Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 168) condemning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the abductions and continued captivity of citizens of the Republic of Korea and Japan as acts of terrorism and gross violations of human rights, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution authored by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) which brings the largely untold story to the attention of the American people, as well as to the international community, of the continued involvement of the North Korean regime in the kidnapping of thousands of innocent people. These abductions began more than half a century ago according to a survey of the Korean National Red Cross, which documented the kidnappings of over 7,000 South Koreans during the Korean War.

Those abducted represent a wide cross-section of society from both South Korea and Japan: film producers and fishermen, housewives and ministers, airline attendants and university students, mothers and even children. North Korean agents did not discriminate in their cold and calculated selection of potential victims. Cases through the years include the 1977 abduction of a 13-year-old Japanese girl by North Korean frogmen who came ashore in her country.

As recently as August of 2004, a former North Korean, now a South Korean, passport holder, was reported by her husband as having been kidnapped in China by agents of North Korea.

Officially sanctioned kidnapping represents horrific behavior, and it raises the question as to whether abduction should be cited as terrorist activity. Should Pyongyang remain on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism because of regime collusion in such reprehensible activity? The kidnapping and subsequent murder in Pakistan of American journalist Daniel Pearl in the months following the attacks of September 11 seems to have answered that question once and for all.

Organized kidnapping does constitute an act of terrorism. The fact that

Pyongyang has conspired with the Japanese Red Army, a designated terrorist organization, is a clear indication of its own connection to terrorist activities.

The United States and other allies who fought together in the Korean War under the banner of the United Nations have a direct interest in the forced detention of certain individuals by the North Korean regime. Those detained include, according to a South Korean Ministry of National Defense estimate, over 500 South Korean prisoners of war held over half a century, against their will and in violation of the 1953 Korean War Armistice agreement. The fact that they had been held for more than 50 years in horrific conditions that include forced labor is of deep concern to both Congress and the people of the United States.

Those kidnapped also include a South Korean citizen who was then a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as a South Korean missionary who is a spouse of a resident of the State of Illinois. Those cases are of direct concern to Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that resolution of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula is of critical importance. We welcome Pyongyang's decision announced over the weekend to return to the Six-Party Talks later this month as a first step back from the brink. Let us hope this leads to concrete progress.

North Korea has asked for signs of respect from the United States in connection with its decision to return to the negotiating table in Beijing. However, the North Korean regime must recognize that in order to win the respect that it craves from the United States and the international community, it must begin to behave in acceptable ways. Continued gross human rights violations, including the abductions of persons from South Korea, Japan and other countries, are absolutely deplorable and will only bring additional dishonor to the North Korean regime, and certainly they are not means for winning the respect and acceptance by the international community.

Pyongyang should immediately cease and desist from carrying out abductions, release all victims of kidnappings and prisoners of war still alive in North Korea, and provide a full and verifiable accounting of all other cases. Only then can a reformed North Korea take its place as a full member in the community of nations.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 168.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 333) supporting the goals and ideals of a National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur, Sudan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Res. 333 which supports the goals and the ideals of a national weekend of prayer and reflection for Darfur, Sudan. It is fort that this resolution also come to the floor today when we mark the tenth anniversary of another genocide, that which took place in the Balkans and, in particular, 10 years ago to the day, July 11, 1995 when the killing fields were very much covered with blood and murder in Srebreniza. This body a few weeks ago passed my resolution to remember that horrific event, and sadly, today we are on the floor again bringing much needed attention and priority and hopefully an appeal for prayer and fasting on behalf of those who have suffered and are suffering in Darfur, Sudan.

It was almost a year ago, Mr. Speaker, on July 21 that the House passed H. Con. Res. 467 that finally, at long last, called what is occurring, in Darfur, a genocide. Since that time, the United States Government has provided over $600 million in humanitarian relief to help ease the suffering of the most affected by this terrible conflict and over $150 million to support the African Union in their mission in Darfur. President Bush, the Congress, Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate, countless numbers of churches, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks and activists around the world have devoted a huge amount of time trying to raise awareness about the genocide in Darfur and mobilizing political and material support for efforts to mitigate and hopefully end this genocide.

For its part, the U.N. Security Council has passed no less than six resolutions addressing the situation in Darfur. Still, the crisis, the genocide, continues. Out of a pre-conflict population of 6.5 million, anywhere between 300,000 and 400,000 Darfurians have perished, and an estimated 10,000 continue to die each and every month. Over 2 million have been forced from their homes. Entire villages have been looted and destroyed, and countless men, women and children have been murdered, abducted, abused or raped.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is our Nation's richest and most important tradition that we turn to God in prayer, in good times and bad, to thank Him for His blessings and to ask and to petition Him for His help. I believe we delude ourselves if we think that we possess the wisdom or the courage or the skill to solve the myriad of vexing problems that we face. We needed God's help.

Earlier today, Reverend Dan Coughlin, the House Chaplain, in his opening prayer here, eloquently pointed the way to us as Members of Congress, as people of faith, when he quoted scripture that everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, and those who humble themselves shall be exalted. Prayer certainly is a humbling process of realizing who we are in relation to God.

He pointed out in his prayer again that life itself has taught us that ``all exaltation leads only to illusion, and left to ourselves, we can easily slip and fall'' and he calls on us as government leaders with ``high aspirations'' hopefully to be ``grounded in the people we serve'' and again this whole idea of humbling ourselves in prayer so that we can bring God's blessing and power into any situation.

Nowhere is that more true than in these vexing problems that we see all over the globe especially in places like Darfur where this genocide has been occurring. The events of the past year have shown us that it is extremely difficult to impose peace upon Darfur. In the Book of James, we are told that faith without works is dead. Yes, we need the works--humanitarian assistance, including food and medicine. We need the statecraft. We need the peacekeeping intervention that is being organized now as part of the African Union peace mission. All of that has to be done but we also must pray. We must pray for even those who perpetrate such atrocities against their own brothers and sisters, that they will lay down their weapons and turn from this gross evil and the destructive path that they have chosen. We must pray for the people of Sudan, especially its leaders, and especially those thugs who are on the ground today, who derive their fleeting power from the barrel of a gun, to end their reign of terror against innocent men, women and children.

H. Res. 333 supports a national weekend of prayer and reflection for Darfur and solemnly encourages the people of the United States to observe that weekend, and I think it should be every weekend and every day, but certainly in a very focused way for a weekend by praying for an end to genocide, for a lasting peace for these beleaguered people. It also urges all churches and synagogues and mosques and religious institutions in the United States to consider, to focus upon the issue of Darfur in their activities and to observe the national weekend of prayer and reflection with appropriate activities and services.

