Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 294) calling on the international community to condemn the Laogai, the system of forced labor prison camps in the People's Republic of China, as a tool for suppression maintained by the Chinese Government, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which calls for the condemnation of the vast Laogai labor system of more than 1,000 prisons, camps and mental institutions maintained by the government of the People's Republic of China, and of the use of forced labor as an integral part of China's economy.

I would note parenthetically that, back in 1992, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I gained access to one of those prison camps, Beijing Prison Camp Number 1, a horrible place where 40 Tiananmen Square activists were being punished for their peaceful activities. Hundreds of others were also imprisoned there for political, religious and other alleged crimes. The place reeked of cruelty and sadness and was a nightmarish insight into the dark soul of the Chinese Communist dictatorship. Today, sadly, the Laogai continues its cruelty unabated.

Indeed, the continued operation of this network of Stalinist camps within

China's borders raises grave questions about Beijing's commitment to engage in reform even after it seeks to be recognized as a leader among the community of nations.

The Laogai, which was created by the Chinese Communist party under Mao Zedong and modelled after the Soviet Gulag system, serves the one- party dictatorship as a tool to maintain control of a population yearning to be free. The Laogai system has tormented more than 50 million people since its founding and still contains as many as 4 million prisoners today. It not only provides the government a source of cheap labor, it also serves to instill fear in its citizens lest they be forced to go through ``reeducation'' through hard labor and compulsory political indoctrination.

The low cost of maintaining these prisons provides additional incentive for the PRC to continue its use of the Laogai system. The use of slave labor to manufacture a product for export as an integral part of its economy represents not only a violation of international law and labor standards but represents an unfair trade practice which widens the trade deficit and threatens American jobs.

As is so common in authoritarian regimes, the PRC represses freedom of religion and expression through this system of more than 1,000 prisons. As we know, Mr. Speaker, these prisoners are given no legal rights and are often tortured in order to induce confessions. All Laogai prisoners are forced to labor in order to remake them as new socialist persons. New arrivals are subjected to immediate, daily, lengthy interrogation sessions and forced to admit their ``crimes.'' These sessions may last days, weeks and even months. In some cases, they last years. If a prisoner resists, he or she is tortured.

The horrifying trade in human organs from China is the latest development of the Laogai system. The organs of more than 1,000 executed prisoners have reportedly been harvested for money. In the 1990s and to the year 2005, as part of the series of about 24 Congressional hearings that I have chaired on human rights abuses in China, I conducted one extraordinary hearing on this grizzly business. In that hearing, with the help of the great Harry Wu, a survivor of the Laogai himself, we heard from a former PRC police officer who testified and brought compelling proof as to how prisoners were shot, but not killed, and moved to awaiting ambulances to begin the process of removing their organs for transplantation.

The practice reminded me and many others in that hearing of the atrocities committed by the infamous Nazi, Dr. Joseph Mengele.

Despite numerous human rights treaties, Mr. Speaker, to which the PRC is a signatory, the government continues to use the Laogai as a means to suppress groups such as the Falun Gong and other religious believers, but in the case of the Falun Gong, up to 50 percent of the Laogai prisoner population is made up of those individuals.

Cyber dissidents and journalists are increasingly being crushed by the Laogai system as well. As in the case of Shi Tao, a journalist who is now serving a 10-year forced labor sentence at a jewelry factory attached to the Chishan prison for sending an e-mail through his Yahoo account warning journalists of the dangers of social destabilization and the risks of return of certain dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

I point out to my colleagues, and I hope that each and every one of you will read this, there is a very, very strong statement on torture by the U.N. rapporteur on torture who has just finished his report, Manfred Nowak.

He said that the abuse of suspects and prisoners remains widespread. His report describes some of the torture methods used by China's police and prison officers to extract confessions and maintain discipline: Emersion in sewage, sleep deprivation, cigarette burns and beating with electric prods. Not surprisingly, Mr. Nowak also accused the Chinese officials of systematically interfering with his investigations.

Victims and family members were intimidated by security personnel during the visit, placed under surveillance or instructed not to meet with Mr. Nowak. Among the prisoners, Mr. Nowak said he observed ``a palpable level of fear and self-censorship'' that he had not seen in missions in other countries.

One cannot be optimistic given recent events, but killings by gunfire last week of at least 20 residents in the village of Dongzhou in southern China by Beijing's security forces is further evidence that China has a long way to go in achieving the rule of law.

The cold-blooded murder of these villagers protesting over land use and the corruption demonstrates clearly that, 16 years after Tiananmen Square, Chairman Mao's famous dictum that ``all political power comes from the barrel of the gun'' is still the credo of Beijing's leaders.

Those among our friends in Europe who seek removal of an arms embargo against China should reflect on the use of guns and bullets to kill the innocent villagers in Dongzhou and to keep 4 million inmates, many prisoners of conscience, locked up in the vast Laogai system.

This resolution sends a strong message, and I urge its passage.

Special Rapporteur on Torture Highlights Challenges at End of Visit to

China

Introduction

Beijing, 2 December 2005.--The Special Rapporteur of the

United Nations Commission on Human Rights on torture and

other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

concluded a two-week visit to the People's Republic of China

(PRC) today.

Nearly a decade after the initial request, the visit to the

PRC by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture,

Manfred Nowak, finally materialised from 20 November to 2

December, and included visits to Beijing, Lhasa, Tibet

Autonomous Region (TAR) and Urumqi, Xinjiang Uighur

Autonomous Region (XUAR). The long-awaited visit of the

Special Rapporteur on Torture to China has its origins in a

1995 request by the then Special Rapporteur, Sir Nigel

Rodley, for an invitation to carry out a fact-finding visit.

The Government responded in 1999 with an invitation for a

``friendly visit'' in May 2000, however, differences between

the Government and the Special Rapporteur on the standard

methodology for country visits by United Nations human rights

experts (including unannounced visits to detention centres

and private meetings with detainees) prevented it from being

realized. In spring 2004, the Government extended an

unconditional invitation to the then Special Rapporteur, Theo

van Boven, for a two-week visit in June of that year, which

was then postponed by the Government. Upon Manfred Nowak's

appointment as Special Rapporteur on Torture in December

2004, the Government of China renewed its invitation for a

visit in 2005, accepting his Terms of Reference.

The mission's aim was two-fold: fact-finding and starting a

process of cooperation aimed at the common goal of

eradicating torture in the PRC.

The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his deep

appreciation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in

particular Dr. Shen Yongxiang, Special Representative on

Human Rights Affairs, and his team for their professionalism,

cooperation, and shared commitment to the objectives of the

mission. The Special Rapporteur credits the Ministry for its

great efforts in ensuring that the mission proceeded as

smoothly as possible and that his Terms of Reference were in

principle respected. All meetings with detainees were carried

out in privacy and in locations designated by the Rapporteur.

No request for a meeting or interviewing of a particular

individual was refused. Prison staff were generally

cooperative. The Special Rapporteur was also able to meet

with a number of individuals outside of his official

programme, notwithstanding the obstructions elaborated upon

below.

While visits were also planned for Jinan in Shandong

Province and Yining in the XUAR, the Special Rapporteur

sincerely regrets that he had to cancel these visits due to

time constraints, and expresses his gratitude to the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs and the respective leaderships of Shandong

Province and Yining Autonomous Prefecture for accommodating

these last minute changes to the programme.

While in Beijing, the Special Rapporteur met with

Government officials, including the Assistant Foreign

Minister, the Vice Ministers of Justice and Public Security,

the Deputy Procurator-General, as well as prominent members

of civil society including the All China Lawyers'

Association, the Beijing Lawyers' Association, China

University for Political Science and Law, Renmin University,

Tsinghua University, Beijing University, the Chinese Academy

of Social Sciences, and the Beijing Child Legal and Research

Centre. Meetings were also held with individual lawyers,

human rights defenders, academics, and members of the

diplomatic corps and UN country team. In Lhasa and Urumqi,

the Special Rapporteur met with local officials including

from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People's Court, the

Procuratorate, and Departments of Justice and Public

Security.

In Beijing, the Special Rapporteur visited the Municipal

Detention Centre, Prison No. 2

(twice), and the Municipal Women's Re-education Through

Labour (RTL) Facility. In Lhasa he visited Lhasa Prison,

Tibet Autonomous Region Prison (also known as Drapchi

Prison), and the recently-opened Qushui Prison. In Urumqi, he

visited Prison Nos. 1, 3, and 4, as well as the Liu Dao Wan

Detention Centre. In all facilities, the Special Rapporteur

met with prison management and interviewed detainees in

private.

Particular circumstances of the fact-finding mission

The Special Rapporteur feels compelled to point out that

some Government authorities, particularly the Ministries of

State Security and Public Security, attempted at various

times throughout the visit to obstruct or restrict his

attempts at fact-finding. The Special Rapporteur and his team

were frequently under surveillance by intelligence personnel,

both in their Beijing hotel as well as in its vicinity.

Furthermore, during the visit a number of alleged victims and

family members were intimidated by security personnel, placed

under police surveillance, instructed not to meet the Special

Rapporteur, or were physically prevented from meeting with

him.

Prison officials imposed their own working hours as limits

for interviews which curtailed the number of facilities that

could be visited and the number of detainees interviewed. The

Special Rapporteur and his team were also prevented from

bringing photographic or electronic equipment into prisons.

Furthermore, in contrast to his previous country visits,

the Special Rapporteur was unable to obtain a letter of

authorization from the relevant authorities to visit

detention centres on his own. Consequently, officials from

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs accompanied him to detention

centres in order to ensure unrestricted access. As the

authorities were generally informed an hour in advance, the

visits could not be considered to have been strictly

``unannounced.'' Nonetheless, this practice significantly

improves upon the modalities employed in previous visits

to China of Special Procedures of the Commission on Human

Rights.

In his interviews with detainees, the Special Rapporteur

observed a palpable level of fear and self-censorship, which

he had not experienced in the course of his previous

missions. A considerable number of detainees did not express

a willingness to speak with the Rapporteur, and several of

those who did requested absolute confidentiality.

