Hong Son and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this bill to my colleagues today in defense of a man who has fought for democracy in Vietnam at great personal cost. There has been a tremendous amount of publicity lately about Internet dissidents in China. As a matter of fact, we had a day- long hearing on this use of the Internet to capture and to really decapitate the dissidents and religious freedom movements in China, in Vietnam and Belarus and in other countries, but we now focus on one particular man, as well as others who have suffered because of that, in the case of Dr. Pham Hong Son of Vietnam.

In March 2002, Mr. Speaker, police arrested Dr. Son. He had translated an article from the Web site of the U.S. Embassy Hanoi that was entitled, ``What is democracy?'' and he sent it to some of his friends and senior Vietnamese officials. In addition, he had

written an open letter, published on the Internet, protesting the fact that his house had been searched illegally and his computer and documents confiscated.

Dr. Son was charged with espionage by the government, which accused him of collecting and dispatching news and documents for a foreign country to be used against the Socialist State of Vietnam. Let us not forget who that foreign country is. It is us. It is the U.S. Embassy's Web site in Hanoi, and that is where he went to download that essay, ``What is democracy?''

After a closed trial and a closed appeal, from which Western reporters and diplomats from Europe, the United States and Canada were barred, Dr. Son was sentenced to 5 years, plus an additional 3 years of house arrest.

Dr. Son's case has been highlighted repeatedly by the U.S. Department of State's Human Rights Report for Vietnam and by Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International.

Mr. Speaker, I went to Vietnam last year, accompanied by Eleanor Nagy, who is our Director of Policy on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, and met with some 60 dissidents in the course of the better part of a week in Hanoi, Hue and in Ho Chi Minh City. We met with Dr. Son's extraordinary and courageous wife, Vu Thuy Ha, who continues to campaign for her husband's freedom despite constant surveillance and harassment, which I personally witnessed. I knew that we could not let this brave woman battle alone.

As a matter of fact, when Eleanor and I, along with some people from the embassy, sat with his wife, right across from us at a hotel were some thugs from the secret police who were taking pictures of her and trying to intimidate her, which they have been doing day in and day out.

The State Department, to its credit, put Dr. Son at the head of their list of political prisoners who need to be released during the February Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam. As Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Barry Lowenkron told the Vietnamese, and this is his quote, ``I bluntly told them that the American people will not understand why a country that wants to have better relations with us would imprison someone for translating an article on democracy.''

On Friday March 31, Vietnam flatly rejected Lowenkron's call to release Dr. Son and 20 other religious and political prisoners, saying it only jails criminals. In Vietnam, they said, there are no prisoners of conscience, and no one has been arrested for their viewpoints or their religion.

That is unmitigated nonsense and a big lie, Mr. Speaker, and that has to be confronted by this Congress.

Less than a day after the unanimous subcommittee markup of this resolution on December 9, plainclothes officers detained two other well-known Internet writers, Do Nam Hai, whom I met with in Vietnam and who is mentioned in our resolution. They were at a public Internet cafe. The police also forced Hai to open his personal e-mail account and printed about 30 of his sent messages.

The two writers were interrogated for 6 hours at the cafe and later at a police station in Hanoi. Both were released from police custody that day.

And the persecution continues, Mr. Speaker. On March 12, according to Reporters Without Borders, an Internet user calling himself ``Freedom For the Country,'' joined the discussion group ``Democracy and Freedom the Only Way for Vietnam.'' He went on-line in a Hanoi cyber cafe, and he discussed politics for about half an hour with two other people in the group. During the discussion, he said he was a member of a pro- democracy working group. The entire on-line conversation was recorded by the forum administrator, police entered the cyber cafe, and they arrested him.

On the recording, someone could be heard asking the Internet user to go with them, and then someone else shouting, hit him. The administrator continued recording after the police intervention, and no one came to disconnect the computer linked to Pal Talk. Afterwards, a man's voice is heard on the microphone introducing himself as the cyber cafe's owner and confirming that one of his customers had been taken away by the police. He added that he had been fined for violating Internet law. The Vietnamese denied the arrest, and the victim's identity is unknown. He joins three other cyber dissidents who were arrested in October and whose whereabouts remain unknown.

This sort of persecution, Mr. Speaker, will obviously not go away by itself. But tyranny hates and fears public exposure, and we need to keep attention focused on Vietnam's continuing violation of the rights that it claims to grant to its people.

Vietnam is at a critical crossroads. It wants to expand its burgeoning trade relations with the United States and seeks to join the WTO. There would be no better way to convince Vietnam of the seriousness of our human rights concerns and their centrality in any relation with the U.S. It seems to me you can't trust a country on intellectual property rights and copyright infringement if they jail, incarcerate, and beat their own people because they simply espouse basic fundamental human rights.

The European Parliament, I might add, has already passed a resolution calling for Vietnam to release all of its prisoners of conscience, allowing democracy and political pluralism and ensuring the human rights for Vietnam's Montagnards. It is appropriate that we do likewise and that we do it today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I would close by especially thanking Dennis Curry, Eleanor Nagy, and Dan Freeman, our staff who have worked so hard on this resolution. The hearing that we held recently was a very insightful hearing that focused on the ongoing and persistent violations of fundamental human rights in Vietnam. Last year, right before Prime Minister Khai came to the United States, we held another Vietnam human rights hearing, and it was very telling.

We can't reduce human rights to an asterisk or a ``see page 3'' footnote in our relationship with the government of Vietnam. I would urge every Member, when and if they travel to Vietnam, that they prepare themselves by really understanding the nature of this government. Yes, there may be some modest progress being made in the area of religious freedom, and I underscore the word ``modest,'' but they still are a country of particular concern, so designated by the Department of State because of their egregious violations of religious freedom and the persecution of people, whether they be members of the Montagnards, the Evangelical Christians, or the Unified Buddhist Church, people like the Venerable Thich Quang Do, whom I met with.

Let me say finally that I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do in his pagoda, as he is under house arrest. When we began to leave, all of a sudden he stopped, and he said, ``I take one step beyond this and the guys across the street will have me in handcuffs.'' That is the reality of what is going on in Vietnam today. I would hope Members, before they go to Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, acquaint themselves very thoroughly with the human rights abuses the Vietnamese commit and raise those issues, particularly as it relates to trade.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Chairman Leach, for yielding me time and for his leadership on this and on so many other resolutions and initiatives as well on behalf of human rights.

Mr. Lantos, it is great to see you again on the floor, not unexpected. You are always here fighting the good fight on behalf of human rights.

Madam Speaker, I especially want to commend Chairman Hyde for offering this resolution. I am very proud to be one of the original cosponsors of it. It is a collaborative effort that strongly restates U.S. support for the Good Friday Agreement signed 8 years ago this month.

Madam Speaker, the Hyde resolution also underscores our unyielding support for the establishment of peace, justice, reconciliation and prosperity in Northern Ireland which we have all hoped for and we have all prayed for. While we are not there yet there has been some very encouraging signs.

On March 15, Madam Speaker, I chaired my eleventh hearing on the Northern Ireland peace process. All of these hearings have been comprehensive and insightful but this one was the first since the IRA's full renunciation of arms struggle and the decommissioning of its weapons.

Our resolution today makes note of that historic milestone, a remarkable development in the path to peace. Of course, equally significant for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is true, durable and transparent police reform. Here, too, Madam Speaker, there has been progress.

Today there is a vigorous and fiercely independent Police Ombudsman's Office, whose chief, Nuala O'Loane, has been a catalyst for reform. There is now a Policing Board in Northern Ireland composed of independent and party representatives to design and provide civilian control and fair nonsectarian policing. The Chairman, Sir Desmond Rea, and retiring Vice Chairman, Dennis Bradley, testified at our

most recent hearing. There is a new Historical Enquiries Team established by the PSNI Chief Constable Hugh Orde, which will provide a thorough and independent examination of unresolved deaths that occurred in connection with the troubles from 1968 to 1989.

H. Res. 744 rightly commends Nuala O'Loane, Sir Hugh, and the new policing institutions for the progress that they have made, often under very adversarial conditions. Even with these improvements, Madam Speaker, significant work further remains to be done in order to ensure acceptance by all the communities of the PSNI. 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. In 2001 the British and Irish governments jointly appointed Judge Peter Cory, a preeminent retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to determine whether independent commissions should investigate possible state-sponsored collusion in six notorious and horrific murders. They also pledge to abide by his recommendations.

Two years ago Judge Cory, and he too testified at one point before our committee, 2 years ago he issued his report; and it called for five of the six murderers to be investigated independently. Yet, I am sorry to say, the British government has still not appointed an inquiry commission into the murder of the human rights attorney, Pat Finucane, who was gunned down in his home in front of his wife and three small children in 1989.

Every one of the 11 hearings that I have chaired on human rights and police reform in Northern Ireland has dealt with Pat Finucane's murder in whole or in part, yet still nothing has been done. The U.K. government must find a way to institute a credible inquiry which will be stepped by all, by Judge Cory, the Irish Republic, by the world community, but most of all, by the Finucane family.

If the population of Northern Ireland is to cease relying on paramilitaries for protection, which they absolutely must do, they must never rely on that, and transfer its trust to the police, it must have the confidence that the police and the authorities deserve trust. That is the major reason why these inquiries must be done and done right as soon as possible.

Again, I want to commend Chairman Hyde, Chairman Gallegly, Mr. Walsh, Mr. King, of course Mr. Lantos again, and Chairman Leach, and also many of our staffs, including Mary Noonan, Richard Mereu and Dennis Curry for their work in writing and crafting this resolution which will put us in a bipartisan way on record for saying that the peace process must continue and the Good Friday Agreement must be fully implemented.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a Washington-based non-governmental organization--the Coalition for International Justice--will close its offices this week after 10 years of service to the cause of justice around the world.

Serving as Chairman and Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission for that same period of time, I have worked closely with the Coalition and seen the effect of its work. Ten years ago, the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a priority in U.S. foreign policy, a conflict in which numerous war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide were committed. Many of us fought for the inclusion of basic justice as an element in our country's policy response, and an international tribunal was fortunately created for that purpose. At the time,

however, support was lukewarm at best; many saw efforts to apprehend and bring to justice those responsible for heinous crimes as too far- reaching, perhaps unachievable, and potentially detrimental to efforts to end the conflict through diplomacy.