I want to thank my good friend and colleague Mr. Payne, my fellow New Jerseyan, for introducing this important resolution, and I am very proud to be one of the cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to support it and above all to join us in praying that a just and a merciful God will stop the slaughter, to pray that He will heal the surviving victims who have been so brutally traumatized, and pray that God empower the international community to mete out justice to the perpetrators of this heinous genocide.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 333.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 343) commending the State of Kuwait for granting women certain important political rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 343 introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and commend him for sponsoring this. At least ten other Members have joined him as cosponsors on the resolution.

In May of 2005, the Kuwaiti Parliament amended its basic election laws to provide something which we in America take for granted, the rights of women to vote and to run for office. This resolution puts the U.S. House of Representatives on record as commending this important step in the Middle East. The Kuwaiti Parliament has taken action to recognize the important role of women in international human rights, and the House states in its resolution how important that role is and how it must be respected and promoted regardless of historical, cultural or religious heritage. This action by the Kuwaiti Parliament underscores its recognition of these important rights and shows its support for the American policy of actively advancing women's rights all over the world.

This resolution recognizes America's view that this important step by the Kuwaiti Parliament is an important step for the women of Kuwait and for the nation as a whole. The resolution formally commends the government and the Parliament of Kuwait for this important action and urges full participation of Kuwaiti women in the political life of their country.

I urge support of this resolution, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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 resolution, H. Res. 343.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 199) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995, as amended.

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. Res. 199, the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, in consideration of H. Res. 199, today the House of Representatives brings honor to the men, women and children of Srebrenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In a little over 2 weeks, it will have been 10 years since the massacre of approximately 8,000 men and boys from that small town.

Mr. Speaker, renewed attention is focused on this event in light of the recently released video showing members of the Serb paramilitary group, the Scorpions, executing young Bosniak men from Srebrenica. Many Members of this House saw the news coverage of this video, including an interview of a woman who never knew what actually happened to her young son at Srebrenica in July 1995 until she saw the footage on television that he was among those executed. In passing this resolution, we are expressing solidarity with the thousands of women like her, and others, who a decade ago witnessed something so evil that it defies comprehension.

There are four basic motivations, Mr. Speaker, for passing this resolution today. First, there are those who, despite being indicted for genocide, continue to evade justice. Second, some continue to deny that the atrocity even occurred or they contend it was something other than genocide. Third, the international community must learn from its failure to stop slaughter from taking place in a declared safe area, and let us all remember Srebrenica was called a safe haven, especially as we look at similar situations around the globe. Finally, 10 years after Srebrenica, Srebrenica survivors, including many who came to this country as refugees and are now American citizens, still feel the excruciating pain of losing so many of their innocent loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that the resolution notes the direct support that came from the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic and its followers. This is no small circle of Milosevic henchmen, as some in Belgrade have claimed. We are referring to an entire regime, albeit an undemocratic one, and not just a few individuals in positions of authority. Moreover, followers of the regime existed in the military, the police and other state institutions, and when it appeared that he was succeeding in a conflict against neighboring peoples, Milosevic actually garnered popular support.

Milosevic has rightfully been in The Hague, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, since 2001, but why have others like Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic remained at large? Why until recently, if not to today, have they benefited from the protection not only from criminal networks but perhaps by segments of the military and the police? To me, that shows broader involvement than has been alleged.

The reference to the followers of the Milosevic regime clearly indicates that we are not referring to those in Serbia, including those in positions of authority today, who had no role in what was happening when they put themselves at risk in opposing Milosevic and his policies in the 1990s.

I would just point out to my colleagues that on the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I chaired for several years through the 1990s, we did hold hearings, and many of us made trips to the former Yugoslavia.

In one of those hearings, we heard from Hasan Nuhapovic, a former translator of the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Srebrenica. Hasan was one of those who lost his family and I would just quote very briefly from that testimony that he gave to our committee. He said, ``My family, just like thousands of others, was simply handed over to the Serbs in the village of Potocari, 6 kilometers north of Srebrenica on 13 July 1995. They have never been seen since. The Dutch peacekeepers threw my family out of the camp right in front of my eyes. The people, especially the men and boys who were inside the camp, didn't want to leave the relative safety of it.''

It goes on to say, ``The Dutch refused to tell the refugees inside the camp what was going on with the people outside.'' He says, ``They lied, saying that everything was all right and that the people from inside the camp were also going to be evacuated to the federation territory. The Dutch lied to the refugees inside the camp,'' he goes on. ``The Dutch knew that the men and boys outside the camp were being separated from the women and children and that some of them were even killed right on the spot. They watched the Serbs take away and kill civilians. They did nothing to prevent it.''

Mr. Speaker, this resolution remembers those 7- to 8,000 men and boys who were slaughtered in Srebrenica, and it says in a collective voice of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we care, we care deeply. We are sorrowful for those who lost their lives, and hopefully never again.

I will insert a Chronicle of Genocide in the Record at this point.

Chronicle of Genocide

prologue

The town of Srebrenica is located in eastern Bosnia's Drina

River Valley, about 15 kilometers from the Serbian border. In

1991, the town was home to 37,000 inhabitants, including

roughly 27,000 Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and 9,000 Serbs.

Prior to the outbreak of Yugoslavia's civil war, members of

Srebrenica's different ethnic groups lived together for

decades without major conflict.

After the end of the Cold War, Srebrenica had its first

encounter with conflict in April 1992 when Serb paramilitary

forces gained control of the city for several weeks. One

month later, Srebrenica was recaptured by Bosnian Muslim

fighters from the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By

September, Bosnian Muslim forces had succeeded in uniting

Srebrenica with the neighboring town of Zepa and increasing

the size of the territory under their control to 900 square

kilometers. However, the enclave remained isolated from the

main Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and strategically

vulnerable to advancing Serb forces.

In January 1993, Bosnian Serb troops (which logistically

and financially were not

entirely independent from and were supported by Serbian

military and police forces) from the self-proclaimed

Republika Srspka launched an offensive to retake the Muslim-

controlled areas around Srebrenica. After months of fighting,

the villages of Konjevic Polje and Cerska were captured,

severing the connection between Srebrenica and Zepa and

reducing the size of the Srebrenica enclave to 150 square

kilometers. Bosnians from neighboring areas streamed into the

town of Srebrenica, increasing the population to as many as

60,000 people.

When the Commander of the U.N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR),

French General Philippe Morillon, visited Srebrenica in March

1993, he discovered an overcrowded city beset by siege

conditions. The Bosnian Serb troops had destroyed the town's

water supply and the population was running short on food,

medicine, and other necessities. Before his departure,

General Morillon promised residents that Srebrenica was under

U.N. protection and that he would never abandon the city's

inhabitants.