Under these conditions and taking into account the size and

complexity of China as well as the limited duration of the

mission, the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the limitations

in drawing up a comprehensive set of findings and conclusions

on the situation of torture and ill-treatment in China.

situation of torture and ill-treatment

The Special Rapporteur recalls that over the last several

years his predecessors have received a significant number of

serious allegations related to torture and other forms of

ill-treatment in China, which have been submitted to the

Government for its comments. These have included a consistent

and systematic pattern of torture related to ethnic

minorities, particularly Tibetans and Uighurs, political

dissidents, human rights defenders, practitioners of Falun

Gong, and members of house-church groups. These allegations

have been and continue to be documented by international

human rights organizations.

The methods of torture alleged include, among others:

beatings; use of electric shock batons; cigarette burns;

hooding/blindfolding; guard-instructed or permitted beatings

by fellow prisoners; use of handcuffs or ankle fetters for

extended periods (including in solitary confinement or secure

holding areas), submersion in pits of water or sewage;

exposure to conditions of extreme heat or cold, being forced

to maintain uncomfortable positions, such as sitting,

squatting, lying down, or standing for long periods of time,

sometimes with objects held under arms; deprivation of sleep,

food or water; prolonged solitary confinement; denial of

medical treatment and medication; hard labour; and suspension

from overhead fixtures from handcuffs. In several cases, the

techniques employed have been given particular terminologies,

such as the ``tiger bench'', where one is forced to sit

motionless on a tiny stool a few centimeters off the ground;

``reversing an airplane'', where one is forced to bend over

while holding legs straight, feet close together and arms

lifted high; or ``exhausting an eagle'', where one is forced

to stand on a tall stool and subjected to beatings until

exhaustion. On the basis of the information he received

during his mission, the Special Rapporteur confirms that many

of these methods of torture have been used in China.

Although he cannot make a detailed determination as to the

current scale of these abuses, the Special Rapporteur

believes that the practice of torture, though on the

decline--particularly in urban areas--remains widespread in

China. Indeed, this is increasingly recognized by Government

officials and reports. According to the 2005 Supreme People's

Procuratorate's (SPP) report to the National People's

Congress presented on 9 March 2005, covering the year

2004), 1595 civil servants had been investigated for

suspected criminal activity in cases involving ``illegal

detention, coercion of confessions, using violence to

obtain evidence, abuse of detainees, sabotaging elections,

and serious dereliction of duty resulting in serious loss

of life or property.'' The report goes on to note that

this is a 13.3 percent increase over the previous year's

totals and that the SPP personally investigated 82 of the

most serious cases. When compared with other national

statistics, these official figures are clearly the tip of

the iceberg in a country the size of China and demonstrate

that most victims and their families are reluctant to file

complaints for fear of reprisal or lack of confidence that

their complaints will be addressed effectively.

efforts by the government to combat torture

In recognizing the problem, the Government has undertaken a

number of measures to tackle torture. In August 2003, the

Minister of Public Security, Zhou Yongkang, issued a set of

unified regulations on the standardization of law-enforcement

procedures for public security institutions entitled,

``Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Administrative

Cases'', including procedures defining police powers in

respect of time limits for confiscation of property, legal

means for gathering evidence, time limits on investigation

and examination of suspects, etc. In 2004, the Ministry

issued regulations prohibiting the use of torture and threats

to gain confessions. The Supreme People's Procurotorate

announced that eliminating interrogation through torture

would be a priority of their work agenda and has instructed

procurators that confessions obtained as a result of torture

cannot form a basis for the formal approval of arrests and

that prosecutors must work to eliminate illegally obtained

evidence.

In addition to initiatives at the central level, the

Zhejiang provincial Public Security Department issued

regulations on forced confessions stating that local police

chiefs will be expected to resign in any district where there

are more than two cases of forced confessions resulting in

injuries, miscarriages of justice or public order problems.

In mid-April 2005, Sichuan law enforcement and judicial

authorities issued a joint opinion that prohibits the use of

illegally obtained evidence, such as coerced confessions in

criminal trials, and requires courts to exclude coerced

statements and confessions if police cannot provide a

rational explanation of the alleged coercion or refuse to

investigate allegations of abuse.

Practical measures to combat torture have included piloting

systems of audio and video recording in interrogation rooms,

strengthening representation during the investigative and

pre-trial phase of the criminal process by placing lawyers on

a 24-hour basis in pilot police stations, designing

interrogation rooms which separate suspects from

interrogators, and placing resident procurators in places of

detention and near public security bureaux to supervise law

enforcement personnel.

The Special Rapporteur also observes positive developments

at the legislative level including the planned reform of

several laws relevant to the criminal procedure, which he

hopes will bring Chinese legislation into greater conformity

with international norms, particularly the fair trial

standards contained in the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights (CCPR) which China signed in 1998 and is

preparing to ratify. He also welcomes the resumption by the

Supreme People's Court (SPC) of its authority to review all

death penalty cases, particularly given the fact that the

quality of the judiciary increases as one ascends the

hierarchy. The Special Rapporteur suggests that China might

use the opportunity of this important event to increase

transparency regarding the number of death sentences in the

country, as well as to consider legislation that would allow

direct petitioning to the SPC in cases where individuals do

not feel that they were provided with adequate relief by

lower courts in cases involving the use of torture, access to

counsel, etc.

Need for further efforts to prevent and address torture

The Special Rapporteur notes that China was among the first

States to ratify the UN Convention against Torture (CAT) in

1988, which requires States parties to take measures for the

prevention of torture and to punish every act of torture with

appropriately serious penalties. Although Chinese law

prohibits gathering evidence through torture and provides for

punishment of those guilty of torture, the Chinese definition

of torture does not fully correspond to the international

standard contained in CAT. In particular, physical or

psychological torture that leaves no physical trace is

difficult if not impossible to punish with appropriate

penalties in China (indeed, the Chinese word for torture,

``kuxing,'' principally connotes physical torture).

Combating torture in China is further impeded by the

absence of essential procedural safeguards necessary to make

its prohibition effective, including: the effective exclusion

of evidence from statements established to be made as a

result of torture; the presumption of innocence; the

privilege against self-incrimination; timely notice of

reasons for detention or arrest; prompt external review of

detention or arrest; granting of non-custodial measures, such

as bail; the right of habeas corpus; and timely access to

counsel and adequate time and facilities to prepare a

defence.

Other serious shortcomings are the lack of an independent

monitoring mechanism of all places of detention and a

functional complaints mechanism. A number of authorities have

pointed out that mechanisms exist in

China for individuals to report instances of torture,

particularly procurators, some of which are resident in

prisons and near police stations. However, the Special

Rapporteur believes that it is difficult to rely on the

vigilance of procurators whose interest in convicting

suspects as charged might compromise their ability to oversee

the police and prison guards. In addition, procurators

encounter many difficulties in practice to exercise their

supervisory role, including because detainees are afraid to

report instances of torture to them.

During his mission, the Special Rapporteur noted the

inefficiency of current complaint mechanisms. He was

informed, for example, that in Prison No. 4 in Urumqi, the

procurators have not received a single torture complaint

during the last decade. In the Tibetan Autonomous Region,

he was told that no complaint had been received since 2003

and in the Beijing Municipal Detention Centre, none were

received since its establishment in June 2004. In the

Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, two cases of torture

were established by the courts since 2000, and in the

Tibet Autonomous Region one such case had been confirmed.

The Deputy Procurator-General of the PRC informed the

Special Rapporteur that only 33 law enforcement officials

had been prosecuted for torture throughout the country

during the first nine months of 2005.

Indeed, an important element in combating torture is

judicial oversight. However, China lacks an independent

judiciary, and the judiciary suffers from relatively low

status in comparison to other State organs. Without a court

system that judges cases fairly and independently according

to law, thereby redressing grievances in a timely manner, the

problem of torture cannot be brought under effective control,

particularly in a context where police exercise wide

discretion in matters of arrest and detention and are under

great pressure to solve cases.

Forced re-education as a form of inhuman and degrading treatment

The Special Rapporteur also pointed to conceptual or

ideological constraints to the effective implementation of

the prohibition of torture. The criminal justice system is

focused on admission of culpability, and the role of

obtaining confessions continues to be central to successful

prosecutions. In fact even after persons, who have not

confessed to an offence, have been convicted and sentenced,

these persons are subject to restrictions within prison, such

as limited restricted access to telephone or visiting

privileges until they confess, or are provided the incentive

of a reduced sentence if they confess. Moreover, the system

as such places a strong emphasis on change and re-education

of the criminal, and the acceptance of punishment.

Societies that have been successful in establishing a human

rights culture differ from others in the degree of tolerance

of the majority towards those whose behavior deviates from

standard moral and social norms. This right to be different,

which finds its legal expression in the human rights to

privacy, freedom of expression, religion, assembly and

association, lies at the very heart of any democratic

society. These freedoms and political rights were not enacted

to protect conformist behavior, but non-conformist behavior.

Under international human rights law, Governments are only

permitted to interfere with the expression of political

opinions, religious convictions, moral values or minority

views when they constitute incitement to hatred or violence

or a direct threat to national security or public safety in

the country. A system of State surveillance of citizens with

non-conformist views and with severe punishments for such

``deviant behavior'', such as Re-Education through Labour

(RTL), seems to be incompatible with the core values of a

society based upon a culture of human rights and leads to

intimidation, submissiveness, self-censorship and a ``culture

of fear'', which interferes with the right not to be

subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

Every society has the right, and indeed is required by

article 10 of the CCPR, to assist convicted criminals during

their prison term through vocational training, education, and

measures aimed at ensuring their equal access to the labour

market in order to become law-abiding citizens. However,

efforts aimed at the rehabilitation and re-socialisation of

persons who committed crimes should be clearly distinguished

from forms of deprivation of liberty aimed at the forceful

re-education of human beings with deviant behaviour through

labour and coercion.

