Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my good friend and colleague. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for crafting an outstanding piece of legislation. As we all know, he guided and shepherded through this body landmark legislation on AIDS which would not have been written into law without his effective leadership. I also thank the gentleman for including so many provisions which I proposed either as amendments or as base text. In particular, including an amendment on refugees I offered along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that increases refugee protection monies by $310 million over 2 years, and my bill called the Belarus Democracy Act. This legislation which is embodied now into the text of the bill, would provide for effective help to civil society, human rights promotion, and democracy promotion in Belarus; the victims of torture which gets a modest but necessary increase in the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; and there are many others. This is a consensus bill in many ways, but there are some points of divergence. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has put into the bill by a very narrow vote, an amendment that seriously and fundamentally weakens America's core anti-coercion law which says no funding goes to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a coercive population control program. We in this Congress do not make the determination as to whether or not a group gets population control money. We set the standard. It is then left to the executive branch which relies on all relevant information to make a finding. Last year, Secretary Powell made that finding and said that the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births and that this regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the harsh penalties. ``UNFPA's support of and involvement in China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion,'' Secretary Powell said. I say to my colleagues, this debate is all about coercion. I would hope that my friends who support abortion would realize that coercion, whether it be forced sterilization or forced abortion, is an unconscionable act; and when it is done with impunity by the Chinese government with their partner, the U.N. Population Fund, we need to disassociate ourselves from that kind of activity. We need to stand with the oppressed, not with the oppressor, and the friends of the oppressor. We need to stand with the victims. I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I will be offering, cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), that would strike this language from the bill. I would hope that we would stand with the women of China who are being oppressed by their government and with their partners in these crimes against humanity, the U.N. Population Fund. I urge Members to vote for our amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, just 10 months ago a sweeping, comprehensive reiteration of China's Draconian population control program went into effect in all of China. Sadly, the new law is as harsh, brutal, and violent as ever. Lest anyone be deceived that Beijing is somehow easing up on coercive population control, it is all there in the new law, the infamous one-child-per-couple policy, the crippling fines on those women who attempt to resist, and severe punishment to those women who have a child without explicit government permission. Since 1979, the U.N. population fund has been the chief apologist for China's coercive one-child-per-couple policy. By its words and by its actions, the UNFPA has chosen to partner with those who oppress women. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered, their mothers robbed of their children by the state. The UNFPA has aggressively defended this barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal and makes women the pawns of population control cadres. One terrifying consequence of China's policy is the disproportionate number of girl murders. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in China, currently there may be as many as 100 million more men than women, clearly a direct result of the one-child-per-couple policy. Time and again, Madam Chairman, the officials at the UNFPA have defended the indefensible. The former executive director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, said, ``China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy. The country could offer its experience and social expertise to help other countries.'' God forbid. Let them export the one-child-per- couple policy which relies on coercion to achieve its ends? I hope not! On CBS ``Nightwatch,'' the executive director of the UNFPA said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, as does the government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a total voluntary program.'' Madam Chairman, that is unmitigated nonsense and that is a lie. UNFPA Beijing representative Sven Burmester said and I quote, and please listen to this. This is the U.N.'s man in Beijing: ``China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind.'' That does not sound like a criticism of coercion or involuntary or forced abortion. That sounds like a partner defending a fellow partner gushing with praise. Of course it ``works,'' and of course the Chinese program is ``successful.'' Coercion works every day of the week. Forced abortion, I would remind my colleagues, was construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. It is no less of a crime today as it is practiced by China with its partners in that crime, the UNFPA. Madam Chairman, having failed the important review required by the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion law, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) today is now attempting to gut, to weaken, to rig the 18-year-old Kemp- Kasten law by requiring that it only be operative if an organization ``knowingly and intentionally'' advances or expands coerced abortion or forced sterilization. If we adopt the Crowley language, enforcement of the current anticoercive law would be dead. Clearly, the whole idea behind this is that the money will flow to the UNFPA unfettered because with this standard, the weakened standard, there is little doubt that the money will flow. U.S. investigators, if we adopted this language that is in the underlying bill, would now be required to investigate UNFPA personnel and ascertain their knowledge and their intent: What did they know and when did they know it? Given UNFPA's deplorable track record of denying that coercion even exists in China, it would be nearly impossible to prove intent. Even the hard-liners in China, in the government, deny coercion or any knowledge of coercion or intent to compel abortions. I have made three human rights trips to China. I met with the head of China's population control program, Peng Peiyun. Madame Peng Peiyun told me over and over in that lengthy conversation that there was no coercion in China and then she backed that up by citing UNFPA's participation in the program and UNFPA's public statements where UNFPA leaders have defended and said there is no coercion in China. For the past 24 years, again despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, UNFPA