On April 16, 1993, the U.N. Security Council passed a

resolution declaring that ``all parties and others treat

Srebrenica and its surroundings as a `safe area' that should

be free from armed attack or any other hostile act.''

The first group of UNPROFOR soldiers arrived in Srebrenica

on April 18, 1993 and fresh troops were rotated into the city

every six months after that. In January 1995, a battalion

from the Netherlands rotated into the enclave. By this time,

few supply convoys were reaching the city. In March and

April, the Dutch soldiers defending the city observed a

build-up of Bosnian Serb troops in the surrounding area. The

Drina Corps of the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) was

preparing for a major attack on Srebrenica.

chronology of genocide

March 1995--Radovan Karadzic, President of the self-

proclaimed Republika Srpska, issues a directive to the

Bosnian Serb Army ordering the VRS to ``complete the physical

separation of Srebrenica from Zepa as soon as possible'' and

block aid convoys on their way to Srebrenica.

July 2, 1995--Republika Srpska Army General Milenko

Zivanovic signs two orders outlining plans for attacking the

enclave and issues the order to various units of the Drina

Corps to prepare for combat. The operation is code-named

``Krivaja 95.''

July 6, 1995--Bosnian Serb forces launch their attack on

Srebrenica. The Commander of the city's Dutch battalion,

Colonel Karremans, contacts the U.N. General Staff in

Sarajevo requesting NATO air support after refugee camps and

U.N. monitoring posts are shelled.

July 9, 1995--Forces from the VRS Drina Corps surround the

town of Srebrenica. President Karadzic issues a new order in

which he approves the capture of Srebrenica.

July 10, 1995--The Bosnian Serbs shell Srebrenica and

residents flee toward the U.N. base at Potocari.

Colonel Karremans makes an urgent request for NATO air

support when Bosnian Serb forces shell his soldiers'

positions. The Commander of the U.N. forces, French General

Bernard Janvier, initially rejects the request, but

ultimately approves the use of air strikes. In the meantime,

the VRS forces stop attacking U.N. soldiers and the air

attacks are postponed.

Colonel Karremans assures Bosnian Muslims that NATO

airplanes will execute a major attack on Bosnian Serb troops

if VRS forces are not withdrawn from the Protection Zone by

6:00 a.m. the next morning.

July 11, 1995--Bosnian Serb forces conduct extensive

shelling of Srebrenica.

9:00 a.m.: Colonel Karremans is notified that his request

for air support was not submitted on the correct form. At

10:30 a.m., the re-issued request reaches General Janvier.

However, the NATO warplanes that have been circling

Srebrenica since 6:00 a.m. are low on fuel and have to return

to their base in Italy.

2:30 p.m.: NATO planes bomb Republika Srpska army tanks.

The Bosnian Serb forces threaten to kill captured Dutch

soldiers and shell the U.N. base in Potocari. Plans for

further NATO air strikes are abandoned.

General Ratko Mladic, together with General Krstic (then

Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff of the Drina Corps),

General Zivanovic (then Commander of the Drina Corps) and

other VRS officers enter Srebrenica.

8:00 p.m.: Representatives of the Bosnian Serb forces meet

UNPROFOR leaders at the Hotel Fontana in the neighboring city

of Bratunac. General Ratko Mladic chairs the meeting, and the

two sides discuss the mounting refugee crisis.

Around 10:00 p.m.: In Srebrenica, military leaders of the

Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and local civilians decide to

form a column of men--about two thirds of which were Bosnian

Muslim civilians--with the goal of escaping from Srebrenica

through the mountains toward Tuzla. The column starts moving

north around midnight.

11:00 p.m.: A second meeting at the Hotel Fontana results

in a plan to transport Bosnian Muslim civilians out of the

enclave.

July 12, 1995.--VRS General Milenko Zivanovic signs an

order directing the Drina Corps to secure all buses and mini-

buses belonging to the VRS. The Republika Srpska Defense

Ministry sends three orders to its local secretariats

directing them to procure buses and to send them to Bratunac.

10:00 a.m.: A third and final meeting is held at the Hotel

Fontana to discuss the fate of the Srebrenica Muslims. Ratko

Mladic issues an order to transport Bosnian Muslim refugees

out of Potocari, stating that it is the only way to guarantee

their survival. He also informs those present that all males

between the ages of 16 and 70--essentially all military-aged

men, (which however did not prevent boys of much younger age

as well as much older men to be included in this group) must

be separated from the others and screened to prevent the

escape of possible ``war criminals.''

1:00 p.m.: Dozens of buses arrive in Potocari. Women,

children, and the elderly are driven by bus from Potocari

toward Tuzla, which is under the control of the Army of

Bosnia and Herzegovina. Military-aged men are systematically

separated out and detained in Potocari before being

transferred to Bratunac.

Bosnian Serbs forces, including some military and municipal

police, take positions along the Bratunac-Milici road with

the intention of intercepting the column. Equipped with heavy

armor and artillery, the Bosnian Serb forces open fire on the

column as it crosses the road between Konjevic Polja and Nova

Kasaba. Many survivors of the attack are taken prisoner.

The U.N. Security Council declares that the international

community is ``[g]ravely concerned at the deterioration in

the situation in and around the safe area of Srebrenica,

Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and at the plight of the

civilian population there.''

July 13, 1995.--The evacuation of women, children, and the

elderly continues. Military-aged men are separated from the

refugees and transferred to Bratunac.

As many as 6,000 men from the column headed from Srebrenica

to Tuzla are captured and detained by Bosnian Serb forces.

Several thousand of them are brought to a field close to

Sandici and to the soccer stadium in Nova Kasaba.

Bosnian Serbs begin the mass execution of Muslim detainees

at sites near the Jadar River, the Cerska valley, and a

warehouse in Kravica.

8:00 p.m.: The removal of the Bosnian Muslim population

from Potocari is completed.

July 13-14, 1995.--Executions continue in Tisca.

July 14, 1995.--Executions continue in Orahovac.

July 14-15, 1995.--Executions continue at the Petkovci Dam.

July 16, 1995.--Executions continue at Branjevo Military

Farm and the Pilica Cultural Center.

The front of the decimated column of Bosnian Muslims

succeeds in reaching territory controlled by the Army of

Bosnia and Herzegovina.

July 17-18, 1995.--Executions continue at Kozluk and other

locations.

September-October 1995--The Bosnian Serb forces engage in a

concerted effort to conceal the mass killings by exhuming

bodies from mass graves, turning over the ground, and

reburying human remains in smaller, remote gravesites.

Epilogue

Evidence presented at The Hague in the trial of Bosnian

Serbs accused of war crimes established that during the month

of July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces executed between seven and

eight thousand Bosnian men and boys. The International

Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) found ``beyond any

reasonable doubt that a crime of genocide was committed in

Srebrenica''.