The system of RTL in China and similar methods of re-

education in prisons and even in pre-trial detention centres

go well beyond legitimate rehabilitation measures and aim at

breaking the will of detainees and altering their

personality. Such measures strike at the very core of the

human right to personal integrity, dignity and humanity, as

protected by Articles 7 and 10 of the CCPR, as well as

articles 1 and 16 of the CAT. RTL constitutes not only a

serious violation of the human right to personal liberty, but

must also be considered as a systematic form of inhuman and

degrading treatment or punishment, if not torture. RTL and

similar measures of forced re-education in prisons, pre-trial

detention centres and psychiatric hospitals should therefore

be abolished.

circumstances surrounding capital punishment

The Special Rapporteur also expressed concern about the

circumstances surrounding the death penalty, including the

situation of prisoners on death row. At the Beijing

Municipality Detention Centre, where the Rapporteur spoke

with prisoners sentenced to death at first instance and

awaiting appeal, he noted that these prisoners were

handcuffed and shackled with leg-irons weighing approximately

3kg, 24 hours per day and in all circumstances (Le. including

during meals, visits to the toilet, etc). Prison officials

indicated that the average length of appeal was two months.

This practice is reportedly based on a nation-wide regulation

for detention facilities. When questioned by the Special

Rapporteur on the reasons for the handcuffs and shackles

around the clock, prison officials indicated that this was

necessary for their own safety, the security of others, to

prevent them from fleeing, and to prevent suicide. However,

in the Liu Dao Wan Detention Centre in Urumqi, death row

prisoners were ``only'' shackled and not handcuffed. In the

opinion of the Special Rapporteur this practice is inhuman

and degrading and serves only as an additional form of

punishment of someone already subjected to the stress and

grievance associated with having been sentenced to death. The

Special Rapporteur also expressed concern at the high number

of crimes for which the death penalty can be applied. He

encouraged the Government to both narrow its scope and to be

more transparent towards family members and the public at

large regarding its use; including by making statistics on

the death penalty public information.

Recommendations to the Government of the PRC

Among his key preliminary recommendations to the

Government, the Special Rapporteur recommended:

Reform the criminal law by adding the crime of torture in

accordance with the definition contained in CAT (Art. 1) with

appropriate penalties.

Ensure that the reform of the criminal procedure law

conforms to ICCPR fair trial provisions, including by

providing for the following: the right to remain silent and

the privilege against self-incrimination; the right to cross-

examine witnesses and the effective exclusion of evidence

extracted through torture.

Reform the criminal justice system by transferring several

functions of the procurators to the courts, for example,

authorization of detention and supervision of the police.

Allow lawyers--particularly criminal defense lawyers--to be

more effective in representing the rights and interest of

their clients including through involvement at the earliest

stages of police custody and pre-trial detention.

Abolish Section 306 of the Criminal Law, according to which

any lawyer who counsels a client to repudiate a forced

confession, for example, could risk prosecution.

Take measures to enhance the professionalism, efficiency,

transparency, and fairness of legal proceedings; and raise

the status and independence of judges and courts within the

Chinese legal system.

Reduce the number of pre-trial detainees by enlarging the

use of noncustodial measures such as bail.

Establish an independent complaints mechanism for detainees

subject to torture and ill-treatment.

Accept the right of individual petition to the Committee

against Torture and its competence to initiate an inquiry

procedure in accordance with Articles 20 and 22.

Abolish imprecise and sweeping definitions of crimes that

leave large discretion to law enforcement and prosecution

authorities such as ``endangering national security'',

``disrupting social order'', ``subverting public order,''

etc.

Abolish ``Re-Education through Labour'' and similar forms

of forced reeducation of detainees in prisons and pre-trial

detention centres and psychiatric hospitals.

Bring conditions on death row into conformity with the

right of detainees with humane treatment.

Limit the scope of the death penalty by abolishing it for

economic and nonviolent crimes.

Utilize the opportunity of the planned restoration of

Supreme Court review for all death sentences to publish

national statistics on the application of the death penalty.

Establish a national human rights institution in accordance

with the Paris Principles. The United Nations Commission on

Human Rights and General Assembly have adopted a set of

guiding principles on the role, composition, status and

functions of national human rights institutions commonly

known as the Paris Principles. Commission on Human Rights

Resolution 1992/54 of March 1992 and General Assembly

Resolution A/RES/48/134 of 20 December 1993. With the

authority to carry out unannounced visits to all places of

detention.

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against

Torture.

Ratify the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

That OHCHR provide support to the above through its

technical cooperation programme within the framework of the

recent MOU signed between the High Commissioner for Human

Rights and the Chinese Government.

The Special Rapporteur expresses his appreciation to the

Government for inviting him to visit the country and looks

forward to a long-term process of cooperation with the

Government to combat torture and ill-

treatment. He also expresses his appreciation for the support

of the UN Country Team in China, and the Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Special Rapporteur will submit a comprehensive written

report on the visit to the UN Commission on Human Rights at

its sixty-second session in 2006.

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

I thank my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his very eloquent statement. This is an issue that very few Americans, very few lawmakers are really aware of, and it is about time the gross cruelty of the Laogai become much more well-known and action needs to be taken.

Mr. Speaker. I am attaching an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Thomas concerning H. Con. Res. 294 ``Calling on the international community to condemn the Laogai, the system of forced labor prison camps in the People's Republic of China, as a tool for suppression maintained by the Chinese Government'' for insertion into the Congressional Record.

Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2005.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hyde: I am writing in regard to H. Con. Res.

294, which is scheduled for floor consideration on Wednesday,

December 14, 2005. The second clause of the resolution

relates to the use of prison labor in China.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over matters concerning imports. The second

resolved clause calls on the Government of the United States

to fully implement its laws prohibiting the importation of

products made in Chinese forced labor camps, and thus falls

within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

However, in order to expedite this resolution for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this

resolution. This is being done with the understanding that it

does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to

the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H. Con. Res. 294, and

would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this

matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 294, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 238) honoring the victims of the Cambodian genocide that took place from April 1975 to January 1979, as amended.

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

Thirty years ago, as we all know, Cambodia was thrust into 4-years of hellish chaos that claimed the lives of one-fifth of that country's population. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime attempted a radical restructuring of Cambodia, systematically destroying traditional Khmer society, forcibly relocating large portions of the population, and purging those whom it regarded as bourgeois, or culturally contaminated. Their movement, which claimed to be a Communist effort to create a classless, utopian state, was, in fact, a genocide.

By the time it ended, 1.7 million Cambodians were dead. It stands as one of the worst crimes of the 20th century and a shocking example of what becomes possible when the dignity of the human person is subordinated to political ideology.

Faced with the terror of the Khmer Rouge, many thousands of Cambodians did what you and I would do in that situation. They and their families fled their homeland, becoming refugees. Of those numbers, more than 145,000 resettled in the U.S. where they have contributed to the strength of communities throughout our Nation. We are proud of our Cambodian American population, which has demonstrated such resilience and industry.

We also are hopeful that there may be yet justice and accountability for the Cambodian genocide. We welcome the steps that the U.N. has taken toward establishing an international criminal tribunal for that purpose. Although that body has yet to become operational, we hope that, when it does, its proceedings will be substantive, transparent and credible.

In light of its history, I am proud that this body is taking up H. Con. Res. 238 which honors the victims of the genocide in Cambodia and welcomes the prospect of justice for that great crime. I want to especially thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald) for introducing this resolution and urge its unanimous adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 409) condemning the Government of Zimbabwe's ``Operation Murambatsvina'' under which homes, businesses, religious structures, and other buildings and facilities were demolished in an effort characterized by the Government of Zimbabwe as an operation to ``restore order'' to the country, as amended.

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

I begin by commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for crafting and authoring this resolution. It is very timely and extremely important, given the events in Zimbabwe. I would like to point out that H. Res. 409 condemns the government of Zimbabwe for its horrendous abuses of civil and human rights of its citizens.

Zimbabwe is a Nation that even recently was an economic success, an example to other nations in Africa. However, the serious mismanagement of that country's economy has reduced the gross national income to levels last seen in 1953. Inflation in Zimbabwe today exceeds 500 percent.

When the government of Zimbabwe began its so-called Operation Murambatsvina on May 19, it was supposed to be a limited operation to end the parallel market but developed into the most destructive campaign that country has seen in its post-independence history. Months after this vicious

campaign, there are estimates of as many as 700,000 displaced persons, many of whom are living without food, water or shelter.

By all accounts, this operation has made existing social problems much worse. Nongovernmental organization representatives have told us that now there are 2 million widows, 1.5 million orphans, 500,000 children with only one surviving parent and 8,000 households headed by children.

While many still recall Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe's critical role in winning independence for his country, we must hold him accountable for the devastation he has more recently brought upon his country's citizens, serious, serious crimes and human rights abuses. Whatever he has achieved in the past, he is furiously undoing his legacy in the present.

House Resolution 409, which received its due consideration by the House International Relations Committee, seeks to shed light on the profound suffering that this operation has brought and inflicted upon the people of Zimbabwe. It notes that, through this operation, the government of Mugabe has created a manmade humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, which has only compounded the existing human rights and economic crises in Zimbabwe.

It condemns President Mugabe's harassment of the United States Ambassador to Zimbabwe most recently by threatening his expulsion from the country and asserting that he could ``go to hell'' in response to the Ambassador's efforts to draw attention to the crisis in Zimbabwe.

H. Con. Res. 409 also states that the government of Zimbabwe has a duty to protect its people and calls on that government to immediately and aggressively implement policies to promote private sector development, create jobs and build housing to benefit those displaced by this operation.

It further asserts that, absent such meaningful corrective measures, President Mugabe's legacy will be defined by his responsibility for the ruinous policies and draconian laws that have brought untold suffering to his people and the near collapse of Zimbabwe as a nation.

Finally, the resolution calls on the International Monetary Fund to take further action against the government of Zimbabwe should it continue to fail to meet its obligations to the international community.