The Coalition for International Justice was a tireless advocate of another view, one that saw no true peace, nor the resulting long-term stability, in Bosnia or anywhere else, without appropriate consideration of justice. Time has since shown how correct that view has been. Bosnia and Herzegovina has come a long way since the mid- 1990s, in large part because those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide were instead removed from positions of authority and made accountable at the tribunal located in The Hague. Many of those people might still be at large had the Coalition, among others, not advocated a tough policy toward those powers who were harboring and protecting them. Many of us can remember the State Department's hesitancy, let alone that of many European foreign ministries, to these tough measures. Today, however, the United States maintains an effective conditionality on assistance to Serbia and, along with the European Union, on Serbia's integration efforts due to the particular failure to transfer Ratko Mladic to The Hague. Similar linkages apply to another at-large indictee, Radovan Karadzic.

Representatives of the Coalition for International Justice participated in numerous briefings and hearings of the Helsinki Commission on this subject, and were always available to provide useful information when justice in the Balkans became part of our policy debates.

The Coalition similarly assisted the international criminal tribunal established for Rwanda in its efforts to be fair, responsible and effective in the provision of justice. Its mandate later expanded to help the investigation and prosecutions process in East Timor, to establish a tribunal for Khmer Rouge crimes in Cambodia, and to create a Special Court for Sierra Leone. It helped track the finance of such notorious figures as Charles Taylor, Saddam Hussein and the Khartoum elites, in addition to Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic. Most recently, the Coalition has been part of the international effort not just to hold those responsible for the genocide in Darfur accountable from the crimes already committed but to protect the civilian population there from continuing to be victimized.

Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the work of the Coalition for International Justice as a resource of accurate information, and as an advocate to a reasonable, practical approach to the sometimes controversial subject of international justice. While its board and staff may have concluded that the Coalition has largely accomplished the tasks it was created to address, they know, as do we, that horrible crimes continue to be committed against innocent people in conflicts around the world. I am confident that the dedicated individuals who made the Coalition such a success will continue, through other organizations and offices, in the struggle for international justice.

Mr. Speaker, Ethiopia, one of Africa's most populous and influential nations, has for centuries been the home to numerous diverse religious and ethnic populations. Last May, the East African nation held elections, which promised to be a big step forward for Ethiopia's democracy. The election process started out more open than previous elections, with the political opposition able to campaign more freely than ever before. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity presented for democracy closed in a wave of government harassment of opposition parties and ethnic hate speech on both sides.

Although there were other problems in the election process, the biggest issue was the delayed release of vote results. Preliminary results indicated that the opposition did much better than in past elections, increasing the number of parliamentary seats won from 12 to nearly 200. However, opposition party coalitions charged that fraud had been committed in many of the races they did not win. Because the government had failed to release results in the weeks after the election, suspicions rose that a victory by the opposition had been stolen.

The controversy surrounding the 2005 Ethiopian election is the result of a number of factors that created a ``perfect storm'' of political discontent that has created tragic conditions in Ethiopia.

The European Union election monitoring team reported serious irregularities, but its impartiality was questioned after the leak of a preliminary EU report which indicated that the opposition parties would win a majority in Parliament based largely on results in the capital city of Addis Ababa. Periodic statements released by the EU election team were then undercut by statements from EU diplomats, much as I experienced in my visit to Addis last August.

The Government of Ethiopia, by refusing to release all relevant information regarding the election in a timely fashion, created fear that the election had been stolen. International donors worked behind the scenes with the government to create a mechanism to resolve election disputes. However, that mechanism pitted the ruling party and the government-appointed National Election Board against the opposition parties. As a result, the opposition lost 90 percent of the challenges it filed, and the government missed its own July 8th deadline for release of election results, furthering the frustration and suspicion.

As for the political opposition, its leaders contributed to this crisis by failing to provide necessary evidence of election fraud in all too many cases. It isn't that this evidence may not have existed, but the parties appeared to be unprepared to effectively document what the problems were. Moreover, their refusal to take many of the seats won in the election prevented many issues from effectively being addressed in the Parliament, including the appointment of judges and guarantees of freedom of the press.

The suspicions regarding the election were exacerbated by the government's mass arrest of students in Addis in June. Protests were met with gunfire by government forces. It is estimated that as many as 40 persons identified as political activists were killed by government sharpshooters in the capital alone. Broadened arrests put tens of thousands in jail without charge or adequate contact with families or legal counsel. Further demonstrations in November resulted in at least another 40 persons killed by government forces--this time including those not connected with the political opposition.

The recently-released State Department human rights report on Ethiopia is scathing in its description of what is taking place in Ethiopia, stating that ``the government's human rights record remained poor and worsened in some areas.''

Among the human rights problems reported by the State Department were: limitation on citizens' right to change their government; unlawful killings, including alleged political killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention of thousands of persons; particularly those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition; detention of thousands without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention; government infringement on citizens' privacy rights, and frequent refusal to follow the law regarding search warrants; government restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; self-censorship by journalists; government restrictions on freedom of assembly including denial of permits, burdensome preconditions or refusal to provide assembly halls to opposition political groups, and at times use of excessive force to disperse demonstrations, and government limitations on freedom of association.

Approximately 16,000 people were released from jail earlier this year, but there is uncertainty about how many more prisoners remain behind bars without being charged or while awaiting a trial whose date is not yet set.

During my visit to Addis Ababa last August, I met with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, and I asked him why he had not investigated the June shootings of demonstrators by agents of his government. His response was that the investigation might require the arrest of opposition leaders, and he didn't want to do that while by-elections were still scheduled. He went on to tell me that he had dossiers on all the opposition leaders and could arrest them for treason whenever he wanted. Thus, their arrests were all but certain even before the events that ostensibly led to their being incarcerated. Reportedly, the investigation of the government shootings of demonstrators is now belatedly underway.

The shootings by government forces and delayed investigation are reminiscent of an earlier incident: the massacre of Anuaks in southwestern Ethiopia beginning in December 2003 and continuing until May 2004.

The farming Anuak minority predominate the Gambella region of Ethiopia, but there have been periodic disputes with the highlanders, who are of the Tigrayan and Amharan ethnic groups. According to a Human Rights Watch report at the time, government forces joined with highlanders to kill at least 400 Anuaks in December 2003 alone and participated in the rape and torture of Anuaks. Genocide Watch and Survivors' Rights International confirmed the events described in the Human Rights Watch report.

The Government of Ethiopia announced last year that trials of government forces responsible for 13 of the Anuak killings had finally begun. However, there is no word yet on the result of these trials. While the government is engaged in such efforts, one hopes it also will investigate reports of the killing last year of 24 members and supporters of the Oromo National Congress and other allegedly politically-motivated killings by government forces in 2005.

Ethiopia has been an important ally of the United States in Africa, and the stability of one of Africa's most populous nations is critical to American policy, especially in the important Horn of Africa region. However, the violations detailed in the State Department human rights report and in other accounts of independent human rights organizations will only make this nation more vulnerable to civil war or a foreign- supported insurgency.

This past Monday, a series of explosions in Addis Ababa led to the death of one person and the wounding of three others in a blast on a crowded minibus. This was part of a wave of attacks that began in January and included three explosions earlier this month that wounded three persons at a restaurant, a market, and outside a school.

America's commitment to promote the respect for human rights around the world demands that we examine the current situation in Ethiopia and that we prevail upon our ally to live up to its international human rights commitments while this situation can still be salvaged. The discussions the Government of Ethiopia is conducting with its political opposition and with our government are good signs that some positive movement is possible. Other humanitarian gestures, for example, the eye operation the government reportedly authorized for opposition leader Hailu Shawal, are also an important step in the right direction.

However, the current situation calls for more than small steps taken slowly. If a crisis in Ethiopia is to be averted, reforms, investigations, and trials must proceed with all deliberate speed. This is why we convened a hearing on the situation in Ethiopia yesterday and

why I have introduced H.R. 4423--the Ethiopia Consolidation Act, which we intend to mark-up next week.

As I have said many times, ``Friends don't let friends commit human rights abuses.'' This is a perfect example of why we must follow that dictum.

Mr. Speaker, on March 16 I cochaired a hearing on the Northern Ireland peace process, on the advances in police performance and behavior, and on the remaining challenges the Police Service of Northern Ireland faces to its becoming fully accepted as a fair and impartial police service. The hearing was my 11th hearing on Northern Ireland in not quite 9 years, and I shall continue to follow the events on Northern Ireland closely and encourage reform for as long as necessary.

This hearing helped the U.S. Congress and the American people to better understand the current issues in the always complex situation in Northern Ireland. It provided guidance to our efforts as we continue to seek to assist in the realization of a durable peace and the guarantee of fundamental human rights in Northern Ireland. The establishment of peace, justice and prosperity in Northern Ireland, which we have all hoped, worked and prayed for, is still not a reality. There are many encouraging signs, but also disturbing ones, and we are still not there yet.

One of the most encouraging developments is, of course, the IRA's renunciation of armed struggle, and the decommissioning of its weapons--a remarkable step in the path to peace. The IRA must follow through on its proclamations and cease all criminal activities as well. The most disturbing factor, however, is the alienation of the unionist community. The large majority of decent people on the unionist side, who hope for peace as ardently as nationalists, are skeptical of IRA promises. They are also terrorized by their own paramilitaries. Those pararnilitaries need to follow the IRA example, and disarm, and cease their criminal activities. They are right now one of the greatest dangers to peace and stability.

The Government of the United Kingdom has begun all party negotiations to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and the power sharing executive. It is also preparing legislation to devolve the administration of justice and policing to a restored Northern Irish executive. Mitchell Reiss, President Bush's Special Envoy to the Northern Ireland peace process briefed us on the current prospects and challenges facing the restoration of self-government in Northern Ireland.

There has been some progress in the continuing reform of Northern Ireland's police force. Nearly 7 years ago I chaired a hearing on policing in Northern Ireland. Chris Patten, who had just released the famous report that bears his name, testified before us. Now we shall have a chance to hear about the progress that has been made in implementing the 175 recommendations made by the Patten Report. There is a new police force, the Policing Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI; there is a vigorous and fiercely independent Police Ombudsman's Office, whose chief, Nuala O'Loane, has been a catalyst for reform. The Police Ombudsman's office has been recognized as an effective mechanism for holding

the police in Northern Ireland accountable and helping people develop some confidence in a policing service that has faced credible charges of collusion in crime and assassination. In fact a poll conducted in March of last year showed that public confidence in the ombudsman's objectivity was high, with 78 percent of respondents saying they were confident that complaints were dealt with impartially.