has declared China's program to be, quote, purely voluntary, free of coercion and a model to be emulated by other countries. Let us not forget that proving intent, this weakening standard offered by the gentleman from New York, is usually the stuff of criminal prosecutions, not grant-making. I would point out to my colleagues, also, if we applied the misguided Crowley standard to any other human rights standard, human trafficking or religious persecution, we would seriously undercut, even destroy, our efforts to mitigate these abuses around the world. Crowley sets a dangerous precedent in human rights law. Let me just point out to my colleagues I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Pursuant to that law, Secretary Powell recently placed 15 countries on what we call the tier 3 sanctions list. Those sanctions will soon be imposed. Nowhere in the statute do we require the Secretary of State to divine the intent of the officials or whether or not they knowingly engaged in these human rights abuses. To give the oppressors that out, that escape clause, would be a gross betrayal of the victims. In like manner, I respectfully submit we betray the victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization, millions of Chinese women, millions of Chinese children, when we give the oppressors or the friends of the oppressors this engraved invitation to continue denying and obfuscating the truth and, of course, enabling this kind of carnage to go on. I ask Members to support the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to strike the Crowley language in the State Department bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that Title XV of the State Department authorization bill incorporates key provisions of the Belarus Democracy Act of 2003, which I sponsored earlier this year. The State Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices report on Belarus states that the Belarusian regime's ``human rights record remained very poor and worsened in several areas.'' Thanks to Alexander Lukashenka--aptly cited by The Washington Post as ``Europe's last dictator''--Belarus has the worst human rights record in Europe today. The Helskinki Commission, which I Chair, as well as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe including its Parliamentary Assembly, the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union and other international entities have all chronicled the appalling state of human rights and democracy in a country located in the heart of Europe. Belarus already borders NATO. In just a few years, Belarus will border the European Union. The Lukashenka regime has blatantly and repeatedly violated basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, association and religion. The independent media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and democratic opposition have all faced harassment. Indeed, in the last few months, his war against civil society has intensified--resulting in the closure of non-governmental organizations, independent media outlets and Western-funded media support groups, such as Internews Network group, an international organization that helps develop independent media in countries in transition. Just last week, the Lukashenka regime denied continuation of the accreditation of the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), an American organization that has implemented a variety of assistance programs in Belarus for years, including programs that helped the struggling independent media. Last week, they ordered the closure of the Minsk bureau of Russian NTV television. Just a few weeks ago, Lukashenka closed down the National Humanities Lyceum, a highly respected school promoting the study of the Belarusian language and culture. There are growing, legitimate fears that Lukashenka is aiming to remove Belarus from its vestiges of democracy dissent. In October, Lukashenka signed into law the most restrictive religion law in Europe. Independent journalists have been sentenced to ``corrective labor'' for their writings. There are credible allegations of the Lukashenka regime's involvement in the disappearances of leading opposition figures and a journalist. Here in Washington and at various OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meetings, I've had occasion to meet with the wives of the disappeared, Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, Yuri Zakharenka, and Dmitry Zavadsky. These meetings have been heart- wrenching. The cases of their husbands--who disappeared in 1999 and 2000 and are presumed to have been murdered--are a stark illustration of the climate of fear that pervades in Belarus. On the security front, reports of arms deals between the Belarusian regime and rogue states, including Iraq and North Korea, continue to circulate. Lukashenka and his regime were open in their support of Saddam Hussein. One of the primary purposes of this initiative is to demonstrate U.S. support for those persevering to promote democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus despite the onerous pressures they face from the anti-democratic regime. Necessary assistance is authorized for democracy-building activities such as support for non-governmental organizations, independent media--including radio and television broadcasting to Belarus--and international exchanges. The bill also encourages free and fair parliamentary elections, conducted in a manner consistent with international standards--in sharp contrast to the 2000 parliamentary and 2001 presidential elections in Belarus which flagrantly flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self-imposed isolation. Parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held in 2004, and we should encourage those who seek to create the laws and environment conducive to a free and fair election. In addition, the Executive Branch is encouraged to impose sanctions against the Lukashenka regime and deny high-ranking officials of the regime entry into the United States. U.S. Government financing would be prohibited, except for humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions would be encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs. Madam Chairman, we are seeking to help put an end to the pattern of clear and uncorrected human rights violations by the Lukashenka regime and are hoping this will serve as a catalyst to facilitate Belarus' integration into democratic Europe. The Belarusian people deserve to live in a society where democratic principles and human rights are respected and the rule of law is preeminent. The Belarusian people--who have endured so much both under past and current dictatorships--deserve our support as they work to overcome the legacy of the past and develop a genuinely independent, democratic country. In addition, Madam Chairman, in keeping with this authorization for the Department of State, I want to express my appreciation for the work of the Department in bringing needed attention to the concerns about ongoing anti-Semitism, an age-old plague that still haunts many countries in the OSCE, including our own. I have sought to identify effective responses to this troubling phenomenon, including the introduction of the resolution, H. Con. Res. 49 which