My subcommittee held a hearing on Zimbabwe's situation and the U.S. policy toward that country last April. We were dissatisfied with the state of U.S. engagement. Despite diligent State Department efforts, we still lack creative ways to address and resolve this crisis.

One of the problems in engaging the government is the failure to speak with a consistent voice. This resolution may seem harsh to some, but it does not even begin to touch what is really going on in that once prosperous nation.

Mr. Speaker, Greg Simpkins is the leader on the subcommittee of our Professional Staff, and he led a staff CODEL to Zimbabwe on July 1 through the 10th. He was joined by Dr. Pearl-Alice Marsh, Senior Professional Staff Member for the Committee, and they did an extraordinary job in gathering a tremendous amount of information about what has really gone on and what the crisis is all about. I submit herewith their staff report for inclusion in the Record.

Staffdel Simpkins Trip Report: Zimbabwe and South Africa

(By Gregory Simpkins)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission and the sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act, I remain deeply concerned about the violations of human rights occurring every day in Lukashenka's Belarus.

During a recent news conference, the autocratic Belarusian leader expressed confidence in his victory in the presidential election scheduled for next year, rhetorically asking why should he be rigging this election. Given his intensified assault on civil society, his dismal human rights record, and penchant for rigged elections, Mr. Lukashenka's statements ring hollow. Yet, Lukashenka's actions against democratic forces, non-governmental organizations and the independent media belie his stated confidence regarding electoral victory.

Last week, the lower chamber of Lukashenka's pocket parliament passed a law endorsing tougher new penalties for activities ``directed against people and public security,'' a proposal submitted to the parliament only days before passage. These changes to the Criminal Code increase penalties for participation in organizations that were liquidated or warned to stop their pro-democratic activities, or for the training and other preparations for unauthorized demonstrations or other civic actions.

Mr. Speaker, to cite just one of the draconian provisions, the Code now gives authorities the leeway to jail an individual for up to 2 years for ``providing a foreign country, a foreign or international organization with patently false information about the political, economic, social, military, and international situation of the Republic of Belarus.'' Putting aside the matter of such a provision violating free speech norms, if the past is any guide, it is clear who would be the arbiter of what constitutes ``false information.'' There can be no doubt that the law aims to stifle the democratic opposition, and the head of the KGB (yes, in Belarus it is still called the KGB) himself recently admitted that the reasons for the law is to discourage street protests during the upcoming presidential race.

This law, while particularly blatant, is part and parcel of other actions designed to strengthen the regime's control and deny the Belarusian people any alternative voices as the presidential election campaign unfolds. Last month, a new law further controlling political parties came into force. A recent Council of Ministers decree clamps down on organizations that conduct public opinion polls. A Lukashenka decree further discriminates against independent trade unions, stipulating that only trade unions belonging to the pro-governmental federation are granted the right to premises at no cost. Yet another decree considerably limits students' opportunities to travel abroad.

Meanwhile, opposition activists are routinely beaten up or detained. Just last week, for instance, Ales Kalita was detained and at the hands of the police suffered a dislocated arm for merely distributing the independent newspaper ``Narodna Volya''. Viktor Syritsya, a lecturer at Baranavichi College was fired for organizing a meeting of students with presidential opposition candidate Alexander Milinkevich. Belarusian State Economic University in Minsk expelled fourth-year student Tatsyana Khoma because she took a brief trip to France, where she was elected to the executive committee of the Brussels-based National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), an umbrella organization of 44 national student unions from 34 countries. The police beat activist Mikita Sasim. They detained youth activists Yauhen Afnagel and others. Other repressive actions include frequent arrests of activists of democratic youth movements such as ZUBR, a ban on worship by some religious congregations and other repressive actions against selected religious minorities, and continued harassment of members of the Union of Poles in Belarus.

Moreover, there is an emerging pattern of the regime putting obstacles in the way of Mr. Milinkevich. Recently, a public meeting he held in Borbuisk was disrupted by the authorities, with participants being told by the authorities to go home and threatened with tax inspections. During a press conference, the electricity in the room was cut off, as well as a ``hot-line'' phone with town residents.

Especially egregious has been the regime's intensification of the war against the already repressed and struggling independent media. Newspaper closures, suspensions, threats, and exorbitant and absurd libel fines, pressures on advertisers and other forms of harassment have become routine. Outright police confiscations of independent newspapers are also not uncommon. A seemingly more subtle tactic, implemented just a few weeks ago, involved the decision by Belarus' monopoly state postal service to stop delivery to subscribers of a dozen private periodicals. Meanwhile, the suspicious murder in 2004 of journalist Veronika Charkasova has not been resolved. Authorities have refused to open a criminal investigation into journalist Vasil Hrodnikau's death. Lukashenka himself recently admitted to Russian journalists that his regime applies very serious pressure on the media, somewhat incongruously adding that ``this does not mean I am crushing them.''

Mr. Speaker, what I have cited is by no means an exhaustive list of abuses perpetrated by the Lukashenka regime, merely a sampling of the types of repressive actions employed on a daily basis by Europe's last dictator. As Helsinki Commission Co-Chair, I will continue to monitor closely and speak out forcefully regarding these and other violations of Belarus' freely undertaken OSCE commitments. I urge the Bush Administration to step up efforts to break the Lukashenka regime's near monopoly over the country's information space and provide timely assistance to pro-democracy forces in Belarus.

It is clear that Mr. Lukashenka and his minions are laying the groundwork for yet another un-free and unfair election--similar to the 2001 presidential elections and the 2000 and 2004 parliamentary elections--that will fall far short of OSCE standards. Lukashenka is once again showing that, despite his confident rhetoric, he fears his own people and profoundly fails to respect their dignity as citizens and as human beings.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules

and pass the bill (H.R. 2017) to amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign programs and centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, nationwide there are an estimated 400,000 torture survivors, most of whom came to the United States as refugees. Worldwide, it is impossible to count the numbers. As witnesses have repeatedly testified before our committee and before the Congress, the paralyzing scars from the physical and psychological wounds of torture can remain for years. Torture impacts not only the individual victim but their families and society as well.

Yesterday, the first witnesses testified in the trial of Saddam Hussein. Demonstrating heroic courage, they described torture on a scale that is almost beyond belief and which is simply too grisly to be repeated here. Although these events described happened many years ago, their testimony painfully illustrates the lasting impact torture has on those who survive it, their families and communities. There can be no doubt that Hussein's systematic torture was intended not only to punish specific victims but to coerce an entire population into silence and into subservience. As we try to bring democracy to Iraq and to other parts around the globe, we must try to heal the victims of torture that was used to prevent democracy from taking hold in the past.

In 1998, Mr. Speaker, Congress took a historic step towards repairing the broken lives of torture victims with the passage of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998. I sponsored that legislation, and I was joined by my good friend and colleague (Mr. Lantos), who has also been a hero in this battle to help torture victims. We also sponsored the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999 and the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2003. As important as these congressional measures have been, there continues to be an enormous need for us to reach out to the victims of torture who oftentimes have no other recourse for their suffering. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to join us today in supporting H.R. 2017, the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2005.

The domestic aspect of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is designed to ensure that particular attention is given to torture victims in regions with significant immigrant and refugee populations. The measure authorizes $25 million for fiscal year 2006 and $25 million for fiscal year 2007 to the Department of Health and Human Services to assist domestic treatment centers. This maintains the current $25 million authorization funding level for fiscal year 2005 for such centers.

Currently, 27 programs in 16 States are assisted by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement. In addition to direct assistance, many of these centers are also engaged in training mainstream organizations and personnel in the specialized treatment of torture victims.

The number of survivors seeking treatment at U.S. centers funded through the Torture Victims Relief and Reauthorization acts has steadily increased throughout the years. The client base at just 14 such centers increased from 935 in 1999 to 1,550 in 2000 to 2,579 in 2001. A subsequent survey showed that during 2002, 23 Torture Victim Relief Act-funded centers treated over 3,600 clients. With the additional funding, it is estimated the U.S. centers would have the capacity and the capability to serve an additional 2,800 survivors per year.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2017 also authorizes $12 million in 2006 and $13 million in 2007 for foreign treatment centers and programs administered through USAID's Victims of Torture fund. This authorization would maintain the current fiscal year 2005 authorization for 2006 and increase it by $1 million for fiscal year 2007.

The bill gives particular emphasis to supporting centers and programs abroad in emerging democracies and postconflict environments. Nongovernmental organizations that receive this funding provide direct services to survivors, their families, and their communities. They also strengthen institutions on the ground and the indigenous capacity of these institutions to deliver services to survivors. In addition to providing treatment, many of these programs advocate for the elimination of torture itself in these countries.

Lastly, the measure maintains current authorization levels of $7 million for fiscal year 2006 for the U.N. Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture. It would increase this funding to $8 million in fiscal year 2007. In 2001, in just that one year alone, the U.N. fund assisted some 77,000 victims of torture. This type of humanitarian assistance provided by organizations which receive grants from the fund consists mainly of psychological, medical, social, legal, and economic assistance.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I attach for printing in the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Barton on the bill H.R. 2017 ``The Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2005.''

House of Representatives, Committee on International

Relations,

Washington, DC, November 29, 2005.

Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 30, 2005, the Committee on

International Relations authorized me to seek consideration

of H.R. 2017, the ``Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization

Act of 2005,'' under suspension of the

rules. As you are aware, H.R. 2017 was additionally referred

to your Committee. The bill contains language which falls

within the Rule X jurisdiction of your Committee. Your

Committee's subject matter jurisdiction relates to the

authorization for domestic treatment centers for victims of

torture.

I write to ask that the Committee on Energy and Commerce

waive its opportunity to mark up provisions referred to it.

Timely action by the Energy and Commerce Committee would

allow this Committee to proceed expeditiously to the House

floor. By waiving the opportunity to mark up the bill, I

understand that your Committee does not waive any future

jurisdictional claim over this or similar measures. In

addition, in the event of a conference with the Senate on

this matter, I will recommend that your Committee have the

right to seek the appointment of conferees.

A copy of this letter and your reply will be placed in the

Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the

floor.