There is now a Policing Board in Northern Ireland, composed of independent and party representatives, designed to provide civilian control and fair, nonsectarian, policing. There are district police partnerships, to guarantee that both the police and the communities they guard understand that the role of the police is to protect the community, not to impose some form of political control. The Patten Commission also envisioned a police force more representative of the whole community. Although Northern Ireland is nearly 45 percent Catholic, the old police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, RUC, was over 90 percent Protestant, and often seemed to function more as an auxiliary to loyalist paramilitaries than the upholder of law and order. Today, recruits to PSNI are supposed to be 50 percent Catholic, so that in time the police will hopefully be representative of the people they are supposed to protect. Now only 20 percent of the police force is Catholic. It's an improvement, but only a start. In the disturbing riots last fall and summer by unionists, the police vigorously enforced the law instead of standing aside as they often did before. This again is a hopeful sign.

But questions remain about ``bad apples'' who may still remain somewhere in the ranks of Northern Ireland's police and about Special Branch members. The U.S. Congress has long understood the importance of supporting police reform and community reconciliation in Northern Ireland. As the author of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 2000-2001--H.R. 3427; Public Law 106-113--I have been particularly interested in training and or exchange programs conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other Federal law enforcement agencies for the RUC, now PSNI. In fact it was my legislation that suspended all FBI-RUC training until 2001, when President Bush certified that the human rights and vetting standards established by my legislation were implemented in the program.

In this year's State Department Authorization Bill, which I sponsored and which passed the House overwhelmingly, 351-78, I included funds to provide specialized investigative training for personnel in the office of the Police Ombudsman to ensure that policing in Northern Ireland is carried out in compliance with internationally recognized human rights standards. We also amended the authorization for the International Fund for Ireland, IFI, to provide up to $7 million for programs that enhance relations between communities, and between the police and the communities they serve, promote human rights training for police, enhance peaceful mediation in neighborhoods of continued conflict, promote training programs to enhance the new district partnership police boards, and assist in the transition of former British military installations and prisons into sites for peaceful, community-supported activities, such as housing, retail, and commercial development. We hope the Senate will act soon on this important legislation. The Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill--now Public Law 109-102-- specifically allows the IFI to use the U.S. contribution to be used for training police to promote human rights and rule of law, and to foster improved relations between police and the communities they serve.

But one remaining area of great concern are the more than 3,000 unsolved murders between 1969 and the signing of the Good Friday agreement in 1998. Punishment of the guilty in many cases may not be possible, because of previous amnesties which have been granted to promote peace in Northern Ireland. But true peace and true democracy cannot be founded on lies and cover-ups. An integral part of police reform is investigation of police and government collusion in past criminal acts. Only the truth can guarantee that Northern Ireland's new police force is established on a sound basis of respect for law and justice, something the previous force, the RUC could never claim. Only the truth can guarantee that the people of Northern Ireland accept their police as legitimate.

The government has recently instituted the Historical Enquiries Team to investigate and resolve these cases. This has the potential--if operated with transparency and openness--to be a critical, helpful step. Time will tell. Meanwhile, there are several cases which require special attention. The British and Irish Governments in 2001 jointly appointed Judge Peter Cory, a preeminent retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether independent commissions should investigate possible state sponsored collusion in six notorious and horrific murders. They also pledged to abide by his recommendations. Two years ago Judge Cory issued his report and called for five of the six murders to be investigated independently. Yet the British Government has still not appointed an inquiry commission into the murder of the human rights attorney Patrick Finucane, who was gunned down in his home, in front of his wife and three small children, in 1989. Every 1 of the past 10 hearings I have chaired on human rights and police reform in Northern Ireland has dealt with Patrick Finucane's murder. Yet still nothing has been done. The Government of the UK must find a way to institute a credible inquiry which will be accepted by all, especially the Finucane family. The British Government has finally begun its inquiry commission, as demanded by Judge Cory, into police misconduct in the murder of Rosemary Nelson, another heroic human rights lawyer, and mother of three, who fell victim to a car bomb in March 1999. Rosemary, 6 months earlier had testified before my committee about the harassment, intimidation and threats made against her by the RUC. No one has ever been charged in her murder. That inquiry was finally begun on April 19 but has made little progress so far, and serious questions remain as to whether the investigation is being conducted properly. If the population of Northern Ireland is to cease relying on paramilitaries for protection, and transfer its trust to the police, it must have confidence that the police and the authorities deserve trust. These inquiries need to be done, and done well, as soon as possible.

Finally, although political reform and police reform are absolute preconditions for all progress, only economic development can finally end the terrible poverty, among both Catholics and Protestants, nationalists and unionists, which helps breed the violence. Fully employed, prosperous and prospering people, who can see tomorrow as better than today, rarely attack their neighbors. The Catholic and nationalist community, although worried, looks on the fulfillment of the Good Friday agreements with great hope. Too many in the unionist community, unfortunately, have been exploited by extremists to look upon all gains by Catholics as setbacks for themselves, that all jobs that Catholics get, as jobs that they lose. Only economic development can provide the jobs, the housing, the public services that all the people of Northern Ireland, in both communities, need for a better life. We have continued our support--$13.5 million in 2006--for the International Fund for Ireland for both 2006 and 2007, not only to promote police reform, as I mentioned above, but also to promote economic development which is critical to achieving a just and lasting peace. Now that we are nearer to success, this is no time to falter in our efforts.

The IFI has played a vital role in economic progress in Northern Ireland. The U.S. has contributed over half of the total fund, about $400 million in the past 20 years. And it has helped. In the 1990's Northern Ireland's unemployment fell by 40 percent. The fund has created nearly 38,000 jobs. But the IFI does not only fund material progress, and its greatest achievements are not material: It has also developed a series of community building programs, promoting greater dialogue and understanding between Catholic and Protestant, including leadership programs designed to develop a new generation of leaders in Northern Ireland to bring about a more peaceful and prosperous future in the region. Young people are the key to the future everywhere, but in Northern Ireland they are absolutely crucial to breaking the cycle of discrimination and sectarian violence once and for all. For this reason our authorization bill continues support for ``Project Children,'' to bring together Catholic and Protestant participants from the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, to help build peace in Northern Ireland through its children and young people.

Besides Mitchell Reiss, we heard testimony from the Right Honorable Sir Desmond Rea, chairman, Northern Ireland Policing Board; Mr. Denis Bradley, vice chairman, Northern Ireland Policing Board; Ms. Maggie Beirne, director, Committee for the Administration of Justice; Ms. Jane Winter, director, British Irish Rights Watch; Ms. Archana Pyati, senior associate, Human Rights Defenders Program, Human Rights First.

Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 2006, I chaired a hearing to review the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2005 and, in the context of those reports, to examine the state of respect for human rights around the world.

Human rights are not a concession or benefit conferred by the state. They are the entitlement of every human person on the basis of that person's inherent dignity and worth. Thus the Universal Declaration for Human Rights and subsequent international human rights treaties did not establish human rights--they recognized those rights. Therefore, human rights cannot be abrogated or otherwise removed by any government. They are entitlements pre-existing and superseding the prerogatives of the government, and as such are either respected or violated.

Certain human rights are fundamental, and are the basis for the recognition and enjoyment of all other human rights. Foremost of these rights is the right to life. If a human being is denied or threatened with the denial of life, the existence of other rights is meaningless. And attempts to exclude any category of human beings from the inviolable right to life at the whim of expediency or the more powerful undermines and threatens the respect of life for all peoples. A determination to take the life of one human being easily translates into taking the life of another, limited only by the relative power of the aggressor and the vulnerability of the one whose life is threatened. It is for these reasons that the life of every human being, from conception to natural death, is of such critical, overriding importance.

As affirmed by the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, liberty, justice and peace in the world are built on the foundation of the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Human rights are central to United States foreign policy not only because they are a moral imperative but also because they are central to any effort to establish and maintain a democratic, peaceful, stable society. Those who ignore or repudiate human rights are sowing the seeds of instability, rebellion and violence.

It is therefore disturbing that human rights concerns are often subordinated to other concerns, such as trade, cooperation on terrorism, immigration control, or selling military equipment, in the name of maintaining relations with countries of high importance to U.S. strategic goals. This misses the point. The most important U.S. interest is the promotion of freedom and democracy and long-term stability. We are strong enough, and we are prosperous enough that we have no need to accept blood money or to send refugees back to persecution or to seek our alliances among regimes that murder and torture their own people.

The Country Reports are among the most important tasks undertaken by the Department of State. These reports allow the United States an opportunity to bear witness, to reassert fundamental principles, and also to examine its own conscience about whether its foreign policy comports with these principles. Other annual reports, such as the Trafficking in Persons report and the report on International Religious Freedom, also shine the spotlight on specific human rights areas which bear closer examination.

Although the human rights mechanism of the United Nations is not directly germane to the release of the Country Reports, the importance of the recent adoption by the General Assembly of the resolution establishing the new Human Rights Council is of such importance that I included it in the discussions of the hearing. I personally am deeply disappointed and dismayed that the United Nations adopted such a weak and deeply flawed replacement for the discredited Human Rights Commission.

Furthermore, the new Council's anticipated promotion of the goals and commitments ``emanating'' from UN conferences and summits, measures not intended by negotiating member states to be on a par with human rights treaties, will dilute and trivialize the solemn importance rightly attributed to fundamental human rights. Many of us in Congress will be watching the development of the new Council closely, and we strongly encourage the Administration to work assiduously to not only ensure that this new council promotes and defends human rights but also that it does not distort the established and accepted framework of fundamental human rights.

The 2005 Country Reports document several important steps forward taken by governments around the world to respect and protect the fundamental human rights of their citizens. Burundi concluded a four- year transitional process and large numbers of displaced persons were encouraged to return home. The election of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia marked ``a significant milestone'' in that country's efforts to achieve democracy and peace. Afghanistan experienced its first parliamentary elections in almost 30 years, with women enthusiastically participating. And in Ukraine, the Orange Revolution resulted in a democratically elected government and a notable improvement in respect for human rights.