Immediately after the massacre, Republika Srpska President

Radovan Karadzic and VRS Chief Ratko Mladic, the highest

political and military leaders of the Bosnian Serbs, were

indicted by the Tribunal for their roles in the Srebrenica

genocide. To date, they have successfully avoided arrest. The

crimes in Srebrenica are also included in the indictment

against former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Radislav Krstic and Vidoje Blagojevic, high ranking

officers of the Bosnian Serb Army, have been convicted of

complicity in genocide. Dragan Jokic, Deputy Commander of the

Zvornik Brigade, has been convicted of crimes against

humanity. General Radislav Krstic, deputy commander of the

VRS Drina Corps, has been convicted of genocide. Officers

Momir Nikolic and Dragan Obrenovic, and the soldier Drazen

Erdemovic, have admitted their guilt and been convicted of

crimes against humanity. Those convicted in connection with

the genocide have received prison sentences ranging from five

to 35 years. Drazen Erdemovic, sentenced to five years in

prison for the murder of at least 75 men from Srebrenica, has

already been released.

Ljubisa Beara, Head of Security at the General Headquarters

of the Bosnian Serb Army, has been charged with genocide and

is awaiting trial.

Army and police officers Drago Nikolic, Ljubomir Borvcanin,

Vinko Pandurevic, and Vujadin Popovic, also indicted for

genocide, have surrendered to the Tribunal in The Hague and

are awaiting trial. Radivoje Miletic and Milan Gvero,

Generals of the Bosnian Serb Army, have surrendered to the

Tribunal and are charged with expelling Bosnian Muslims from

Srebrenica. General Zdravko Tolimir, who is accused of the

same crimes, is still at large.

The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal

for the Former Yugoslavia used strong language to describe

the Srebrenica genocide during the trial of General Radislav

Krstic: ``By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian

Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They

targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims

living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the

Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim

prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their

personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and

methodically killed them solely on the basis of their

identity. The Bosnian Serb forces were aware, when they

embarked on this genocidal venture, that the harm they caused

would continue to plague the Bosnian Muslims. The Appeals

Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in

appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and

calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name:

genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it

will serve as a warning to those who may in future

contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.''

To date, several thousand bodies and parts of bodies from

victims of the genocide have been exhumed from mass graves.

So far, 1,327 of these bodies have been identified and buried

in the Memorial Centre in Potocari near Srebrenica.

Of the 27,000 Bosnian Muslims who inhabited Srebrenica

before the war, only a few hundred have returned to live in

the city.

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

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

As we consider this resolution, I want to thank those who have worked hard to craft the text that meets various concerns and reflects the realities of Srebrenica as we know them. In particular, I want to thank the Congress of North American Bosniaks and its members for stressing the need for the United States Congress to address this issue at this time, not only for their sake but for the sake of humanity.

I also want to thank the Coalition for International Justice for providing us with background on who was indicted for crimes relating to Srebrenica by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia located at the Hague, as well as their current status.

Finally, I want to thank the chairman of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who is one of the cosponsors of this resolution and a great friend of human rights; and also for our friends on the Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats, to which it was also referred, for working with us on helping to craft this regulation. And to the 39 cosponsors, including the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is the ranking member on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I chair in the House.

Let me say, finally, Mr. Speaker, that Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, quoted in the text of this resolution, defines genocide as, ``Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, such as: A, killing members of the group; B, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; C, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; E, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.''

Genocide is defined as the commission of acts with that intention, whether or not the acts succeed or are completed. The word ``prevention'' is also in the title of the Genocide Convention. While not specifying what to be done or obligating countries to do anything specific, clearly genocides must be defined as something taking place and not as something necessarily accomplished. If accomplished, it is too late to prevent it.

When I look at this definition, Mr. Speaker, and then hear what happened in Srebrenica 10 years ago, I, and I know others, can only agree with the Appeals Chamber at the International Criminal Tribal for the former Yugoslavia, which confirmed in April 2004 that the crime of summarily executing almost 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica alone meets the legal definition of genocide.

The Appeals Chamber, in which an American is the presiding judge, concluded in its decision appealing a conviction that ``the law must not shy away from referring to the crime committed by its proper name. The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted and calls the massacre,'' and I continue this quote, ``at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear the stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in the future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.''

The court got it right, Mr. Speaker. This resolution gets it right.

And, finally, I just want to thank the gentleman to my left, Bob Hand, who has been with the Commission on Security and Cooperation now since 1983 and who first came as an intern, for his diligence in crafting major portions of this legislation. I want to thank him for his work and his attention to detail. He is also the staff specialist for the commission on all the areas of the former Yugoslavia and Albania, and I am deeply grateful for his work as well.

And Dan Freeman, our expert parliamentarian, to my rear, I want to thank him for his work as well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 155) urging the Government of the Republic of Albania to ensure that the parliamentary elections to be held on July 3, 2005, are conducted in accordance with international standards for free and fair elections.

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

Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, Albania was just emerging from decades of brutal isolation from Europe when they held their first genuinely contested elections in 1991. Not surprisingly, they fell short of the standards for free and fair elections as defined by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, as did subsequent elections for parliament and local government. The United States and other friends of Albania, however, remained engaged with the Albanian people throughout their turbulent transition.

Today, Albania is at the point where the country can actually hold free and fair elections, something the citizens of that country deeply deserve. Parliamentary elections have been scheduled, as Members of this House know, for July 3, and the campaign period is well underway. Staff in the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, will be serving on the international observation mission. Albania has come far in reforming its election process and through these elections has the opportunity to jump a major hurdle not only towards completion of its transition to democracy, but in preparing for integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.

There is good reason to remain concerned, however, that the elections will fall short of international standards. The good things that have been adopted, such as the Code of Conduct adopted by key political parties, may not be carried out. The OSCE's election observer mission has reported receiving an increased number of allegations of legal misuse of state resources and personnel for campaign purposes. If found to be true, those engaged in this activity would be responsible for what would be regarded as a tremendous setback for the country.

Hopefully, by passing this resolution, we can encourage Albanian authorities to respect the rule of law, to abide by their Code of Conduct, and respect the results of the upcoming election. When my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), and I first introduced this resolution, it was with the expectation the U.S. Congress could constructively make a difference by calling on the authorities, political parties, and others to do the right thing so that the real winners in the elections will be the people of Albania who make the effort to vote.

Finally, I am hopeful these elections will meet international standards, because that is one of the first steps Albania will need to take on the path to full Euro-Atlantic integration.

The new Albanian government will also need to tackle problems relating to official corruption and organized crime. Fortunately, beyond a good election process, we must see the development of civil society in Albania, with the youth groups and others pressing elected officials to address the every day problems that plague the lives of Albanian citizens.