Sincerely,

Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends and colleagues for their very kind remarks. This is bipartisan legislation. We worked very closely with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to come up with what I think is a bill that will make a significant difference to help those who have suffered the cruelty of despotic regimes all over the world.

I just returned from a trip to Vietnam. I was in Hanoi, Hue, and finished the trip in Ho Chi Minh City; and during the course of more than 24 comprehensive meetings with religious and political people, many of whom are under house arrest, or pagoda arrest, including that of Thich Quand Do, the venerable leader of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Father Li, Father Loy and many others, in each and every one of those circumstances, the more the conversation went on, the more you saw, while they suffered much in prison, especially for Father Li and others, they were subjected to torture and other inhumane treatment.

Their faith helps them get through it. But for most beyond a facade of coping, the mental pain is overwhelming. They and so many others like them all over the world need what this kind of legislation can provide in the foreign treatment centers as well as our domestic centers. We have learned much about post-traumatic stress disorder. We have learned much of it through our work in this country through the VA and the fine work that the psychologists have done and the psychiatrists in mitigating the pain of our GIs who served in Vietnam and in other conflicts.

But for other people who have suffered so cruelly, being put into coffin-like boxes for days and weeks on end, leaves scars. Father Calciu, I will never forget, a great leader in Romania who spent years in Communist prisons, used to be put in these small boxes where he would suffer beyond words. It was his faith that got him through it, but he carries those scars.

There are people like Armanda Valadaries who wrote a book that should be read by everyone as a primer as to what the Castro regime does to its people, ``Against All Hope.'' Valadaries talks about the torture that he and so many others in Cuba have suffered. And he is one of the brave ones who endured and overcame. But so many others retreat and slide into despair, clinical depression, and then sometimes even to suicide.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this. In like manner, I urge the appropriators to ensure that we meet the authorized levels. Torture victims are the walking wounded and they are on our streets. As both the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I said, 400,000 is the estimation of torture survivors living in the United States.

Many of them came here as asylum seekers. Thank God they got the asylum status. Many others survive throughout the world and need the kind of services this legislation can provide.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, the district court in the Czech town of Ostrava reached a very important decision. The court concluded that, in 2001 after the birth of her second child, a local Romani woman was sterilized without informed consent. In fact, since last year, the Czech Ombudsman has been examining dozens of similar cases. Although he has not yet issued any public findings, it is expected that the Ombudsman will confirm that many other Romani women experienced similar violations of their rights, as documented by several Czech human rights groups and the European Roma Rights Center.

Sadly, the issue of sterilizations without informed consent is not new in this region. As early as 1977, the dissident group Charter 77 reported on systematic efforts to target Romani women in Czechoslovakia for coerced sterilization. While the vast majority of sterilizations in the Czech Republic and Slovakia since 1989 were performed with informed consent, the Ostrava case demonstrates that the practice of performing sterilizations without informed consent did not completely end with the fall of the communist regime.

That precedent-setting court decision sheds light on a number of legal points in one specific case. At the same time, there are many larger questions still at issue, including whether racism against Roma contributed to the abuse. Frankly, given the large percentage of Roma among the victims of sterilization without informed consent compared with the small percentage of the Czech population that Roma constitute, it is hard for me to believe that race did not play some role. There are, of course, other possible factors to consider: what role did a poor quality of medical care or training play in these cases of medical malpractice? Did a lack of respect for an individual's liberty--a hold- over mentality from the totalitarian period--also contribute to the abuse?

I welcome the Ostrava court's decision and commend the plaintiff in that case, Helena Ferencikova, for her courage in bringing it forward. I have also been heartened by the apparent seriousness of the Ombudsman's investigation into this difficult and sensitive matter.

Unfortunately, similar issues in neighboring Slovakia continue to be met with government denials and stonewalling.

In 2003, the Slovak Government concluded a year-long investigation into allegations that some Romani women were sterilized without informed consent, even after the fall of communism. That investigation was deeply flawed. At one point, for example, a spokesperson for the Minister for Human Rights threatened that anyone bringing forward allegations of sterilization without informed consent would go to jail, one way or another. This is not the way to foster confidence in an investigation or to encourage victims to speak out.

Significantly, the Czech investigation and the Slovak investigation both revolved around the same 1992 Czechoslovak law on sterilizations, put in place before the two countries split apart. Czech authorities have understood that law as requiring that sterilizations had to be requested by the person who was going to be sterilized, that there had to be evidence of consent by that person, and that consent had to be meaningfully informed. Being ``informed'' means, for example, that the expectant mother must be told why the procedure is necessary. If someone was given false information about the procedure, which was the case in many instances, then she was not meaningfully ``informed.''

When interpreting the same law, however, Slovak authorities maintained that consent did not have to be ``informed.'' Accordingly, Slovak investigators examined numerous cases where there was no informed consent but still concluded there was no violation of the 1992 law because, according to their twisted logic, consent didn't have to be informed!

In reality, the Slovak Government seemed to organize its investigation into the sterilization cases in a way that was designed to cover up the magnitude of the problem. The Slovak Government's investigation revealed seven cases of Romani minors who were sterilized in violation of the then-existing Slovak law. In reality, the Slovak Government's

interpretation of the concept of ``consent'' could not be reconciled with modern health norms and had to be changed to explicitly require that consent is informed. (The new law went into effect at the beginning of this year.) In reality, numerous international officials have repeatedly expressed concern over the sterilization practices in the Slovak Republic and the inadequacy of the Slovak Government's response to them, including in the April 2005 report on the situation of Roma issued by the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner.

In light of all this, it is extremely frustrating to read that Slovak officials have, in recent months, made misleading statements about this important issue. Apparently one official has even declared that ``illegal sterilizations of Romani women never happened in Slovakia.''

Mr. Speaker, when the institutions of justice are perceived to follow one set of rules for the majority and another for minorities, this is a recipe for social unrest--as we know from our own painful history.

I understand that it is always a difficult exercise for any government to admit its own wrongdoing or the wrongdoings of the majority society--we know this, too. But Romani mistrust of government institutions will only deepen if the Slovak Government persists in denying the wrongs perpetrated against their community.

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago this month a genocidal conflict was brought to an end in the Balkans. By initialing a ``General Framework for Peace'' at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, on November 21, 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged from almost four years of that conflict wondering whether it could survive as an independent unitary state and recover from the utter destruction not only of its towns and cities but of its own, multi- ethnic society.

Time dulls our recollection of what the carnage in Bosnia was really about, so I believe it important to recall the nature of this, the most horrific phase of Yugoslavia's violent and bloody demise. Active on the Helsinki Commission which I co-chair today, I took part in many sobering hearings which documented the atrocities and discussed policy responses.

The Bosnian conflict was, in large part, characterized not by opposing military forces but by groups of thugs, armed and orchestrated by the Milosevic regime in Serbia, wreaking havoc on innocent civilians. Tens of thousands were raped or tortured in detention centers and camps established across the country. While figures may vary substantially, the death toll is commonly estimated at about 200,000, while two million people--half the country's population--were displaced. We can well remember the photos of emaciated detainees at Omarska, the live coverage of the shelling and siege of Sarajevo, and the recently released video footage of the execution of captured young men near Srebrenica.

While the decreasing advantages enjoyed by the Serb militants by late 1995 made a settlement possible, the Dayton Agreement did, in fact, help to bring this nightmare to an end. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that its compromises reflect a failure by the international community, including the United States, to intervene much earlier in the conflict in response to clear violations of international principles and what many, including myself, consider a genocide.

The international community repeatedly failed to take decisive action, including the credible threat of the use of force, to compel the brazen Serb militants to stop their aggression. Instead, time was spent deploying peacekeeping forces under United Nations auspices when there was no peace to keep. UNPROFOR's presence thwarted more effective responses, such as lifting the arms embargo which denied the sovereign country of Bosnia and Herzegovina its right, as a member of the United Nations, to defend itself. As town after town, including some declared to be ``safe-havens'' by the United Nations, fell to the forces of ethnic cleansing, the international community acquiesced to a reality, codified by Dayton, of a country divided into two political entities characterized by an ethnic bias unworthy of 21st century democracy. One entity is a Bosnian Federation forged by the United States in 194 between Bosnia's Muslims or Bosniaks, and Croats. The other entity, Republika Srpska, is dominated by Serbs and represents what the militants among them started the conflict to create.

The compromises accepted at Dayton, influenced by years of international inaction, also have made subsequent implementation difficult, and extremely expensive in terms of personnel, equipment and funds. Many persons indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide evaded justice for years, some to wreak havoc later in Kosovo and elsewhere, and some like Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, remain at large. With the economy destroyed and both organized crime and official corruption rampant, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina became passive and dependent on the international community for their very survival.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in the Dayton Agreement was its heavy reliance on Slobodan Milosevic himself to follow its terms, which he did only under considerable pressure. Betting on the man most responsible for igniting the conflict meant undercutting the development of democratic forces in Serbia

which are necessary for the long-term stability of southeastern Europe. Many of us worked hard to correct this flaw in the immediate post- Dayton years, and continue to encourage democratic forces in Serbia to reckon fully with the Milosevic legacy.

Fortunately, along with the eventual ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, we have seen more vigorous and positive action to move ahead in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the past five years. More of the displaced have returned to their original homes than was thought possible when Dayton was negotiated. It hasn't been easy for many who return as members of a minority population, but determination has helped them to prevail. More and more individuals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including Milosevic, have been transferred to The Hague, and, at a recent Helsinki Commission briefing, we learned that Bosnia's own War Crimes Chamber has been established and is ready to conduct sensitive trials in accordance with the rule of law. Srebrenica is being acknowledged as the crime that it was. Defense and police reform are underway, helping to pave the way for Bosnia's further Euro-Atlantic and European integration. The region around Brcko, so brutally contested during the conflict that not even Dayton could determine its status, now provides a model of multiethnic cooperation and economic recovery for the rest of the country. There are now discussions of constitutional reforms which, if adopted, will hopefully make the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina a sum of its citizens and not a balance of its ethnicities.