Unfortunately, the news is not all good. The Country Reports also serve to confirm and document what we knew already, that the last year has not been a good one for the state of human rights in the world. The Zimbabwean government's Operation Restore Order led to the demolition of houses and businesses and displaced or destroyed the livelihoods of more than 700,000 people. The government of Belarus President Lukashenko detained, fined, and imprisoned pro-democracy activists, including opposition politicians, students and newspaper editors, for criticizing him and his

regime. And the people of Nepal continued to suffer many serious human rights abuses, both during and after the February-April state of emergency that suspended all fundamental rights except for habeas corpus--and even habeas corpus orders issued by the court were not respected.

The totalitarian governments of China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba all continued their persecution of political and religious dissidents. The Chinese government and security forces, in particular, are cited by the 2005 Reports as having increased their harassment, detention and imprisonment of those perceived to be a threat to government authority. The government considers the number of death sentences to be a state secret, but foreign experts estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 persons are executed each year. There were claims that 20 public protesters were killed last year during one demonstration, and the state-run media reported that in general 460 persons were killed through abuse or dereliction of duty. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak reported after his November visit that torture in China remains widespread.

One of the most egregious human rights abuses that is receiving grossly insufficient global attention is the one-child per family policy enforced in China since 1979. The policy says that if a woman happens to become pregnant with a second child, despite the government's best efforts to assure that this does not happen, then the parent must pay a heavy penalty or unborn child must be aborted. Heavy fines are imposed upon couples who have an ``unapproved'' child. These so-called ``social compensation fees'' can be up to ten times a person's annual salary, compelling them to abort the baby.

The Chinese government goes to appalling lengths to enforce its one- child limit, abusing the rights of Chinese women, in particular, to a degree that is unique in both kind and degree. For example, Government Family Planning Bureaus conduct periodic pregnancy tests on married women, and give them unspecified ``follow-up'' services. Fines for failing to undergo these tests can be as high as $60 US. It should therefore not be surprising that approximately 500 women in China commit suicide each day--more than five times the global rate. Possible reasons given for this tragic statistic include that country's birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children.

Officials who help individuals to evade the birth limitations are legally subject to significant and detailed sanctions. On the other hand, those who meet the population goals established by their administrative region are rewarded. Thus, it is no wonder that local officials violated individual's rights in attempting to reduce the number of births in their region. The 2005 Reports state that in just one province, 130,000 people were detained to force them or their relatives to submit to abortion or sterilization procedures. Several late-term abortions were documented, and at least 7,000 people were forcibly sterilized. Local officials profited personally from the fees charged for attendance at the ``population schools.'' One legal activist was placed under house arrest for exposing these abuses. Other instances of forced sterilizations and abortions, committed in pursuance of these harsh birth limitation policies, were again documented.

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

Elsewhere in the world, dictatorships in Belarus and Burma were unsurprisingly similar in their oppressive methods of control to maintain power. Security forces in both countries arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens for political reasons. Police abuse and torture of prisoners continued in Belarus, and in Burma, abuses also included rape, beatings, forcible relocation of populations, and conscription of child soldiers.

In Africa, human rights abuses continued to be widespread throughout the continent. In Ethiopia, the refusal of the opposition parties to accept the announced results of the May elections resulted in serious human rights abuses. Authorities arbitrarily detained, beat and killed opposition members and freedom of the press and freedom of assembly were severely curtailed. In addition to the forced displacement mentioned earlier, Zimbabwe once again went through the charade of elections that in fact were marked by fraud and the improper participation of security forces in the tabulation of ballots, irregularities in voter registration, and continued restrictions on speech, press and assembly.

The world is all too aware of the continuing tragic situation in Sudan. According to the World Health Organization, the conflict in Darfur has resulted in the deaths of at least 70,000 civilians, the internal-displacement of more than 1.9 million civilians, and the flight of an estimated 210,000 refugees to neighboring Chad. When confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, extensive trafficking in persons, and the acts of torture and violence against women.

The human rights record of Iran also worsened this past year, with numerous troubling violations reported. The government executed many political dissidents following trials that lacked due process. Dissent was criminalized and the death penalty applied to such offenses as apostasy, ``attempts against the security of the State, outrage against high-ranking officials and insults against the memory of Imam Khomeini and against the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic.'' A report released during the past year stated that at least 8 evangelical Christians have been killed in Iran and another 15 to 23 reported missing or ``disappeared'' over the past 15 years.

Also alarming were the reports of serious human rights violations by governments with which the United States enjoys a close relationship. The 2005 Reports give no indication that Saudi Arabia is correcting its traditional disregard for religious freedom. Officially sanctioned discrimination against the Shi'a Muslim minority continued, and Christians still faced arrest and detention for practicing their faith, even in the privacy of their own homes. One newspaper reported that 40 Pakistani citizens, including one Muslim, were arrested after holding Christian services in an apartment. Other human rights abuses took place in Saudi Arabia as well, including abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary arrests, and legal and societal discrimination against women.

Finally, I continue to be deeply troubled by the lack of respect for human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. Vietnam is a one-party state run by the Communists which oppressively controls the ordinary lives of its citizens, rigidly represses political rights, and denies its people the exercise of their religious freedom. The Country Report on Vietnam documents that the government subjected religious leaders to administrative detention, ``pagoda arrest,'' and varying degrees of informal detention in their residences. Citizens who tried to exercise their rights to practice their religion, assembly, or expression also were detained at times for several days by security forces. Such conduct should not be ignored when a country is seeking stronger economic relations with the United States.

In conclusion, the biggest challenge with the Country Reports is not the reporting itself, but the uses to which this human rights reporting will be put to achieve universal respect for human rights and thus greater peace and stability in our world. Human rights can not be the work of one political officer in the Embassy who prepares the annual report once a year and then turns to other tasks. Rather, it must be the foundation on which our bilateral relationships are based.

The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy must be the promotion of American values, which include the protection and advancement of fundamental human rights of people around the world. The moral character and depth of soul of any society will be measured not by its military might, technological prowess, athletic excellence or GDP, but by the respect it accords to the inherent dignity and worth of every person who lives within its borders.

Madam Speaker, I commend President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Afghan President Karzai for their quick and decisive action to save the life of Afghani Christian convert Abdul Rahman. I wish to extend my thanks to my fellow Congressmen, fellow Americans and other members of the world community who rose up to demand that the travesty of Abdul Rahman's trial and near certain death for apostasy be stopped. The actions, and the prayers, of millions helped save an innocent man and demonstrate that the world community will not tolerate such offenses against freedom of conscience.

We all dodged a bullet in Afghanistan. But the problem is not just Afghanistan, and the ultimate solution is not simply granting asylum for yet another refugee of conscience. The problem is the increased number, and increasing attempts to enforce, laws and statutes against conversion in many countries of the world, not just Afghanistan. This freedom of thought, conscience and belief is now threatened not only in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq. It is also threatened in countries such as Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia, where religious pluralism has long been established. It is threatened in countries like Russia and Belarus, where minority religions are denounced as ``non- traditional'' and suffer harassment and discrimination.

Freedom of religion is founded on the inherent dignity of every individual. It is a right that is not granted at the whim of governments. Freedom of religion does not mean permission for an individual to follow the religion of his ancestors, and no other. It does not mean that only established religions have the right to exist and be practiced freely. It means, rather, that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience

and religion; this right includes freedom to change his

religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community

with others and in public or private, to manifest his

religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and

observance.

This is not an ``American point of view.'' This is not a ``Western point of view.'' This is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is fully confirmed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Afghanistan has acceded.

Today's resolution condemns the enforcement of laws against apostasy. I would go further: we must condemn not just the enforcement, but the very existence of such laws. Whether enforced or not, they are an ever present threat to all believers, an ever present reminder that those who believe differently are second class citizens. They are a continuing denial of the principal of individual human dignity and freedom.

And I call upon the President to work not just with the government of Afghanistan to enhance human rights protection and religious freedom, but also with Iraq. Last year I and my colleagues pointed out that the new Iraqi Constitution also contains language which endangers individual freedom, especially religious freedom and the rights of women. The Iraqi Parliament now must adopt crucial implementing legislation for the Constitution. We must ensure that such legislation effectively protects individual freedom and freedom of conscience. Otherwise we may see countless repetitions of the appalling drama that has just been completed in Afghanistan.

I also call upon the President to work with Sri Lanka, whose government has pandered to religious extremists by introducing anticonversion laws. Sri Lanka is a recipient of Millennium Challenge grants, which are premised on progress in democracy and rule of law, not regress.

Finally, I call upon my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1184) to waive the passport fees for a relative of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such member or to attend a funeral or memorial service for such member.

Mr. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 1184, as passed by the Senate, corrects a minor flaw in current passport law. While this flaw is minor in the sense of its legal impact, the possible impact it has had and could have on family members of our brave servicemen and -women who have made the ultimate sacrifice is significant enough that we should move to correct it quickly.

Under current law, the State Department waives passport fees for family members traveling abroad to official grave sites of armed servicemembers. However, the current law does not make a similar exception for family members traveling to attend a funeral or memorial service for a servicemember killed in action and then buried or memorialized overseas. S. 1184 would rightly extend this fee waiver to these families as well.

The ability to attend a funeral or memorial service for one who has paid the ultimate price in the service of our country is just as necessary an aspect of paying our final respects as being able to visit their grave.

Mr. Speaker, the logistical and financial burden imposed by these fees on grieving families can quickly build up. This small flaw in our current law has had large ramifications, and it does a disservice to the families of our fallen heroes and creates undue stress and pain that could easily be corrected.

Correcting this flaw would mean a great deal to those families who have given most. In this regard, I urge that S. 1184 be passed quickly and sent to the President for his signature.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 190) expressing the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards.

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

H. Con. Res. 190 expresses the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the right of its people to worship and practice their faith as they see fit. This freedom is the right of all religious communities without distinct, whether registered or unregistered, and that is stipulated by the Russian Constitution and by international standards.

Yet I am sorry to report religious freedom for minority religious communities throughout the Russian Federation have been under growing pressure as local officials and government authorities continue to harass and limit the abilities of these groups to practice their faith freely.

As we learned at a recent Helsinki Commission hearing, instances of violence have become alarmingly common. Arson attacks against churches in Russia have occurred in several towns and cities with little or no police response.