I hope my colleagues will support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to conclude.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for this partnership resolution, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and others. We had 27 cosponsors of this resolution.

Last July in the Commission on Security Cooperation in Europe, we held a hearing in Albania. We heard from a number of important and prominent witness, including representatives of MJAFT! which is the youth organization that is doing some important pioneering and important work in Albania today. I want to thank them for their work as well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 155.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues on the Committee on Ways and Means. I also commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for offering this legislation which would renew the Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 for Burma and the import restrictions that are contained in that important legislation.

As my colleagues know, Burma today remains one of the most repressive military dictatorships in the world, where human rights are routinely and systematically repressed and violated. So it is fitting and necessary that Congress today is moving to renew this important legislation.

The Burmese dictatorship today incarcerates 1,400 political prisoners and continues to harass and repress one of the bravest leaders of our time, Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who, by the way, turned 60 this past weekend. I, like many other Members in this body, have tried to get into Burma to press for human rights; and my visa, like others, has been turned down, denying Member of Congress the opportunity to even meet with the military junta that continues to repress its citizens.

Madam Speaker, up to 70,000 child soldiers are exploited in Burma, more than any other country in the world. Up to 2 million people have been forced to flee the country as refugees and migrants. Burning of villages continues in eastern Burma, especially in Karen and Karenni states. And Aung San Suu Kyi continues to be persecuted and harassed by this brutal dictatorship.

Sanctions do work, I say to my colleagues. But they often take time. Other countries, I'm happy to say, are beginning to follow the lead of the United States. In a major and important move, the European Union in October 2004 followed the lead of the United States and significantly strengthened its sanctions in Burma, including a ban on investments in enterprises of the ruling regime and a strengthened visa ban. The EU also pledged to join the United States in opposing loans to Burma's regime from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Support at the United Nations is growing as well. Burma was one of the few countries on the resolution's list that passed at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I was there in Geneva working that resolution as well as resolutions on Cuba, Sudan, and Belaurus, and it was as one of the few that made it through.

After the United States Senate and the House passed resolutions in October 2004 calling on the Security Council to address the situation in Burma, the Parliament of Australia followed suit. Their motion called on the government to support the Burmese National League for Democracy's call for the U.N. Security Council to convene a special session to consider what further measures the U.N. can take to encourage democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma.

Additionally, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council to address the situation in Burma as a matter of urgency. Additionally, 289 members of our friends in the British Parliament tabled a motion calling on the U.N. Security Council to address the situation in Burma.

There has even been unprecedented action within the ASEAN countries. Whereas in the past they refused to even comment on what they deemed to be Burma's internal affairs, many members of that organization are now publicly pressing Burma to step aside as the chair of the association in 2006. The tough approach maintained by the U.S. toward Burma, including import sanctions and a possible boycott of 2006 meetings, is encouraging many Asian countries to rethink whether the Burmese regime should assume that rotating chairmanship. There is widespread belief within the leadership of the ASEAN countries that Burma has failed, and failed miserably, to deliver on its promises to the region.

All in all, and I point to these above-mentioned instances, the strong stand of the United States, and I commend President Bush and former President Clinton because both have been united in their belief that Burma needs to be sanctioned and isolated in a way that hopefully leads to reform and change. Moreover, our resolution to promote freedom and democracy in Burma has stiffened the backbones of many countries around the world.

Today the EU, the U.N., and ASEAN countries are moving in the right direction to take a strong stand against Burma's dictatorship.

And to Aung San Suu Kyi: Your courage and goodness and persistence are beyond extraordinary. Our prayers are with you.

Mr. Speaker, today in the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and Africa, I chaired a timely and critical hearing that examined the government of Vietnam's respect for human rights and religious freedom.

Our witnesses included Ms. Nina Shea, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Ms. Minky Worden, Media Director, Human Rights Watch; Ms. Helen Ngo, Chairwoman Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam; Dr. Nguyen Than, Executive Director, Boat People S.O.S.; Mr. Vo Van Ai, President, Vietnam Committee on Human Rights; Mr. Y Khim Nie, Executive Director, Montagnard Human Rights Organization. The excellent testimony these witnesses provided can be found online (http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/)

Before I report on the human rights crisis in Vietnam, let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I remain deeply concerned about obtaining a full, thorough and responsible accounting of the remaining American MIAs from the Vietnam conflict. As my colleagues know well, of the 2,583 POW/MIAs who were unaccounted for--Vietnam, 1,921; Laos, 569; Cambodia, 83; and China, 10--just under 1,400 remain unaccounted for in Vietnam. While the joint POW/MIA accounting command normally conducts four joint field activities per year in Vietnam, I remain deeply concerned that the government of Vietnam could be more forthcoming and transparent in providing the fullest accounting. It is our sacred duty to the families of the missing that we never forget and never cease our pursuit until we achieve the fullest possible accounting of our MIAs.

Today's hearing on human rights abuses in Vietnam must be reviewed in the context of the official visit this week to Washington by Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai. Designed to mark 10 years of diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam, the visit is the highest-level since the end of the Vietnam War. Khai will meet with President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, conclude intelligence agreements on terrorism and transnational crime, as well as begin IMET military cooperation, meet with Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, and ring the bell on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

Vietnam hopes to gain U.S. support to join the World Trade Organization this year. Trade with the United States has exploded in the past decade, from $1.5 billion to $6.4 billion in 2004. Vietnamese exports to the United States have also jumped from $800 million in 2001 to $5 billion last year.

An outside observer looking at all of this activity would in all likelihood conclude that Vietnam is a close business and political partner of the United States in Asia. And that observer, if asked, would also likely deduce that in order to cooperate so closely, Vietnam must also share the core values of the United States that make our country great. Values such as the promotion of democracy, respect for human rights, and the protection of religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of minorities.

A quick look at the State Department's annual Human Rights report on Vietnam, however, reveals the opposite. According to the 2004 report released just three months ago:

``Vietnam is a one-party state, ruled and controlled by the

Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). . . . The Government's

human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit

serious abuses. The Government continued to deny citizens the

right to change their government. Several sources reported

that security forces shot, detained, beat, and were

responsible for the disappearances of persons during the

year. Police also reportedly sometimes beat suspects during

arrests, detention, and interrogation. . . . The Government

continued to hold political and religious prisoners. . . .

The Government significantly restricted freedom of speech,

freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of

association. . . . Security forces continued to enforce

restrictions on public gatherings and travel in some parts of

the country, particularly in the Central Highlands and the

Northwest Highlands. The Government prohibited independent

political, labor, and social organizations. . . . The

Government restricted freedom of religion and prohibited the

operation of unregistered religious organizations.