If the Dayton Agreement succeeded in anything, Mr. Speaker, it was because its detailed provisions and improved implementation have provided the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina with both the parameters of a state and enough time to bring their country back from the abyss. I have increasing confidence that they will succeed in moving from what was admittedly a ``General Framework for Peace'' to a solid basis for unity, freedom, prosperity and integration.

In the meantime, the international community has much it still needs to learn and develop. The conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina gave new purpose to NATO and enabled it to begin operating out of area. Fifty years after the Holocaust, those who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide no longer operate with complete impunity. Still, the international community--whether the United States and its allies, regional bodies or the United Nations--remains slow in responding to human suffering, or in recognizing the implications massive human rights violations can have on international security. It too readily accepts the reality of innocent people being attacked, brutalized and killed. Look at the response during the assault on Srebrenica and then at the response to Darfur today; the similarities are strong.

I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that Dayton's tenth anniversary is commemorated in a way that includes not only encouragement for Bosnia and Herzegovina to move beyond the agreement's limiting provisions, but encouragement for all policymakers to learn from the lessons of inaction in the face of evil.

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations' push for global population control continues to lead to ugly and inhumane outcomes, especially for girls.

China, as you know, imposes a barbaric ``one child per couple'' policy that relies on forced abortion, involuntary sterilization and ruinous fines to implement. But a UNFPA report sheds new light on sex selection abortion in India. According to the U.N. report, increasingly parents are using sex selection technologies that enable practitioners first to identify female unborn girls and then to abort them. As a result, fully 60 million girls are now missing according to the United Nations, effectively falling into a demographic black hole from which analysts fear there will be no return.

The report says as many as 2 million unborn baby girls are aborted each year for no other reason than they happen to be female.

In Punjab, the government claims that the numbers of missing girls will increase by 40 percent in the forthcoming generation.

Mr. Speaker, abortion is violence against children. It relies on dismemberment of the baby. Abortion relies on chemical poisoning. Sex selection abortion in India or anywhere else is a particularly heinous crime. All children--boys or girls--are precious. None deserve death by abortion.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief is a fundamental element of international human rights norms. It is inextricably intertwined with other fundamental rights, including the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Considering this, I am increasingly concerned by European trends to place limitations on religious speech under the guise of preventing offense or limiting hate speech. One such case concerns Ake Green, the pastor of a Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, who was sentenced to 1 month in prison for ``inciting hatred'' against homosexuals.

Pastor Green's troubles began on July 20, 2003, when he expressed his disapproval of homosexuality in a sermon, founded upon his understanding of the Bible. He did not incite nor encourage his congregation on the small southeastern island of Oland to violence. He did, however, express his personal opinion of homosexuality and made a personal moral judgment that the lifestyle was sinful. He later circulated the sermon text to media outlets in an attempt to insert an alternative view into Sweden's ``marketplace of ideas.''

When prosecutors saw the sermon printed, they brought charges against Pastor Green for ``inciting hate'' toward homosexuals. A district court agreed in June 2004, finding his sermon to be criminal. One particularly alarming quote from the district court's decision stated, ``It is forbidden to use the Bible or similar material to threaten or express disrespect for homosexuals as a group.'' Mr. Speaker, should pastors really be sent to jail for sermons that a court deems ``disrespectful'' or ``offensive''? Should the state really dictate how a religious leader interprets the Bible, the Torah, or other religious texts? The district court's ruling raises the question of whether ministers and priests in Sweden are really free to preach their beliefs.

I recognize that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and not all speech is protected. After 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings, we have all seen how criminals abuse religion to preach violence and lead others in criminal deeds. Authorities are within their rights to take legal action to curtail the speech when it rises to the level of posing an imminent threat of actual criminal action. The international community and the European Court of Human Rights have recognized this high threshold for limiting speech activity. Yet we must be careful to not limit religious liberties and speech rights.

Thankfully, Pastor Green has not spent a night in jail while his case is on appeal. Also encouraging was the February decision by an appellate court to overturn the conviction, saying it is not illegal to preach a personal interpretation of the Bible. However, Sweden's chief prosecutor, Fredrik Wersaell, appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that Green violated Sweden's 2003 hate crimes law. The Supreme Court will hear the appeal on November 9th.

Undoubtedly, Swedes enjoy tremendous religious freedoms and generally Sweden is a staunch defender of human rights. However, in this case, the government has sought to limit basic religious teachings. I believe the criminalization of the use of the Bible to express beliefs, if not overturned, will have frighteningly broad ramifications for the free practice of religion in Sweden and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following testimony for the Record.

Good morning. It's a pleasure for me to speak before you

today, the Middle East and Central Asia subcommittee. I want

to commend the subcommittee for organizing this important

hearing and for your work concerning the ongoing problems in

Central Asia.

The peoples of Central Asia are largely Muslim, with a

history of living under Russian rule for centuries. Despite

our hopes and modest expectations that these nations would

matriculate from dictatorships to democracies, from my

vantage point as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Commission on

Security and Cooperation in Europe, the disappointing reality

over the last fifteen years is that most are moving in the

wrong direction. Moreover, in all countries of the region

``super-presidents'' dominate the political arena while their

families, friends and favored few exploit the country's

natural resources. Corruption among the elite is pervasive,

as is cynicism among the populace. Legislatures and

judiciaries have languished while the authorities maintain

tight control of the most important media outlets.

Yet despite these similarities, the five countries of

Central Asia run the gamut from the standpoint of

democratization and human rights observance; I would like to

offer quick character sketches of each and then suggest some

policy options.

Kyrgyzstan represents one positive advance, as the only

country in Central Asia where the head of state won his job

in a fair contest. In last March's Tulip Revolution,

opposition leaders mobilized popular resistance to yet

another rigged election and

ousted Askar Akaev. He was replaced by President Kurmanbek

Bakiev, who won in a genuine landslide. Media outlets which

were under pressure can now report freely on events. All this

proves that Central Asians are ready for democracy. But

Kyrgyzstan faces many problems. Parliament was elected in a

rigged vote, and criminal elements are increasingly

influential. A series of assassinations of parliamentarians

has unsettled the Kyrgyz and their friends abroad. Moreover,

leaders in nearby states have been disturbed by the precedent

of ``people power'' in their neighborhood.

On the other hand, under the megalomaniac ``president for

life'' Saparmurat Niyazov, gas-rich Turkmenistan is the last

one-party state in the former Soviet bloc. No dissent or

religious freedoms are allowed and all media glorify the

``great'' leader. Citizens must study Niyazov's Rukhnama--a

pseudo bible-mishmash of history, folklore and anthropology

which seeks to supplant traditional Turkmen sources of

spirituality. No other institutions or individuals have been

allowed to emerge. Not only are all human rights violated,

none of the bases of modem statehood have been fostered,

leaving Turkmenistan's people ill-prepared for the day when

Niyazov inevitably leaves the scene.

Tajikistan is the only state in Central Asia where Muslim

political parties are legal, an outcome of the bloody civil

war fought between 1992 and 1997. The agreement ending those

hostilities brought opposition parties into government, a

major step forward for Central Asia. But lately President

Imomali Rakhmonov has been concentrating power. In 2004, he

orchestrated a referendum that will allow him to remain in

office until 2020, if he wins next year's presidential

election--he is preparing by clamping down on potential

rivals. Two weeks ago an opposition figure was sentenced to

23 years in prison on charges many see as politically

motivated. At the same time, Rakhmonov has been muzzling the

media, with various independent newspapers closed down or

under constant pressure.

In oil-rich Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev has been

President since the late 1980s and is running for re-election

in December. Opposition parties are registered but have no

representatives in parliament. Independent and opposition

newspapers are harassed or fined for libel. The new and

regressive national security amendments limit religious

freedoms by increasing registration requirements, banning

unregistered religious groups, greatly curtailing missionary

activity, and permitting the suspension of registration of a

religious organization. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan wants to be

Chairman of the OSCE in 2009, a consensus decision that will

have to be made in 2006. While I would like to see a Central

Asian country in that position, chairmanship of the OSCE must

be earned. A grade of ``excellent'' from OSCE election

monitors on the presidential contest in December is the

minimum requirement. Many more improvements in human rights

performance will be needed before U.S. backing for

Kazakhstan's candidacy could be given in good conscience.

Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov has banned all

opposition. Censorship remains in effect, torture is

pervasive and thousands of people are in jail on political or

religious grounds--Islamic observance is permitted only

within state structures. Lagging economic reform has crimped

business development and aggravated widespread poverty, all

of which was recently documented by a very thorough Human

Rights First report. Demonstrating the lows the regime will

take to squash dissent, Uzbek authorities last week subjected

one of the country's most prominent human rights defenders,

Elena Urlaeva, to forcible psychiatric treatment,

injecting her against her will with powerful psychotropic

drugs.

Her troubles began when she was put under house arrest in

May to prevent her protesting the violence in Andijon. Last

May, armed men assaulted a prison in Andijon where local

businessmen were being held for alleged Islamic radicalism.

Troops responded the next day by shooting indiscriminately at

large crowds. According to eyewitnesses, hundreds, perhaps

thousands were killed. The U.S. Government, along with the

OSCE, UN and European Union, has called for an independent

investigation into Andijon. President Karimov has refused and

state-run Uzbek media outlets have accused the U.S. of

assisting with Islamic terrorists. The allegation would be

funny if it weren't so chilling.

Andijon has been a watershed in Uzbekistan's post-

independence history and in U.S.-Uzbek relations. As of

today, our bilateral ties are in a deep freeze and Tashkent

has demanded that our military base at K-2, which was

supplying coalition forces in neighboring Afghanistan, be

shut down.

As you can see, the countries of Central Asia have much in

common but have different prospects of future development. I

believe the United States can help move them in a positive

direction, while balancing the priorities of security

cooperation, energy supplies and democratization.