In its 2005 International Religious Freedom Report, the State Department Office on International Religious Freedom notes: ``Some Federal agencies and many local authorities continue to restrict the rights of various religious minorities. Moreover, contradictions between Federal and local laws and varying interpretations of the law provide regional officials with opportunities to restrict the activities of religious minorities. Many observers attribute discriminatory practices at the local level to the greater susceptibility of local governments than the Federal Government to discriminatory attitudes in lobbying by local majority religious groups. The government only occasionally intervenes to prevent or reverse discrimination at the local level.''

Mr. Speaker, the internationally recognized expert on religious liberty in Russia, Larry Uzzell, has written: ``Russia has now come to use as standard practice methods of religious repression that were applied only occasionally in the 1990s. Secular bureaucrats now typically refuse to authorize land transfers to Baptist churches and also forbid movie theaters or other public halls to sign rental contracts with them.'' As a result, as an example: ``In Moscow City alone some 10 Baptist congregations have ceased to exist simply because they could not find places within which to worship.''

I would just note parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Larry for his extraordinary work in bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress. Larry is a tireless advocate for oppressed believers throughout Russia

and Central Asia. He is facing some serious health issues now, and I would like to wish him a very speedy recovery.

Mr. Speaker, in response to this growing and very negative trend in Russia, this resolution urges the Russian Federation to ``ensure full protections of freedoms for all religious communities without distinction, whether registered or unregistered, and to end the harassment of unregistered religious groups by the security apparatus and other government agencies, as well as to ensure that law enforcement officials rigorously investigate acts of violence against unregistered religious communities, and to make certain that authorities are not complicit in such attacks.''

I point out that in March 2004 a district court banned the religious activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow. For 2 years now the authorities have used the Moscow decision to harass the Jehovah's Witnesses Administration Center in St. Petersburg, with threats to ``liquidate'' the administrative center which could threaten local congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout all of Russia.

Members of the Russia's Muslim community and respected human rights activists have expressed concern regarding what they contend are large- scale fabrications of terrorism against Russian Muslims. One of Russia's Supreme Muftis has stated that random police checks and arrests are becoming commonplace throughout Russia for Russian Muslims.

Let me reiterate that Russia has every right to defend itself against terrorism and to investigate and prosecute terrorists. Of course it does. Here in the United States we face the problem of combating terrorism while safeguarding civil liberties. I would urge the government, however, to strive for the proper balance in defending both its citizens as well as their civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, the religious liberty picture in Russia is not entirely dark, and it would be disingenuous to make that assertion.

There are Nations that have worse records. They can be found on the list of ``countries of particular concern'' that is issued by the U.S. Department of State in its annual report on religious freedom around the world, so-called CPC countries like Vietnam.

However, Russia is a member of the U.N. Security Council, an OSCE- participating State, and will soon chair the Council of Europe. In addition, this year, it is the chair of the G-8 and the host of the G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg in July. Considering all of these positions, they should be expected to uphold basic, internationally recognized and accepted standards to protect peaceful religious practice.

That is what this resolution is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to, first of all, thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lantos, for his eloquent statement and for his leadership for decades on the fundamental issue of human rights, particularly as it relates to religious freedom. We have been partners, along with Frank Wolf and a few other Members of this body for years in pressuring Moscow and what was formerly the Warsaw Pact nations to liberalize their policies.

As Mr. Lantos pointed out so well a moment ago, there is a very troubling and dangerous trend as Putin takes Russia in the wrong direction, especially as it relates to NGOs, religious freedom and religious bodies of all kinds and various denominations, and just basic civil liberties are being constricted in that country, Russia needs the oxygen of liberty and freedom in order to realize it's vast potential.

So I want to thank again Mr. Lantos for his wonderful statement and leadership.

I would also like to thank John Finerty from the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, who is our Russian expert. John has been on the commission since 1981. When I got elected 26 years ago, John Finerty was there, a Russian speaker, a Russian expert, who has provided valuable insight to both Democrats and Republicans on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. His wisdom, his council, his clarity has aided us while we travelled to Russia, when we met with lawmakers in bilateral discussions, with members of the Duma and

other officials from Russia, and has always provided us the insight that we needed, and like I said, that sense of perspective and timeliness as well as what our next steps ought to be. John has been to Russia and to the Soviet Union at least 27 times over the years.

I will never forget when he accompanied Frank Wolf and I, when we went to Moscow on a very I think historic trip where we visited Perm Camp 35 where Nathan Sharansky had spent so many years of his life, John was with us on an historic trip/meeting with the Duma. Four days of talks--and did we ever need John's incredible knowledge and insight. He was amazing! So I want to thank John for his leadership for all of these years and helping us with this legislation today.

General Leave

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 673) expressing support for the efforts of the people of the Republic of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and urging the Government of Belarus to conduct a free and fair Presidential election on March 19, 2006.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 673, sponsored by our distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, expresses support and solidarity for the efforts of the people of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights. It also urges the Government of Belarus to conduct free and fair Presidential elections on March 19.

I would like at the outset to commend our distinguished colleague, Mr. Shimkus, for his hard work on this resolution and his great interest and passion for supporting freedom in Belarus and in other countries of the former Soviet Union.

Belarus, as my colleagues know, is often described as ``the last dictatorship in Europe.'' In the past 3 or 4 years, especially since the 2004 parliamentary elections and referendum, President Alexander Lukashenko has increased repression against NGOs, media outlets, any opponents of the government, including youth groups. Perhaps most disturbing are the cases of forced disappearances of lawmakers and journalists and others who have dared to criticize the Lukashenko dictatorship.

To date, the Government of Belarus has refused to conduct an impartial investigation into these disappearances and has refused to allow an independent U.N.-appointed investigator to look into these cases.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Lukashenko regime has only become more dictatorial with the passage of time. The assault on civil society, the NGOs, the independent media, democratic opposition, and increasing pressure on unregistered and minority religious groups has only intensified, becoming daily occurrences. Despite innumerable calls for Belarus to live up to its freely undertaken OSCE election commitments, elections in 2000, 2001, and 2004 were neither free nor fair.

It follows along a downward trajectory that began a decade ago when Lukashenko, through an illegitimate referendum, took control over the legislature and the judiciary and manipulated the Constitution to remain in power.

Mr. Speaker, Belarus, which borders on EU and NATO member countries, has become an increasingly stark anomaly in a growing democratic Europe. The Belarusian people have become even more isolated from the winds of democracy following neighboring Ukraine's Orange Revolution. Lukashenko's fear that the people would follow the Ukrainian example has led to further clamping down on those who dare to speak out for freedom.

Among the numerous examples that can be cited here on the floor: Just last week, one Belarusian opposition candidate running for next week's elections was detained by security forces and severely beaten. Yesterday we received reports that five members of the campaign of the United Opposition Candidate, Alexander Milinkevych, was held by police and driven away. In recent weeks Lukashenko has launched an intensive campaign to encourage a climate of fear and stoke hostility among the Belarusian people through a Soviet-style propaganda campaign against the opposition: Europe and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, as the prime sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act, which was signed into law by President Bush, I welcome the administration's growing engagement with the people of Belarus. I am pleased that President Bush and other high-ranking officials met with Irena Krasovska and Tatyana Zavadska, two of the wives of opposition figures believed to have been murdered with the complicity of Belarusian senior officials. I would note, parenthetically, that I have had the privilege of meeting with them and others on a number of occasions over the last 6 years and have admired their determination and courage to seek an accounting of their loved ones, in most cases their missing, possibly murdered husbands.

Given the disturbing, Mr. Speaker, preelection environment, where meaningful access to the media by opposition candidates is denied, where independent voices are stifled, and where the regime maintains pervasive control over the election process, it is very hard to imagine that next week's elections will be free. They are already not fair. In the event that protests are held in response to electoral fraud, we are reminded by Belarusian authorities that the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental human right and a basic tenet of the OSCE. Any violent suppression of peaceful protests will have serious repercussions and only deepen Belarus' self-imposed isolation.

Over the course of the last century, the Belarusian people have endured great suffering at the hands of murderous dictators such as Stalin and Hitler. Twenty years ago they endured,

and continue to endure, Chernobyl's dark cloud. The Belarusian people deserve the freedom and the dignity long denied them, and Belarus deserves its rightful place in a free, prosperous and democratic Europe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the author of H. Res. 673, my good friend and colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for authoring this legislation. It sends a clear, unmistakable message to the Lukashenko dictatorship, and a message of solidarity and concern to the people that hopefully there will be a brighter day for this important country. But it is only because of ongoing, dogged determination on the part of the pro-democracy advocates inside that country and their friends outside, like Mr. Lantos, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Shimkus, and others; that we keep the pressure on from without so that someday human rights and democracy will flourish in Belarus.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 673.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 7, I chaired a hearing on the current human rights situation in Burma, and what the U.S. and the international community can and must do to improve that situation.

After 40 years of brutal military dictatorships, the human rights situation in Burma is frightening. That nation's current military junta, in power for over 17 years, is an abysmal failure on every conceivable level.

It has ruined a beautiful and naturally rich land. According to the State Department's most recent Human Rights Country Report:

More than 4 decades of economic mismanagement and endemic

corruption have resulted in widespread poverty, poor health

care, declining education levels, poor infrastructure, and

continuously deteriorating economic conditions. During the

year, poor economic policymaking, lingering consequences of

the 2003 private banking sector collapse, and the economic

consequences of international sanctions further weakened the

economy. The estimated annual per capita income was

approximately $225. Most of the population of more than 50

million live in rural areas at subsistence levels.

The Heritage Foundation ranked Iran and North Korea as the only countries with more restrictive economies than that of Burma.

But economic misery is probably the least of the problems faced by Burma's long-suffering people.

Citizens still did not have the right to criticize or

change their government . . . Security forces continued to

carry out extrajudicial killings. Disappearances continued,

and security forces raped, tortured, beat, and otherwise

abused prisoners and detainees. Citizens were subjected to

arbitrary arrest without appeal.--2004 State Department

Human Rights Report.

There are more than 1,100 political prisoners in Burma, who are abused and tortured. Seven are reported to have died in custody last year, and just last month a 38-year-old democratic activist died in custody due to inadequate medical attention.