Participants in unregistered organizations faced harassment

as well as possible detention and imprisonment. The

Government imposed limits on freedom of movement of some

individuals whom it deemed a threat. The Government did not

permit human rights organizations to form or operate.

Moreover, in September 2004, the State Department designated Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' or ``CPC'' for its systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom.

Congress has also expressed its grave concern about the state of human rights in Vietnam. The House of Representatives has twice passed legislation authored by me on human rights in Vietnam. H.R. 1587, The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004, passed the House by a 323-45 vote in July of 2004. A similar measure passed by a 410-1 landslide in the House in 2001. The measures called for limiting further increases of non-humanitarian U.S. aid from being provided to Vietnam if certain human rights provisions were not met, and authorized funding to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia and funding to support non- governmental organizations which promote human rights and democratic change in Vietnam. Regrettably, both bills stalled in Senate committees and have not been enacted into law.

I regret that no one from the State Department was available to participate in today's hearing to explain the incongruity of United States support for the government of Vietnam, as expressed in our close and growing-ever-closer trade and military relations, and U.S. concern for the appalling lack of respect for the basic human rights of its citizens that the Vietnamese government has consistently demonstrated.

The Human Rights Reports, the Report on International Religious Freedom, the Trafficking in Persons Report, the reports of leading international human rights organizations, and countless witnesses, some of whose testimonies were provided today, give evidence to the fact that the government of Vietnam has inflicted and continues to inflict terrible suffering on countless people.

It is a regime that arrests and imprisons writers, scientists, academics, religious leaders and even veteran communists in their own homes, and lately in Internet cafes, for speaking out for freedom and against corruption. In fact, the comments I am making right now would easily fetch me a 15-year prison sentence replete with torture if I were a Vietnamese national or Member of Parliament making these comments in Vietnam.

It is a government that crushes thousands of Montagnard protestors, as they did in the Central Highlands during Easter weekend in 2004, killing and beating many peaceful protestors.

The government has forcibly closed over 400 Christian churches in the Central Highlands, and the government continues to force tens of thousands of Christians to renounce their faith. I would note here that it is inspiring but not unexpected that many of these Christians have steadfastly resisted those pressures and refused to renounce Christ. One pastor estimated that 90 percent have refused to renounce their Christian faith, despite government efforts to compel them to do so.

This is a government that has detained the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and continues to attempt to control the leadership of the Catholic Church.

This is a government that imprisoned a Catholic priest by the name of Father Ly and meted out a 10-year prison sentence. Father Ly was imprisoned in 2001 when he was arrested after submitting testimony to a hearing of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. In his testimony, he criticized the communist government of Vietnam for its policies of repressing religious freedom. In fact, I was the author of H. Con. Res. 378, which called for the immediate release of Father Ly and cleared Congress 424-1 on May 12, 2004.

Thankfully Father Ly, along with Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, were released from prison earlier this year, in all likelihood due to the pressure from the United States with its CPC designation.

Their release was part of a process called for in the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, which I cosponsored, which mandates that the U.S. government engage in dialogue with severe violators of religious freedom to improve conditions or face ``Presidential actions,'' which could include sanctions or withdrawal of non-humanitarian assistance.

The Vietnamese government also took some other positive steps in response to the CPC designation, including a new law streamlining the application process for religious groups registering with the government and prime ministerial directives which prohibit forced renunciations of faith and allow Protestant ``house churches'' in ethnic minority provinces to operate if they renounce connections to certain expatriate groups, particularly the Montagnard Foundation, which is based in the United States.

And in May, the State Department announced it had reached an agreement on religious freedom with Vietnam. Under the agreement, the Vietnamese government committed to:

Fully implement the new legislation on religious freedom

and to render previous contradictory regulations obsolete;

Instruct local authorities to strictly and completely

adhere to the new legislation and ensure their compliance;

Facilitate the process by which religious congregations are

able to open houses of worship; and

Give special consideration to prisoners and cases of

concern raised by the United States during the granting of

prisoner amnesties.

Time will tell whether the government will respect this agreement and comply with its provisions, or whether there will be a return to business as usual once the spotlight is removed. But the agreement does shows that the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act seem to be helping to improve the respect for religious freedom in some of the worst violator countries.

The more important point is that religious freedom is not a matter of compliance with an agreement, but an attitude of respect for citizens who choose to worship and peacefully practice their religious beliefs that extends from the highest government leaders down to local authorities and the village police.

In a recent interview given prior to his visit to the United States, Prime Minister Khai stated, ``we have no prisoners of conscience in Vietnam,'' and declared that ``political reforms and economic reforms should be closely harmonized.''

His statement is typical of the attitude of the government of Vietnam, which has scoffed at the Vietnam Human Rights Act and dismissed charges of human rights abuses, pleading the tired mantra of interference in the internal affairs of their government and that our struggle is some way related to the war in Vietnam. They say, Vietnam is a country, not a war. That is their protest, and I would say that is precisely the issue.

The hearing we held today was about the shameful human rights record of a country, more accurately, of a government that abuses the rights of its own people. And, of course, Vietnam is a country with millions of wonderful people who yearn to breathe free and to enjoy the blessings of liberty. We say, behave like an honorable government, stop bringing dishonor and shame to your government by abusing your own people and start abiding by internationally recognized U.N. covenants that you have signed.

When is enough, enough? Vietnam needs to come out of the dark ages of repression, brutality and abuse and embrace freedom, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental human rights. Vietnam needs to act like the strategic partner of the United States we would like it to be, treating its citizens, even those who disagree with government policies, with respect and dignity.

Human rights are central, are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any region of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

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

Mr. Chairman, the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is, without a doubt, tough but necessary medicine designed to effectuate systematic and sustainable reforms at the United Nations bureaucracies, its missions, and programs. It is serious and refuses to accept business as usual. And nowhere is the need for massive reform more compelling than in the realm of human rights.

Over the years we have heard calls for reform. Time and again they have fallen on deaf ears. In a bizarre rendition of George Orwell's Animal Farm, countries which severely violate human rights of their own citizens are members in good standing at the U.N. Human Rights Commission and as such sit as judge and jury of human rights conditions around the world. ECOSOC, the United Nations body which appoints states to the Human Rights Commission, facilitates this cruel hoax, which guarantees dysfunction at the human rights body, and allows violators and violating countries to continue to be placed on the Commission with no accountability whatsoever because of its secret voting procedures.

Even U.N. officials have admitted the Commission is not doing its job. A U.N. high-level panel in December of 2004 concluded that the UNCHR's credibility and professionalism has been undermined due to the active undermining of the work of the Commission by members with poor human rights records.

In March, U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan told the Commission, and I quote him, ``unless we remake our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations.''