It is worth recalling President Bush's 2003 Whitehall

Palace speech during his trip to the United Kingdom in which

he acknowledged past mistakes in U.S. foreign policy: ``in

the past, [we] have been willing to make a bargain; to

tolerate oppression for the sake of stability . . . yet this

bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely

bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of

violence took hold.''

Considering this, U.S. policy must support those Central

Asian governments which have made progress towards

democratization, especially Kyrgyzstan. We must also use our

influence to urge those in the middle to improve their

performance and those on the extremes to begin moderating

their behavior. If we are to defeat terrorism and instill

democracy and human rights in this region, we must do more.

That is why I've introduced H.R. 3189, the Central Asia

Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2005. If there is to be

lasting success in fighting terrorism, the U.S. must break

away from policies that back dictators who suppress and

terrorize their own people, as repression will mostly likely

breed future terrorism. The United States Government should

therefore use every means at its disposal to move the

countries of Central Asia to greater respect for democracy

and human rights. U.S. engagement should support American

values, promote long-term stability and security in the

region, and ensure that all assistance programs support and

reinforce these goals. In short, the bill facilitates

engagement with those countries that want to engage.

In President Bush's second inaugural speech, he declared

``it is the policy of the United States to seek and support

the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every

nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny

in our world.'' My bill fulfills this policy directive by

providing constructive foreign assistance to support

democratization and human rights, while conditioning all non-

humanitarian U.S. assistance to the individual governments of

Central Asia, both economic and military, on whether each is

making ``substantial, sustained and demonstrable progress''

towards democratization and full respect of human rights in

keeping with their OSCE commitments.

The legislation would require that the President make an

annual determination whether such progress is being made by

examining five categories: democratization; free speech;

freedom of religion; torture; and rule of law/trafficking in

persons. If a country is not certified, economic and military

assistance would be withheld in a graduated format. My bill

provides greater flexibility to the President, as it allows

the U.S. to express dissatisfaction in a significant way

while not immediately ending all aid programs to the central

governments in this strategic region of the world. The

President is also provided with a national security waiver.

Notably, withheld money is not lost. The President is

authorized to reallocate withheld funds to provide financial

assistance (including the awarding of grants) to foreign and

domestic individuals, NGOs, and entities that support

democracy, the promotion of democracy and/or full respect of

human rights.

The United States should use every means at its disposal to

encourage democratization in Central Asia. Democracy in that

part of the world will ultimately promote long-term stability

and security in the region. That's the objective of my

legislation. I hope the Members of the Middle East and

Central Asia subcommittee will join me and cosponsor H.R.

3189.

Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding the rule of law, or the absence of it, in the Russian Federation today. The case of Mikhail Trepashkin, which I raised in the House last November, highlights the shortcomings and corruption that plague the Russian legal system.

Trepashkin, an attorney and former Federal Security Service (FSB) officer, was arrested on October 24, 2003, just one week before he was scheduled to represent the American relatives of a victim of the 1999 bombings of two Moscow apartment buildings. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Trepashkin, at the behest of a Russian parliamentarian, had been investigating the bombings and was expected to present findings that suggested the involvement of elements of the FSB in the crime. Russian officials, however, had been quick to characterize the bombings as terrorist attacks, and blamed Chechen separatists. Trepashkin had publicly announced that his research had left him with many suspicious findings, including a statement by the landlord of one of the buildings that the FSB had forced him to falsify the identity of a basement apartment tenant, the suspected source of the blast. In addition, Trepashkin charged that a bomb discovered in an apartment building in the city of Ryazan and safely detonated before it was set to explode, was admittedly placed there by FSB officers who were reportedly conducting a ``readiness exercise.''

The weapon possession charge against Mr. Trepashkin fell apart in court as witnesses reported seeing a gun only in the hands of the arresting officer. However, the FSB seemed intent on derailing Trepashkin's independent inquiry, and subsequently claimed that Mr. Trepashkin had revealed classified material to unauthorized persons during the course of his investigation. In May 2004, a closed Moscow Military District Court found him guilty of divulging state secrets and sentenced him to four years in a labor camp.

Mr. Speaker, it still seems that Mr. Trepashkin was prosecuted in order to prevent him from releasing potentially damaging information regarding FSB complicity in the bombings. In other words, the security services have apparently manipulated the Russian judicial system to ``get its man.'' As the U.S. State Department expressed it diplomatically, ``The arrest and trial of Mikhail Trepashkin raised concerns about the undue influence of the FSB and arbitrary use of the judicial system.''

Even though the United States and others had called for an honest and open investigation into the circumstances surrounding the case of Mr. Trepashkin, his situation remained unchanged until August 2005. Suddenly he was released early for good behavior after completing almost half of his original four-year sentence. Regrettably, his reprieve ended as abruptly as his release. Trepashkin was detained at his home and on September 16, 2005 the regional court of Sverdlovsk overturned the lower court's early release decision. The local prosecutor who assented to Mr. Trepaskin early release has now been fired.

Trepashkin had written about the horrible jail conditions of his earlier imprisonment: hunger, sleep deprivation, withholding of medicine, and a substandard, lice-infested cell. It is now reported that conditions after his re-incarceration have become even worse. Apparently his comments to journalists during his brief release, detailing the poor jail conditions aroused the resentment of the prison guards and the administration. Trepashkin is reportedly in poor health, recently suffering an acute asthmatic attack.

Mr. Speaker, the Trepashkin case appears fraught with blatant corruption by Russian law enforcement and unacceptable manipulation of the rule of law to satisfy political vendettas. If the FSB cannot endure criticism from outside and exposure of possible malfeasance within its ranks, how effective can it be in investigating and preventing genuine threats to Russia and beyond? I believe the Russian judiciary system would be better served if the court were to adhere to its original decision to release Mikhail Trepashkin from his unwarranted confinement and allow him to return to Moscow without fear of further reprisals. Persecution of those who seek the truth is not only a violation of an individual's human rights; it further erodes Russia's already weakened democracy.

``Do you think it is possible when you have lost your humanity to ever find it again?''

So asks Helena, a fictitious but all too real human trafficking victim from Prague after describing how she was raped and abused to ICE law enforcement agent Kate Morozov, played brilliantly by Academy Award-winning actress Mira Sorvino in Lifetime TV Network's mini series Human Trafficking, to be aired next week.

My wife Marie and I have watched the entire trafficking movie last night, and we were moved to tears by this extraordinarily accurate portrayal of sex slavery from the eyes of victims, and the dedicated law enforcement agents trying to effectuate their rescue.

My wife and I and my staff have been fighting sex trafficking, Mr. Speaker, since the late 1990s, when there was utter disbelief about whether or not it even existed. Sadly, it does. I would note parenthetically that I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, a comprehensive landmark law that provides for prevention, protection or victims, and prosecution and incarceration of the traffickers. I also sponsored the TPVA Reauthorization Act of 2003 as well as pending Legislation--H.R. 972.

The movie tells the individual stories of exploited young women and girls from the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Philippines, Romania, Russia, and a 12-year-old girl, an American girl, Annie Gray, who was abducted by traffickers in Manila. ICE agent in charge Donald Sutherland joins Sorvino in bringing down a powerful but clever sex trafficking boss and others who use force, fraud, coercion, and even murder to enslave women.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, that the ignorance, the indifference and complicity in human trafficking came to an end. Every year 800,000 people are trafficked around the world. Millions more are trafficked intra-country. And up to 18,000 are trafficked into the U.S. each year. Watch this powerful movie next week, Lifetime TV, 9 p.m., Monday and Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations studied the terrible situation facing India's Dalits and tribal peoples. Taken together, Dalits and tribal peoples constitute as many as 250 million people. The Dalits, whose name means ``the oppressed,'' are much better known as ``untouchables,'' although this demeaning name is not the one they choose for themselves. They are also often referred to in official documents as ``Scheduled Castes, and occasionally as ``Harijans,'' or ``Children of God,'' a name given them by Gandhi. The tribal peoples are often referred to as Scheduled Tribes, or Adivasis, which means indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants. The Dalits and tribal peoples are treated as virtual non-humans, and suffer pervasive discrimination and violation of their human rights.

This topic has taken on a special relevance. India's reformist government has made great strides to open its economy, and improve the lot of all its citizens. It has also played a leading role in the Community of Democracies and the U.N.'s Democracy Caucus and the U.N. Democracy Fund. In June and July of this year the U.S. and India announced a series of agreements that represent a quantum leap in cooperation between the world's two most populous democracies after decades of estrangement during the Cold War. On July 18th, U.S. and Indian leaders issued a joint statement resolving to establish a ``global partnership'' between the two nations through increased cooperation on a wide range of issues. We heartily welcome all of these actions.

However, there is still a long road to travel. Most observers have focused on the nuclear proliferation implications of our announced agreements as potential stumbling blocks to a true strategic partnership between the U.S. and India. But as we seek to develop a strategic partnership, we must not lose sight of India's serious human rights problems. These problems are amply documented in the three current State Department reports: the 2004 Human Rights Report on India, the 2005 Report on Trafficking in Persons, and the 2004 Report on Religious Freedom. All three are massive catalogues of human rights violations which the Government of India condones, ignores, and in some instances, has even promoted.

To quote the 2004 Human Rights Report on India:

Security force officials who committed human rights abuses

generally enjoyed de facto legal impunity . . . violations

included: torture and rape by police and other government

agents; . . . harassment and arrest of human rights monitors;

. . . forced prostitution; child prostitution and female

infanticide; trafficking in women and children; . . . serious

discrimination and violence against indigenous people and

scheduled castes and tribes; widespread intercaste and

communal violence; religiously motivated violence against

Muslims and Christians; and widespread exploitation of

indentured, bonded, and child labor.

Further, the 2005 Report on Trafficking in Persons has this to say. Again I quote:

India is a source, transit, and destination country for

women, men, and children trafficked for the purposes of

sexual and labor exploitation . . . Internal trafficking . .

. for . . . sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, bonded

labor, and indentured servitude is widespread . . . the vast

majority of females in the Indian commercial sex industry are

currently victims of sexual servitude or were originally

trafficked into the sex trade. India is also home to millions

of victims of forced or bonded labor.