Over 15 years ago the National League for Democracy, led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and other democratic forces, won an overwhelming victory in free elections, 82 percent. The junta refused to accept the results or to call Parliament into session. Instead it imprisoned many activists, including Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent 10 years under house arrest. Her current house arrest is tantamount to solitary confinement. She has been cruelly kept away from her children, and her husband, who died abroad. For 15 years the junta has cynically proclaimed its intention to draft a new constitution via a national convention, with no participation by the people's democratic representatives. That national convention has again been adjourned, with no constitution, and no freedom, in sight.

Since 1999, the U.S. Secretary of State has designated Burma as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' under the International Religious Freedom Act for particularly severe violations of religious freedom.

According to the U.S. Department of State, Burma continues to be a Tier 3 Country for human trafficking, and ``the junta's policy of using forced labor is a driving factor behind Burma's large trafficking problem.'' The ILO has condemned Burma's use of forced labor, and the ILO representative in Burma has received death threats. Burma has threatened to quit the ILO. Burma regularly prosecutes those who complain about forced labor. Last October, Burma sentenced a 34-year- old woman to 20 months in prison for ``criminal intimidation'' of local officials. Her offense? She had the temerity to initiate the first successful prosecution for use of forced labor in Burma. She had lodged a complaint in 2004 against local government officials over their use of forced labor on a road construction project. She exercised her right to do this under new regulations introduced by the government to appease the International Labor Organization, ILO. She is now in prison, and her appeal was summarily denied.

Burma is high on the list of uncooperative drug-producing or transiting countries, and there is evidence of military and government involvement in the narcotics traffic. Burma produces about 80 percent of Southeast Asia's heroin, and is one of the largest producers of methamphetamines in the world. It exports its illicit narcotics throughout China and Southeast and Central Asia.

And as Burma's heroin circulates through Asia, so does HIV/AIDS, which Burma refuses to take seriously as a domestic problem, although the U.N. estimated in 1999 that over half a million adults had HIV. According to one estimate, Burma spent only $22,000 in 2004 to help AIDS victims. In 2005, the regime tightened restrictions on NGOs and U.N. agency staff providing humanitarian assistance in Burma. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria announced in August that it was terminating its $98 million program on the ground that ``its grants to the country cannot be managed in a way that ensures effective program implementation.'' The French contingent of medical aid group Medecin Sans Frontieres reportedly plans to withdraw from Burma because of restrictions imposed on access to villagers.

The military's self-justification for its decades of arbitrary rule is to protect Burma from ``instability.'' Yet for 40 years it has waged endless war on the nation's ethnic minorities, killing tens of thousands, driving hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of others into exile as refugees or within Burma as displaced persons. It has destroyed over 2,500 villages, and uses rape as an instrument of policy. And to wage these wars, it has resorted to conscription of children: more than 70,000 child soldiers may be serving, in horrible circumstances, in Burma's bloated army.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Sergio Pinheiro, has not been allowed into Burma for 2 years. In January 2006, U.N. Special Envoy to Burma Razali Ismail resigned his post after nearly 5 years, since the junta has not allowed him into the country for 2 years.

With such a record, it is no wonder that the U.S. has a wide array of sanctions in place against Burma, many of which must be renewed this year. And many wonder, can any progress be made? Yet in the midst of so much darkness, there has been light this year.

In September 2005, Nobel Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Czech President Vaclav Havel released a major report documenting Burma's human rights problems as a threat to regional peace and security.

In December, with the strong support of the United States, U.N. Undersecretary for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari, in the unusual but significant presence of Secretary General Kofi Annan, personally gave the Security Council its first-ever briefing on the situation in Burma, a possible first step towards tougher international action. He went on record that the Burmese junta imprisons dissidents, ignores basic human rights, and is steering the country ``towards a humanitarian crisis.''

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, which Burma joined in 1997, has finally moved from a posture of ``constructive engagement,'' without sanctions or diplomatic pressure, to a more proactive approach to promote change.

But most of all, we owe this progress to this administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, and even more importantly, President George Bush, have been relentless in making the world face up to the appalling disaster in Burma. We have just begun, and we have a long way to go, but we in Congress are determined to support these efforts to bring peace and freedom to the heroic Burmese people, who, in the face of so much persecution and suffering, still persist in their resolute struggle for justice.

The next logical step to take is for the U.S., which is currently President of the Security Council, to introduce a Security Council Resolution calling on Burma, in the strongest possible terms: to release Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners; implement a program for national reconciliation that includes the National League for Democracy; and grant immediate and unhindered access to all parts of Burma for U.N. relief agencies and other international humanitarian organizations.

Such a resolution should include a timeline for compliance and punitive sanctions if the SPDC fails to comply.

We heard testimony from Assistant Secretary of State Barry Lowenkron, of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. It was Mr. Lowenkron's first time before this House, and we look forward to a very fruitful collaboration on the vital issues he promotes. His Bureau has kept attention focused on Burma when most have forgotten it. We also heard testimony from Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who is the chief executor of our President's policy to change Burma. Additional witnesses included: Mr. Bo Kyi, of the Assistance Association of Political Prisoners, a former political prisoner himself, who described his own torments, and the ongoing struggles of democracy activists in Burma and in exile; Naw Win Yee, a leading member of the Shan Women's Action Network, an organization comprised of refugee women living in Thailand that works for human rights, freedom and democracy in Burma and also works to elevate the roles of women in Burmese politics and society. SWAN produced a ground breaking report on the military regime's use of rape as a weapon of war in Burma that was subsequently corroborated by the U.S. State Department; Mr. Tom Malinowski, the Washington Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch, who urged the U.S. to keep the pressure on the Burmese regime; and Ms. Anastasia Brown, the Director of Refugee Programs, Migration and Refugee Services for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, who had just returned from a visit to the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand, and made an urgent and eloquent plea for quick action to resolve the problems of the resettlement of Burmese refugees. All the witnesses provided strong confirmation that Congress needs to stay closely involved in the ongoing human rights tragedy in Burma.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I chaired a hearing on the Internet in China regarding an issue that is deeply troubling to me, and I believe, to the American people: that American technology and know-how is substantially enabling repressive regimes in China and elsewhere in the world to cruelly exploit and abuse their own citizens.

Over the years, I have held 25 hearings on human rights abuses in China, and 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. The Laogai system of forced labor camps is still full with an estimated 6 million people; the Chinese government permits a horrifying trade in human organs; the PRC's draconian one-child-per-couple policy has made brothers and sisters illegal and coerced abortion commonplace; and political and religious dissidents are systematically persecuted and tortured.

Similarly, while the Internet has opened up commercial opportunities and provided access to vast amounts of information for people the world over, the Internet has also become a malicious tool: a cyber sledgehammer of repression of the government of China. As soon as the promise of the Internet began to be fulfilled--when brave Chinese began to e-mail each other and others about human rights issues and corruption by government leaders--the Party cracked down. To date, an estimated 49 cyber-dissidents and 32 journalists have been imprisoned by the PRC for merely posting information on the Internet critical of the regime. And that's likely to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Tragically, history shows us that American companies and their subsidiaries have provided the technology to crush human rights in

the past. Edwin Black's book IBM and the Holocaust reveals the dark story of IBM's strategic alliance with Nazi Germany. Thanks to IBM's enabling technologies, from programs for identification and cataloging to the use of IBM's punch card technology, Hitler and the Third Reich were able to automate the genocide of the Jews.

U.S. technology companies today are engaged in a similar sickening collaboration, decapitating the voice of the dissidents. In 2005, Yahoo's cooperation with Chinese secret police led to the imprisonment of the cyber-dissident Shi Tao. And this was not the first time. According to Reporters Without Borders, Yahoo also handed over data to Chinese authorities on another of its users, Li Zhi. Li Zhi was sentenced on December 10, 2003 to eight years in prison for ``inciting subversion.'' His ``crime'' was to criticize in online discussion groups and articles the well-known corruption of local officials.

Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct result of information handed over to Chinese officials. When Yahoo was asked to explain its actions, Yahoo said that it must adhere to local laws in all countries where it operates. But my response to that is: if the secret police a half century ago asked where Anne Frank was hiding, would the correct answer be to hand over the information in order to comply with local laws? These are not victimless crimes. We must stand with the oppressed, not the oppressors.

I was recently on a news show talking about Google and China. The question was asked, ``Should it be business' concern to promote democracy in foreign nations?'' That's not necessarily the right question. The more appropriate question today is, ``Should business enable the continuation of repressive dictatorships by partnering with a corrupt and cruel secret police and by cooperating with laws that violate basic human rights?''

I believe that two of the most essential pillars that prop up totalitarian regimes are the secret police and propaganda. Yet for the sake of market share and profits, leading U.S. companies like Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft have compromised both the integrity of their product and their duties as responsible corporate citizens. They have aided and abetted the Chinese regime to prop up both of these pillars, propagating the message of the dictatorship unabated and supporting the secret police in a myriad of ways, including surveillance and invasion of privacy, in order to effectuate the massive crackdown on its citizens.

Through an approach that monitors, filters, and blocks content with the use of technology and human monitors, the Chinese people have little access to uncensored information about any political or human rights topic, unless of course, Big Brother wants them to see it. Google.cn, China's search engine, is guaranteed to take you to the virtual land of deceit, disinformation and the big lie. As such, the Chinese government utilizes the technology of U.S. IT companies combined with human censors--led by an estimated force of 30,000 cyber police--to control information in China. Web sites that provide the Chinese people news about their country and the world, such as BBC, much of CNN, as well as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, are regularly blocked in China. In addition, when a user enters a forbidden word, such as ``democracy,'' ``China torture'' or ``Falun Gong,'' the search results are blocked, or you are redirected to a misleading site, and the user's computer can be frozen for unspecified periods of time.

Cisco has provided the Chinese government with the technology necessary to filter Internet content through its creation of Policenet, one of the tools the regime uses to control the Internet. Cisco holds 60 percent of the Chinese market for routers, switches, and other sophisticated networking gear, and its estimated revenue from China, according to Derek Bambauer of Legal Affairs, is estimated to be $500 million annually. Yet Cisco has also done little creative thinking to try to minimize the likelihood that its products will be used repressively, such as limiting eavesdropping abilities to specific computer addresses.