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in March I was in Geneva for the Human Rights Commission for the umpteenth time. I first started going back when Armando Valladares, that great human rights leader in Cuba, was appointed as our ambassador by Ronald Reagan. And I had seen over these many years that that body has gone from bad to worse. There was no resolution, for example, this year on Zimbabwe, called an outpost of tyranny by Secretary Rice. There was no resolution on Turkmenistan, the most repressive of the 55 countries of the OSCE, whose government bulldozes mosques, tortures Christians and closes rural hospitals. And there is no resolution on the People's Republic of China, despite the fact that they have an egregious human rights record and routinely torture and maim, especially those who are political dissidents, and those who practice their faith, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Tibet or the Muslims. China persecutes all of those individuals, by the tens of thousands, including the Falun Gong, and yet there was no resolution on China.

Resolutions, I am happy to say, against Belarus and Cuba were approved, but that was because President Bush himself and Rudy Boschwitz, who led our delegation, and Ambassador Moley and others did a Herculean job of getting countries that were likely not to support them to do so, but it took their personal lobbying. It was not about their human rights records, it was about trying to motivate these countries to do the work that they should have done otherwise.

Even the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court Justice from Canada, told me in a conversation I had in Geneva just a few weeks ago that she believes the atmosphere at the Commission on Human Rights is surreal, her word, and that there is, quote, no intellectual engagement or serious consideration on the issues.

The current model is ill-suited to the task, she noted, in which the Commission is both the adjudicator and the implementor of human rights. She said, and I quote her again, the process needs to reinvent itself, and that is precisely what Congressman Hyde is trying to do with this, very strong language, very strong piece of legislation; to finally say, time to put away the games and speak truth to power, especially to these dictatorships.

I would just point out to my colleagues anecdotally that the Commission on Human Rights so often turns human rights on its head.

Bob Fu, the president of China Aid Association, and a victim of the Chinese gulag himself, who testified before my subcommittee in April, is just one more example of the hypocrisy of that body. Mr. Fu was physically expelled from the Commission when the Chinese delegation objected and said they felt threatened by the electric shock device that Mr. Fu was showing at a demonstration on how China mistreats and tortures its prisoners. His credentials were taken away, and he was given the boot.

But it is not just the Commission on Human Rights that is broken; other human rights bodies that deal with human rights have also strayed from their core mandates and have failed to act against severe human rights violators.

Mr. Chairman, despite almost universal acknowledgment of the problems which exist at the U.N. human rights system, there has been little reform; lots of lip service, lots of we will do it next week, we will do it next year; nothing tangible. In fact, it has actually gotten worse over these many years.

It is clear more pressure is needed, and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is intended to end this deplorable state of affairs.

The legislation mandates that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership on any human rights body. It should be a no-brainer, but this legislation stipulates that countries which fail to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be ineligible for membership. You would think that would be a given. Well, it is not. This legislation tries to ensure that it is a given.

Likewise, countries that are subject to sanction by the Security Council, countries that are subjected to country-specific human rights resolutions, or countries that violate the principles of the human rights bodies they aspire to join would be ineligible for membership.

In addition to the other criteria, the bill mandates that no human rights body has a standing agenda item that relates only to one country or region. We all know what that is all about. Every time I have been over in Geneva, and I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others have been concerned about this as well, there is a whole agenda item that focuses on Israel. And the Israel bashing is unconscionable, while China and other countries get by scott-free.

We had to fight to ensure that Sudan, as the killing and maiming was occurring in Darfur, was even on the agenda. Then there was this attempt made by a number of countries including Sudan and Cuba to water down the language.

Genocide is being committed, and they are worrying about upsetting the apple cart and using language that might cause somebody in Khartoum to be upset.

H.R. 2745 also mandates that the Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, abolish secret voting, which is an outrage. That is one of the things that ensures that these violator states, these rogue states, get on to the Commission on Human Rights.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that in the Hyde bill there is very strong support for the work of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the need to strengthen and expand its authority to go into regions where human rights monitors are most needed, such as Darfur and eastern Congo.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and to enact the human rights reform contained in this legislation. We need a United Nations which speaks strongly and clearly for the universal respect for and observance of fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of each and every human person, and equal rights of men and women as a foundation for freedom and justice and peace in the world.

More high-sounding words will not help the U.N. reform itself. We need the strength of this legislation to do it, and we have a responsibility to do it as the largest donor and as a world leader in the realm of human rights.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for offering this very important amendment, which would hopefully lead to the creation of a code of conduct to ensure that U.N. employees and officials, as well as U.N. member states, reduce, hopefully eliminate absolutely, anti-Semitic language and anti-Semitic resolutions.

I point out to my colleagues, we have had an ongoing series of hearings in my subcommittee, as well as in the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, concerning this spike in anti-Semitism that we have seen.

The first hearing we held was back in 1995, and then in 2002 we saw a particularly alarming spike in countries that make up the OSCE region, particularly in France and the Netherlands and some of these other countries.

Part of it is some of the hatred is being carried by emigres into their new home, that is to say, France and places like that; and as was pointed out by my colleague, some of the absolute, some of the most despicable, slanders against Jewish people are being carried uncontested.

We now, in the OSCE, have had three major summits. Last week in Spain in Cordova at a summit, nations sent ambassadors and heads of states and foreign ministers to Spain, as we did in Vienna and as we did in Berlin last year, to look at what the best practices ought to be to try to end this scourge of anti-Semitism; and very good action plans have been adopted.

The U.N. needs to take a page out of the OSCE and develop the kind of action plans and sensitivity to this terrible prejudice because, if left unchecked, it will fester and lay the seeds for acts of violence against Jews as well as desecration of cemeteries, as well as synagogues.

So let me finally say that last year, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), Senator Voinovich, and I all crafted the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which created an office within the State Department and also mandated that global reports be done. I urge Members to read those reports, one of which just came out earlier this year. It is a very, very disturbing read about this growing menace of anti-Semitism; and the U.N., rather than being a part of the solution, has for too often been part of the problem.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2745, pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), or his designee, may be permitted to offer the amendment numbered 5 in Part 2 of House Report 109-132 out of the specified order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Lantos- Shays substitute and to direct Members' attention to a serious flaw in the peacekeeping section, which I respectfully submit are reasons enough to vote against the substitute.

The substitute amendment gives the U.N. until 2007 to complete even the most basic tasks. This is completely unnecessary, and I submit only encourages some states who view rape and exploitation of young women and children by U.N. peacekeepers as a mere public relations problem and thus an opportunity to dig in their heels and stall the reform process.