The Government of India does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.

India was placed on Tier 2 Watch List for human trafficking a second consecutive year in 2005. Many of us believe it should be a Tier III country.

The State Department's 2004 Report on Religious Freedom also had many harsh words for India's respect for religious freedom. It noted that the Indian government, despite India's constitutional commitment to religious freedom and secular government, was often lax in protecting religious minorities from attack, and in punishing their persecutors. Religious extremists have taken such laxity as a signal that they can attack with impunity. Missionaries were often harassed, and the right to freely choose one's own religion was often violated.

Finally, there is abortion. In theory, India only allows abortions for risk to the life of the mother, or ``grave risks'' to her health, or for ``substantial risk'' of fetal impairment. Yet like so many countries where the absolute right to life of the unborn child has been disregarded in a misguided attempt to provide a so-called ``limited'' abortion license, the reality is that there is abortion on demand. Estimates of abortions run as high as 7 million a year. There are some estimates that 17 percent of maternal deaths are due to abortion: so much for ``safe, legal and rare.''

And abortion is not just at the demand of the mother, but often at the demand of relatives who don't want girl babies. The incidence of ``sex-selection abortions'' has reached staggering proportions. As many as 50 million girls and women are missing from India's population as a result of infanticide and abortion. In most countries in the world, there are approximately 105 female births for every 100 males. In India, there are less than 93 women for every 100 men in the population. In one wealthier area of the capital of New Delhi, the sex ratio at birth has dropped to 762 girls for every 1,000 boys, one of the lowest in the entire country. The problem is getting worse as scientific methods of detecting the sex of a baby and of performing abortions are improving. These methods are becoming increasing available even in rural areas.

India banned sex-selection abortions in 1996, but the health minister recently admitted that not a single person has ever been convicted or otherwise punished for having carried out sex selective abortions. UNICEF has warned that unless steps are taken to address the problem, India will soon face severe social problems, not least increased trafficking of women, which is already an enormous problem. As more and more girls are aborted or murdered after birth, more and more poor women and girls will be trafficked.

All of this background will provide the context for today's hearing. India's Dalits and tribal peoples are victims of all the human rights violations prevalent in India, and to a far greater extent than most other Indians.

According to India's caste system, Dalits are impure, and even their shadow can pollute. Dalits are discriminated against, denied access to land and forced to work in degrading conditions. Dalit men, women, and children numbering in the tens of millions work as agricultural laborers for a few pounds of rice or less than a dollar a day. Their upper-caste employers frequently use caste as a cover for exploitative economic arrangements. In India's own version of ``apartheid,'' entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste. Dalits dare not even walk in the part of the village occupied by higher castes. They may not use the same wells, visit the same temples, drink from the same cups in tea stalls, or lay claim to land that is legally theirs. Dalit children are frequently made to sit in the back of classrooms.

Most Dalits continue to live in extreme poverty, without land or opportunities for better employment or education. India has a policy of quotas in education and government jobs to benefit Dalits and tribal peoples. But most cannot afford primary education, so their literacy rates remain very low and only a small minority can benefit from these quotas.

Dalits are routinely abused at the hands of the police and of higher caste group that enjoys the state's protection. According to India's National Crime Records Bureau, in 2000, the last year for which figures are available, 25,455 crimes were committed against Dalits. Every hour two Dalits were assaulted; every day three Dalit women were raped, two Dalits were murdered, and two Dalit homes were

torched. And most experts believe that these numbers are grossly underreported, since Dalits are afraid to report crimes to police, and when they do, police often refused to register or investigate their complaints. In 2001 Amnesty International estimated that only about 5 percent of sexual assaults were registered, and that police officers dismissed at least 30 percent of rape complaints as false.

Approximately eighty percent of the tribal population lives below the poverty level. Despite constitutional safeguards, the rights of indigenous groups in the eastern parts of the country are often ignored. In recent years, crime against the tribes has risen. Indigenous peoples suffer discrimination and harassment, are deprived of their land, and subjected to torture and to arbitrary arrest. Mob violence, lynching, arson, and police atrocities against tribal persons occur in many states.

Dalits and tribal peoples suffer horribly from human trafficking. Dalit girls have been forced to become temple prostitutes as devadasis, or ``servants of god,'' a practice where they are ``married'' to a deity or temple where they are then forced to have sex with upper caste men and are eventually sold into prostitution. In 2001, more than 40,000 tribal women were forced into situations of economic and sexual exploitation. An estimated 40 million people, most of them Dalits, are bonded workers, many working to pay off debts that were incurred generations ago, according to a 1999 report by Human Rights Watch. These people work under slave-like conditions for less than U.S. $1 per day. Fifteen million are children, and according to UNICEF, the majority are from the lowest castes.

Dalits and tribal peoples are often the targets of Hindu religious extremism as well. Over the years, many Dalits and tribal groups have converted from Hinduism to other faiths to escape widespread discrimination and achieve higher social status. However, such converts often lose benefits conferred by the Government's affirmative action programs because these, according to the Constitution, are reserved only for those having scheduled caste status. Converts to Christianity are particularly targeted.

Christian missionaries have been operating schools and medical clinics for many years in tribal areas and among the very poor, and tribal peoples and Dalits have made great strides as a result. Hindu extremists resent these gains for disturbing the traditional social order, since better educated Dalits and tribals no longer accept their disadvantaged status as readily as they once did. Some Hindu groups fear that Christians may try to convert large numbers of lower caste Hindus, using economic or social welfare incentives. Many acts of violence against Christians stem from these fears, and most go unpunished. Many states have also adopted anti-conversion laws, in violation of India's constitutional protection for religious freedom.

In many cases, India has very good laws to protect the human rights of its citizens, although new and tougher legislation against trafficking is clearly necessary. But the best laws in the world are useless unless there is vigorous enforcement, and all too often, enforcement of laws protecting human rights is weak or non-existent. As an American I can easily understand the difficulty in a democratic, federal system of confronting deeply ingrained social prejudices against a minority, but that difficulty must be faced and overcome in any nation which aspires to its rightful place as one of the great nations in the world. To keep nearly a quarter of one's population in subhuman status is not only a grotesque violation of human rights, but it is a formula for economic and political stagnation as well. Once in America, we deprived African Americans of the most basic rights and opportunities. This was especially true in our Southern states, which were once a byword for poverty and backwardness among people of all races. For a long time we refused to act at a national level to stop lynchings, often arguing that it was a local problem. Yet we all suffered the consequences of shutting off a huge segment of our population from equality and justice. Now, after the civil rights movement ended all legal basis for discrimination, and lynching is only a shameful memory, the Southern states are among the most economically dynamic in America, and all regions of America enjoy unprecedented prosperity. By fulfilling its promises of equality and justice for all, India will also benefit in every way imaginable.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 248) honoring the life and work of Simon Wiesenthal and reaffirming the commitment of Congress to the fight against anti-Semitism and intolerance in all forms, in all forums, and in all nations, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 248, I am very pleased to bring this timely resolution before the House today. I thank the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of the Committee on International Relations, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a Holocaust survivor himself, for crafting this measure in honor of an extraordinary man who has passed from our midst, Simon Wiesenthal.

Known as the ``Conscience of the Holocaust,'' Mr. Wiesenthal deserves recognition and the deepest respect by the Congress of the United States.

Simon Wiesenthal died at the age of 97 in Vienna, Austria on September 20, 2005. A Ukrainian architect and civil engineer by training, he survived five Nazi death camps during World War II. Yet, he lost a staggering 89 relatives in the Holocaust.

Mr. Wiesenthal lived by his own words. ``There is no freedom without justice,'' he would say. Living in Europe, almost literally among the ashes of the 6 million victims of the Holocaust, he began the tedious work of tracing and tracking war criminals who had been overlooked by the first waves of prosecutions by the allies and the new European governments. He worked meticulously and judiciously, sticking to the evidence at hand and avoiding any sensationalism. This occasionally brought him in conflict with others, but that was his way.

The killers who managed Hitler's factories of death could never rest. Simon Wiesenthal was tireless in his pursuit of them. His dedication and dogged determination was instrumental in the capture and conviction of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Nazi plan to annihilate European Jewry, as well as Karl Silberbauer, the Gestapo officer who committed many heinous crimes including the arrest of Anne Frank.

While many Nazis eluded immediate justice at the end of World War II, many did not escape it forever, thanks to Simon Wiesenthal. Today, as we fight anti-Semitism across the OSCE region, Europe and the Middle East and in Asia, we remember his legacy and act on the lessons of the Holocaust. His noble work was fueled by a passion for justice that has and will inspire others.

In the United States, his example and inspiration led to the establishment of the Office of Special Investigations which allowed war criminals who found their way to our shores to be brought to justice.

As noted in the resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has offices in L.A., Paris, New York, Toronto, Miami, Jerusalem and Buenos Aires, which has become a leading institution in advocating both remembrance and tolerance so as to help prevent future genocides, was named in his honor. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris, I would point out to my colleagues, testified at two Helsinki hearings that I chaired, and we inducted Shimon Samuels, who provided expert testimony on the deterioration of respect for Jews in Europe, the United States and Canada. Also, I would point out to my colleagues that the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center participated this past June in the U.S. delegation to the Cordoba OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism and Other Forms of Intolerance.

Mr. Speaker, Congress honored Simon Wiesenthal with a Gold Medal, and he won countless other forms of recognition from grateful individuals in governments from around the world.

Simon Wiesenthal confronted humanity with the truth about those who masterminded and carried out the Holocaust. As a testament to the memory of the millions of victims, he gave meaning to the words ``never again'' by helping us to learn from the lessons of the past. Now that he has passed away, we must resolve to continue his work, as is urged upon us in this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, I would especially like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as I said earlier, a Holocaust survivor himself, for his very clear and unambiguous statement in support of human rights globally, but especially as it relates to a very disturbing trend with regards to anti-Semitism, and for his eulogy today, on the floor, to his dear friend, Simon Wiesenthal.

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