Similarly, Google censors what are euphemistically called ``politically sensitive'' terms, such as ``democracy,'' ``China human rights,'' ``China torture'' and the like on its new Chinese search site, Google.cn. Let's take a look at what this means in practice. A search for terms such as ``Tiananmen Square'' produces two very different results. The one from Google.cn shows a picture of a smiling couple, but the results from Google.com show scores of photos depicting the mayhem and brutality of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Another example: let's look at ``China and torture.'' Google has said that some information is better than nothing. But in this case, the limited information displayed amounts to disinformation. A half truth is not the truth--it is a lie. And a lie is worse than nothing. It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Google has seriously compromised its ``Don't Be Evil'' policy. It has become evil's accomplice.

Not surprisingly, Americans, not just Chinese, are also the victims of this censorship. On an informal request from the Chinese government, Microsoft on December 30, 2005 shut down the blog of Zhao Jing because the content of Zhao's blog on MSN Spaces was offensive to the PRC. Zhao had tried to organize a walk-off of journalists at the Beijing News after their editor was fired for reporting on clashes between Chinese citizens and police in southern China. However, Microsoft shut down the blog not only in China, but everywhere. It not only censored Chinese access to information, but American access to information, a step it has only recently pulled back from. Like Yahoo, MSN defended its decision by asserting that MSN is committed to complying with ``local laws, norms, and industry practices in China.'' Regrettably, I haven't been able to find an MSN statement on its commitment to global laws, norms, and industry practices protecting human rights in China.

Standing for human rights has never been easy or without cost. It seems that companies have always resisted having to abide by ethical standards, yet we have seen the success of such agreements as the Sullivan principles in South Africa and MacBride principles in Northern Ireland. I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, would welcome leadership by the corporations to develop a code of conduct which would spell out how they could operate in China and other repressive countries while not harming citizens and respecting human rights. But I believe our government also has a major role to play in this critical area, and that a more comprehensive framework is needed to protect and promote human rights. This is why I have introduced HR 4780, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, to promote freedom of expression on the Internet.

There are some encouraging and innovative public and private efforts already underway in this area. Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, allows Windows-based computers to become proxies for Internet users, circumventing local Internet restrictions. Through the efforts of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors' fund of a mere $100,000, VOA and Radio Free Asia's Web sites are accessible to Chinese Internet users through proxy servers because of the technology of Dynaweb and UltraReach.

Earlier this month, the technology firm Anonymizer announced that it is developing a new anti-censorship technology that will enable Chinese citizens to safely access the entire Internet filter-free. The solution will provide a regularly changing URL so that users can likely access the uncensored Internet. In addition, users' identities are apparently protected from online monitoring by the Chinese regime. Lance Cottrell of Anonymizer said it ``is not willing to sit idly by while the freedom of the Internet is slowly crushed. We take pride in the fact that our online privacy and security solutions provide access to global information for those under the thumb of repressive regimes.''

In conclusion, I am hopeful that the hearing was the beginning of a different sort of dialogue--a discussion on how American high-tech firms can partner with the U.S. government and human rights activists to bring down the Great Firewall of China, and on how America's greatest software engineers can use their intelligence to create innovative new products to protect dissidents and promote human rights.

I would also like to recognize and honor the work of Dr. John S. Aird, a distinguished American whose immeasurable contributions as a scholar, population expert, and defender of human rights have changed the lives of so many over the course of his career.

It was with great sadness that I learned of Dr. Aird's death last October. His passing represents a grave loss for all of us who are committed to ensuring human rights around the world, and his tremendous work in this and other fields will not be forgotten.

Dr. Aird, former Senior Research Specialist on China at the U.S. Census Bureau, served for 28 years as that organization's resident expert on the population of China. He was a forthright and vehement critic of the Chinese government's coercive one-child family planning policy.

During his retirement, Dr. Aird worked as a full-time volunteer. He provided expert testimony in immigration courts for 415 families, helping Chinese citizens fleeing their country's coercive family planning programming to secure asylum in the United States.

John S. Aird was truly one of the most informed and outspoken opponents of China's one-child policy. He testified before this and other Congressional committees on numerous occasions, and I believe my colleagues would join me in saying that his insights were consistently persuasive and well-considered, and proved invaluable to our work on human rights in China.

Mr. Speaker, on January 16, Ellen Johnson- Sirleaf was sworn in as the first elected female president in the history of independent Africa. Mrs. Sirleaf had run against Charles Taylor in 1997, but lost, at least partly due to the impression that Taylor would return to war if he failed to win the election. Following the election, Mrs. Sirleaf spent a great deal of time outside Liberia, and many observers felt her gender and her supposed lack of common touch would prevent her from ever being elected President.

In 2005, former international soccer star George Weah captured the imagination of many inside and outside Liberia, who felt that his connection with Liberia's youth made him an almost inevitable winner, despite his lack of education and political experience. However, in the run-off election between the two, Mrs. Sirleaf employed modem campaign techniques, including polling, message development and targeted campaigning to achieve a stunning victory. Her connection with women voters may have made not only the difference in her election, but also may pave the way for other female candidates throughout Africa.

Now that she is leading this West African nation, the question is: What can she do to turn it around from the chaos and poverty into which it had fallen? From its independence in 1847 until 1980, Liberia was ruled by the descendants of former slaves from the United States. They managed to turn this nation into an economic engine, using the country's wealth of natural resources. Abundant sources of water and fertile soil supported rubber, palm oil and tropical fruit plantations, as well as some of the richest timber supplies in Africa. Liberia's mountains contained some of the highest quality iron ore in the world, and there were significant deposits of diamonds and gold.

Unfortunately, the so-called Americo-Liberians denied the descendants of the indigenous people their benefit from Liberia's natural wealth and their fair share of political power. The 1980 coup by then-Sergeant Samuel Doe led to the ascendancy of indigenous ethnic groups, but it also led to a poisonous political atmosphere and rampant official corruption. In late 1989, Charles Taylor, a former member of the Doe government and an escapee from a prison in America, began an insurgency that eventually toppled the Doe government in 1990. Several years of factional fighting devastated the capital city of Monrovia, as well as much of the country. Following a rather shaky cease-fire, a 1997 election brought Charles Taylor to power. By that time, more than 150,000 of his countrymen had died in the fighting, and more than half the population had been displaced.

The Taylor regime was a disaster for Liberia. Taylor and his government looted the treasury and Liberia's natural resources. Political opponents were jailed, or in the case of Sam Dokie and his family members, they were killed. However, Taylor also was a catastrophe for its West African neighbors. Rebels who had been supported by Taylor have destabilized Sierra Leone, Guinea and Cote d'Ivoire.

Taylor's crimes against his own people stimulated an insurgency that eventually led to his negotiated exile in Nigeria. His crimes against the region led first to United Nations sanctions in 2001 for his support of the Revolutionary United Front rebels in Sierra Leone and subsequently to an indictment for war crimes by the UN-sponsored war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone in 2003.

The issue of Taylor's extradition to the Sierra Leone Special Court remains high on the agenda of the U.S. Government. Nevertheless, there are internal issues facing the new government in Liberia that also are pressing, and that was the main focus of our hearing last week on Liberia and the impact of its election on West Africa.

During the Taylor regime, and apparently also during the transitional government headed by Gyude Bryant, corruption became a way of life in Liberia. Illegal logging and mining and just plain theft of government resources were commonplace. In fact, the transitional government officials reportedly took furniture, computers and even rugs and light fixtures when they left office just a couple of weeks ago. In one of her first acts as President, Mrs. Sirleaf fired the entire staff of the Ministry of Finance for corruption and told the officials to stay in the country pending an audit. The ministry and the Central Bank significantly differ as to the amount of money on hand for government operations.

Those funds are desperately needed to repair Liberia's roads, water systems and power supply--all of which suffered from years of warfare and neglect. The Sirleaf government will have to examine all contracts to determine if they are in the best interest of the nation and rationally exploit Liberia's resources. Too many of the population of 3 million remain displaced, and 85 percent of Liberia's people are unemployed and 80 percent live below the poverty line. About 70 percent of the population survives on agriculture, which remains disrupted due to the lingering impact of the war.

If Liberia is to recover from its long nightmare, the United States will have to take the lead among the international community to assist in that restoration. That will require focus and consistency in America's engagement.

Liberians feel a kinship to America that Americans do not share with Liberia. Nevertheless, our country's relationship with Liberia is quite real and very important for the welfare of its 3 neighbors. The Bush administration and Congress must take these facts into account in developing policies and programs to respond to Liberia's new, post- election realities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to set the record straight about significant misinformation that continues to be disseminated concerning an amendment I offered last summer. Planned Parenthood has refused to admit the truth about the true genesis of this amendment. Because Planned Parenthood boasts that ``trust is the cornerstone of why people choose [them],'' I cannot allow its lies to continue unanswered. And I believe it's time Americans take a look at Planned Parenthood on other issues as well, including abortion.

Several years ago I became aware of a devastating condition called fistula. Fistula is a terribly painful disorder that marginalizes women in many parts of the developing world, yet is relatively inexpensive to treat. I authored legislation to authorize USAID to provide much-needed assistance to women desperate for treatment. Unfortunately, with the help of organizations like Planned Parenthood, some of my colleagues tried to weaken the authorization by adding language that would have prevented crucial faith-based health care providers from helping women through this program.

Women suffering with fistula need treatment, and provisions mandating contraceptives would have prevented some health care providers most suited to provide treatment from doing so. These women need speedy treatment, not politicized language.

As the prime author of H.R. 2601--The Foreign Assistance Authorization Act of FY 06 and 07--I personally wrote the section in the bill, (Sec. 1001) that authorizes the President to establish at least 12 treatment centers to provide surgery and healing therapies for women suffering from a devastating condition known as obstetric fistula. The bill also provides for the dissemination of educational information so that women will know where to go for affordable treatment and how to protect against the occurrence of this preventable, curable condition.

Obstetric fistula is an excruciatingly painful hole or rupture in tissues surrounding a woman's birth canal, bladder, or rectum that is caused by rape, physical abuse or untreated, obstructed labor. Tragically, the constant leaking of urine and feces leads to sickness, desertion by husbands and family, extreme social isolation, and poverty.

Amazingly, for $150--$300, a woman victimized by fistula can obtain a surgical repair which gives her back her life. No woman should be denied this minimal, life-saving surgical repair. For several years now, I have asked USAID and the Congress to establish a program to assist women who suffer from obstetric fistula. According to USAID, an estimated 2 million women suffer needlessly from fistula, with 50-100 thousand new cases added every year, mostly in Africa.