Prince Zeid has told some of us, I met with him last week, that sustained pressure is needed to get results. We have been here before. In 2002, we knew about the exploitation of children by U.N. personnel in the Congo. I have already chaired two hearings on it myself in my subcommittee. Yes, the U.N. is moving in the right direction, but there needs to be considerable pressure brought to bear to make this happen.

What is perhaps most troubling about the substitute is that it authorizes an up to 10 percent withholding of U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. I want to be clear on this point. The Hyde bill supports full funding of all existing missions, while the substitute authorizes up to a 10 percent cutoff of our assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. The withholding is linked to a certification requirement which is, plain and simple, bad policy. The intent is good. I have no doubt about that. But it is flawed.

The substitute requires the Secretary of State to certify that the U.S. permanent rep at the U.N. has made every effort to ensure the formal adoption and implementation of mechanisms to suspend the membership of a member state if genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity are determined to be occurring in that member state regardless of whether the acts are being committed by the government or by a third party. ``Third party'' is the problem. There are countries like the Congo, and we have also seen it in Uganda, where there are ``third-party'' groups of terrorists and killers and maimers who the government would like to see done away with and are actively cooperating with the international community and the U.N. itself to try to mitigate this terrible problem.

Under this language, which is very different than the language that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) offered, we would be in a strange and, I think, even bizarre situation where even where there has been an effort made by the state, there could be an explusion and a cutoff of peacekeeping money, 10 percent assessed contribution cutoff. It would be wrong for a state to lose their membership when there was no omission, no commission on their part with regards to crimes against humanity and that is where the Fortenberry amendment got it right.

I think we can all agree that genocidal governments do not deserve to have an equal voice at the U.N. with other peacekeeping and peace- loving nations. But we should not punish those governments which are fighting against those who would commit such heinous acts. I think that language is, as I said, egregiously flawed. The Hyde amendment does get it right.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for accepting it in advance because it is a very important amendment.

Let me make two very brief points. The Convention against Torture could not be more clear in proscribing any kind of torture. It is never acceptable. The United States is a signatory and has ratified that convention, and that includes, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) pointed out, the outsourcing of torture, and I think his amendment is very, very important. It comes at a very important time.

Let me also make the point, too, that next Thursday I will be holding a hearing on the victims of torture. I have written three laws on torture, The Torture Victims Relief Act, as it is called, and two reauthorizations over the last several years, and during the course of hearings that we have held, and we have one set for next Thursday in my subcommittee, we heard from people who actually suffered, the psychological scars that they bear, the post-traumatic stress, the sleepless nights that they endure because they have had to endure severe torture.

We want absolutely no part of torture in any manifestation. This amendment makes it very clear. This is already law. This makes it very clear that there is an absolute bright line of demarcation between interrogation methods that are real, that are listed, that are ethical and those that cross that line.

So I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. For 25 years, the United Nations Population Fund has been an aggressive and shameful accessory to gross crimes against women and babies in the People's Republic of China. Despite being admonished to do otherwise on countless occasions, the U.N. Population Fund continues to be the chief apologist and enabler for both past and ongoing crimes against humanity.

Now the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is offering an amendment that would suspend all U.S. laws, including all of our human rights laws, in order to compel U.S. taxpayer funding for the U.N. Population Fund. The Maloney amendment is written in such a way to immunize UNFPA from having to obey any U.S. law or funding restrictions, including the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion amendments. I strongly urge its defeat.

Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the UNFPA has whitewashed, sanitized, and facilitated--it has been an accomplice--in China's barbaric one-child-per-couple coercive population program that has victimized hundreds of millions of women and murdered hundreds of millions of children.

As a direct result, there is this exceedingly dangerous statistical demographic anomaly known as the ``missing girls.'' There may be as many as 100 million missing girls in China today, a tragedy beyond words. As a result, there are also on any given day, according to the Country Reports For Human Rights Practices, the human rights report by the State Department, 500 women in China who commit suicide every day. Five hundred. This coercion has a terrible, deleterious effect on Chinese women.

As violations of human rights go, coercive population control in China is among the worst and most degrading systematic abuse in human history.

Let us not forget or be naive, I say to my colleagues, about the fact that in China today, brothers and sisters are illegal and children can only be born if permission is granted by the state.

We all know that in the United States, families get State and Federal tax credits and deductions for their children so they can better cope with economic pressures.

In China, on the other hand, there is no welcome mat for children, and Chinese parents have huge fines imposed upon them if they try to bring their children into the world. Unwed mothers are also severely punished in China, and are compelled to abort, even if it is their only one child, the one that they are supposedly permitted to have. China's eugenics policy, which compels the murder of disabled babies, is clearly reminiscent of the Nazis.

Those who violate these cruel, inhumane, antichild policies are fined up to 10 times the annual salary of both husband and wife, a draconian penalty that usually ensures that the child, at the end of the day, is aborted.

This is China's national policy, Mr. Chairman. In all counties, including UNFPA-supported counties, severe fines are imposed on women who have babies out of plan. Some women do resist. Some women have their children on the run, as they say. Some resist or pay bribes or endure the harsh penalty, the so-called ``social compensation fee.'' Others are forcibly aborted, trussed, and brought into the so-called family planning clinics to have their babies aborted, and some are even tortured, and some are jailed.

Last December I chaired yet another hearing on forced abortion in China. I have had about 18 or more hearings over the last several years, and we heard from a woman by the name of Mrs. Mao Hen Feng, a Chinese woman who had been imprisoned and tortured because of her resistance to coercive population control.

I would point out to my colleagues, I met with Peng Peiyun, the woman who runs this program, and, during the course of that several-hour conversation, she kept coming back to the fact that, oh, the UNFPA is here. They do not see any coercion. The UNFPA clearly enables the PRC to practice this draconian program, and then they resort to the whitewash and say, but the UNFPA is here, and, again, they do not find any of this.

Amazingly, Mr. Chairman, the UNFPA calls China's massive violence against women like Mrs. Mao voluntary family planning, as if cheap sophistry makes it all okay. Just call it voluntary family planning, and it is all okay. It makes the definition of ``voluntary'' a joke.

To make matters worse, Mr. Chairman, UNFPA spokesmen gleefully encourage other countries to follow China's disgraceful lead.

I hope the majority of our colleagues will have no part in enabling either China or its best friend, the UNFPA, in these horrible abuses. Instead of funding the UNFPA, both they and China should be on trial at the International Criminal Court for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Talk to these women who have suffered. Look at the terrible loss of life, millions upon millions of babies killed, often right at the ninth month as women try to conceal their pregnancy, and the UNFPA is there on the ground enabling this terrible abuse. They provide cover, respectability, tangible support, and technical capabilities that predictably results in massive acts of cruelty and murder in China.

Defeat the Maloney amendment.

He is in prison.

He is in his mid-70s. Twenty-seven years in prison.