USAID has begun to provide support for fistula centers, and that's great. They hoped to put $3 million into the program by the end of 2005 and they have already identified a dozen medical facilities ready to participate and help these women. My bill, which originally authorized $5 million for 2006 and $5 million in 2007, ensures that the program is properly implemented and able to aid as many women, and young girls, as possible.

During committee mark-up on H.R. 2601, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) amended my language in H.R. 2601, to mandate that the new centers ``expand access to contraception.'' At first blush, the language looked OK, but it became very clear that it would have had the dire consequence of excluding certain faith-based health providers who, while deeply committed to mitigating the pain of fistula, would be barred from receiving funds. For example, the Crowley language would have excluded NGOs and church-based organizations opposed to chemicals that act as abortifacients--those that prevent implantation of a newly created human life--from getting any U.S. funds. Had my amendment not succeeded, several hospitals selected by USAID as ``fistula centers'' would have lost funding.

The amendment I offered that passed on the floor in July corrected this problem so that the faith-based sites including those already identified for the program by USAID--and perhaps others in future-- could participate and provide assistance to women in need. My amendment to my own bill also increased the funding in 2007 to $7.5 million, since it is obvious that once the centers are up and running the demand for the cure will be even greater. To participate in the program, providers must offer critical treatment care--including increased access to skilled birth attendants--and may offer information about a number of preventative practices such as abstinence education, encouraging postponement of marriage and childbearing until after teenage years, and family planning services for women whose age or health status place them at high risk of prolonged or obstructed childbirth.

Nothing in my original fistula language or my amendment adopted on the floor restricts access to family planning services. Rather, my amendment made a variety of preventative practices optional and as such is sensitive to and consistent with the values of the people--and the hospitals that serve them--in developing countries.

Despite all this, Planned Parenthood still insists on praising the people who would have killed the amendment and attacking me. The

headline on its website reads: ``Rep. Chris Smith's Latest Political Attack on Women.'' The closing line of its story says, ``The gentleman from New Jersey would do well--just once--to try and feel the pain of others.''

I have authored numerous laws--that is to say, I am the prime sponsor of laws--that directly benefit women, including the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386), the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108- 193), the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-164), the Results and Accountability in Microenterprise (P.L. 108-484), and the Microenterprise Enhancement Act of 2003 (P.L. 108- 31),just to name a few. I helped secure the passage of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization in 2000 by incorporating its major provisions into my law, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000. I have fought for human rights and health care my entire career.

I am currently the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations and the Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (also known as the United States Helsinki Commission), which works to promote and foster democracy, human rights, and stability in Eastern and Central Europe. I served as the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee until 2005, where I authored laws that are helping veterans to this day and will for as far as the eye can see in the areas of health care, college education, widows' benefits, and the creation of a new comprehensive program to help homeless veterans. I also presently serve as the co- chair and co-founder of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, the founding co-chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, the co-founder of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, the co-chair and co-founder of the Congressional Refugee Caucus, and the co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. Having served 26 years in Congress, I could continue this list, Mr. Speaker. I set forth my dedication to these causes here not to promote myself, but to show Planned Parenthood's deceptions. Planned Parenthood's vicious attacks on me are, at best, misinformed; at worst, libel.

Sadly, this is a pattern of conduct with Planned Parenthood, seeking to discredit anyone who includes the protection of the unborn along with fundamental human rights. When one stops to consider the big business that is abortion, it is no wonder.

Abortion as a business

Planned Parenthood makes millions of dollars plying its lethal trade at nearly 850 clinics in the U.S. alone. Judith Fetrow, a former Planned Parenthood worker, verifies this fact: ``It is extremely difficult to watch doctors lie, clinic workers cover up, and hear terrifying stories of women dragged out of clinics to die in cars on the way to the hospital without beginning to question the party line. I began to wonder if we were really caring for these women, or if we were just working for another corporation whose only interest was the bottom line.''

Tragically, the seemingly benign Planned Parenthood is in the grisly business of dismembering the fragile bodies of unborn children with sharp knives and hideous suction machines that are 25 to 30 times more powerful than a vacuum cleaner used at home. Planned Parenthood ought to be known as ``Child Abuse, Incorporated,'' for the large number of children that it has killed and continues to kill, all the while being subsidized by American taxpayers. This is not a business of healing, nurturing, or caring--this is a business of killing.

For Planned Parenthood, business is good. Violence against children pays handsomely. In 2004, it increased the number of abortions it performed by 10,000--while abortions nationwide have declined--for a total of 255,015, a new pathetic record of kids killed even for Planned Parenthood. For ``medical abortions,'' Planned Parenthood quotes prices from $350 to $650. For first-trimester vacuum and D&E abortions, the only type of surgical abortions for which they provide a price range, Planned Parenthood earns $350 to $700 apiece.

To put the number of child deaths in perspective, picture this: 67,500 fans filled Ford Field to watch the Super Bowl last Sunday night. Planned Parenthood performed 255,015 abortions in 2004. The number of unborn babies whose lives were taken from them before they could take their first breath by this one corporation in one year could have filled that stadium nearly four times over. Planned Parenthood is now responsible for committing nearly one out of every five abortions performed in the United States, with its numbers steadily rising while the overall totals in the U.S. have been declining. Over the course of time, Planned Parenthood's tally in the taking of innocent children's lives has exceeded the three million mark.

If the number of abortions performed alone doesn't convince you of Planned Parenthood's agenda, Mr. Speaker, just compare it with the other services it provided in the name of ``family planning.'' Planned Parenthood--parenthood, Mr. Speaker--provided a mere 17,610 clients with prenatal care. That's a ratio of one parent to every 14 women who lost their children to abortion. Planned Parenthood referred a meager 1,414 clients to adoption services. That means it killed 180 babies for everyone it referred to be placed with a couple desperately seeking a child. To me, Mr. Speaker, this record doesn't seem to be that of an organization dedicated to preserving women's ``choices.''

And if that is not enough, this so-called ``pro-choice'' organization does everything within its power and massive budget to prevent women from knowing all their options and being certain that their choices are truly informed. Planned Parenthood both lobbies and litigates against virtually every child protection initiative at both the state and federal level, including parental and spousal notification, women's right to know laws, waiting periods, partial-birth abortion bans, unborn victims of violence laws, statutory rape reporting laws, and abortion funding bans. It inflates statistics to promote its own agenda.

One of the abortion community's own exposed them, though, when Ron Fitzsimmons, the director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers publicly admitted that he ``lied through (his) teeth'' when he told a TV interviewer that partial-birth abortion was ``used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.'' Fitzsimmons confessed that the myth about this horrific abortion procedure was deliberately propagated by the abortion lobby-- including Planned Parenthood and its research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). In a 1995 letter to Members of Congress, Planned Parenthood, AGI, and other groups stated, ``This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer than 500 per year. It is most often performed in the cases of wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong, when a family learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies or a medical condition that threatens the pregnant woman's life or health.'' In truth, Fitzsimmons explained, the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy fetuses, 20 weeks or more along, with healthy mothers. The number of 500 partial-birth abortions a year that Planned Parenthood cited in its letter was also a complete falsehood. Fitzsimmons estimated that the method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually. I would argue that even this number is low--in just one New Jersey abortion mill, the Bergen Record newspaper reported that 1,500 children were killed by partial birth abortion in one year.

When Planned Parenthood can't accomplish its deadly goals through the democratic process, it turns to the courts. It files approximately 50 lawsuits a year to protect its business interests in abortion. Then, Planned Parenthood fights tooth and nail to prevent judges who recognize the inherent value of human life at every stage, as well as the constitutional protections of that life, from getting on the bench. Luckily for us, the American people and our President and Senate have seen through that propaganda blitz.

International efforts

Sadly, it does exactly the same thing overseas, and many foreign governments are eventually deceived by its arguments. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America-International is leaving no stone unturned in its misguided, obsessive campaign to legalize abortion on demand. If it succeeds, millions of babies will die from the violence of abortion. We cannot add to the body count.

In Planned Parenthood's 2003-2004 annual report, the organization clearly admits its goal. It states that programs supported by Planned Parenthood Federation of America-International ``guarantee the sexual and reproductive health and rights of individuals by providing. .. safe abortion and post-abortion care services. . .''

The use of family planning to cloak its real agenda--the use of family planning as a cover for permissive abortion laws--is now commonplace, and must be stopped. In over 100 countries around the world, the lives of unborn children are still protected by law. But in country after country, we find Planned Parenthood zealots partnering with well-financed NGOs from Europe to promote violence against unborn babies.

And as Planned Parenthood--the most prominent advocate, sometimes the only advocate--of legalizing abortion on demand--has said, ``When abortion laws are liberalized, the number of abortions skyrocket.'' That is Planned Parenthood's word, skyrocket. So if we want more abortions--more dead babies and more wounded women--liberalize the laws.

Taxpayer subsidy

Over a third of Planned Parenthood's income comes from the pockets of tax-paying Americans, through local, state, and federal governments. Sure, we have the Hyde Amendment in place, thankfully, which prevents taxpayer dollars from directly funding

abortions, but money is fungible. The millions of dollars we give to Planned Parenthood to provide so-called ``family planning'' services immediately frees up millions more to be used for the performance and promotion of abortion. Americans' hard-earned money goes to keep the lights on and pay the heat bill for this industry that is literally making a killing taking the lives of the children they'll never get the chance to meet. People who see that abortion is murder are still forced to subsidize the lawsuits and lobbying that keeps abortion legal.

Planned Parenthood's 2003-04 annual report brags about how it helped increase Title X funding, for a total of $273 million in taxpayer dollars. It also discloses that it received $265.2 million in government grants and contracts from Title X and other sources during that period.

The abortion promoters never tire of reminding us that they promote abortion with what they call ``their own money,'' but this argument deliberately misses the point.

First, it ignores the fact that all money is fungible. When we pay an organization like Planned Parenthood millions of dollars, we cannot help but enrich and empower all of that organization's activities, all that it does, even if the organization keeps a set of books that says it uses its money for one thing and our money for something else.

We must begin to stand with the victims, both mother and child, and against the victimizers. When we subsidize and lavish Federal funds on abortion organizations, we empower the child abusers; and Planned Parenthood, make no mistake about it, both here and overseas, is ``Child Abuse, Incorporated.''