passed last month. Last month, I joined Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Congressman Hastings in Vienna for an OSCE conference specifically focused on anti-Semitism. Having the OSCE itself take up this important cause is significant. In fact, the idea was first raised in the May 2002 hearing of the Helsinki Commission and also suggested in the resolution condemning anti- Semitism I presented at the Berlin Parliamentary Assembly meeting last summer. I offered a similar resolution week before last at the Rotterdam OSCE PA meeting. Both resolutions passed the Assembly unanimously. While the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has actively denounced anti-Semitic acts, I give great credit to the State Department for making the Vienna Conference a reality. Notably, one initiative emerging from the Vienna Conference was a pledge by our German friends to hold a follow-up meeting in Berlin next year to focus on anti-Semitism. I hope this meeting will rally the troops from Europe, the U.S., and Canada to say in one voice ``never again.'' Finally, Madam Chairman, I was pleased to learn of Senator Voinovich's amendment to the Senate's State Department reauthorization bill requiring the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to include specific coverage of anti-Semitism. The amendment calls for the report to cover ``acts of anti-Semitic violence that occurred in that country'' and ``the response of the government of that country to such acts of violence.'' Importantly, the amendment would mandate the report to chronicle ``actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom with respect to people of the Jewish faith.'' I think this is a worthwhile idea and hope it will be enacted into law.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds. I just want to point out to my colleagues that the State Department and Secretary of State Colin Powell relied on many sources to make their determination, and Secretary Powell made this comment in his letter of finding: ``Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a program of coercive abortion.'' He pointed out ``UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.'' Every dollar, Madam Chairman, that does not go to the UNFPA the Secretary of State has said in writing he wants to reprogram to family planning and to maternal healthcare initiatives elsewhere around the world. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, to close debate for our side.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we have one final speaker to close debate on my side.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Chairman, presumably the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and virtually everybody in this Chamber opposes the tyrannical forced abortion policy of China, but not the UNFPA. Let me say that again, not the United Nations Population Fund. Their representative has called this the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind. They call it voluntary when it is not. They aid and abet this cruel policy in many, many tangible ways. The State Department has it right. In the 32 counties as well as in the rest of China, when a woman gets pregnant and the baby is out of ``plan'', in other words, an illegal pregnancy--an illegal child--she faces Draconian fines of up to 6 years of salary. That is what compels the abortion. Desperate, with nowhere to turn, she aborts the child to avoid those fines. I urge support for Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my colleagues that we provide almost half a billion dollars in family planning monies that go to Haiti, that go to Nicaragua, that go to El Salvador. We provide government-to-government and through nongovernmental organization support. And the money that does not go to the UNFPA will be reprogrammed dollar-for-dollar for these kinds of services. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, later on today when this bill comes up for consideration, I, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), will be offering an amendment to strike language that is in the underlying bill, the Crowley amendment, which was adopted very narrowly in committee. The Crowley amendment would fundamentally change the Kemp-Kasten amendment that has been in effect for 18 years. The Kemp-Kasten language is anticoercion language that says very simply that our country will not contribute money to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a coercive population control program. Under the Kemp-Kasten language last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell, after his due diligence, made a finding that took the money from the UNFPA, the U.N. population fund, and sought to reprogram each and every dollar of that to an organization or to programs that provided family planning or maternal health care programming. Secretary of State Colin Powell said: ``The PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births.'' Let me just remind my colleagues, in China you have got to get permission by the government in order to have a child. They have unapproved births and approved births. If you are unapproved, if you are out of plan, as they say, if you have an illegal child, a heavy fine is imposed upon the mother until she gets an abortion. If she has that child, somehow escapes the family-planning cadres, she then is severely criticized as well as fined. Sometimes up to 6 years' worth of her salary and her husband's is taken by the government as part of that fine. Secretary Powell goes on to say that the regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties; and, therefore, this amounts to a program of coercive abortion. He points out, and I quote, ``UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.'' Let us not rig this program, this test, Mr. Speaker. The Crowley amendment would fundamentally change this anticoercion language that we have had on the books for some 18 years. I ask my colleagues, those who support abortion and those who do not, there should at least be a consensus that coercion is absolutely unconscionable and unacceptable and we will not in any way directly or indirectly facilitate its use.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment to support human rights in Vietnam. This important amendment will impose a significant penalty on the dictators in Hanoi for their ongoing and egregious persecution of their own people. During the 107th Congress, I introduced H.R. 2833, legislation designed to address the human rights situation in Vietnam. It passed the House by an overwhelming 410-1 margin, but stalled in the Senate. This year, I introduced nearly identical legislation, H.R. 1587, with 30 original cosponsors. Many felt that the ratification of the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Vietnam in 2001 would lead to an improvement in human rights. Unfortunately, the human rights situation in Vietnam has deteriorated dramatically since this agreement, especially for Montagnard Christians in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Legislation to address the serious human rights situation is needed now more than ever. In late 2002 the Government of Vietnam launched a fresh wave of arrests and crackdowns against peaceful critics of the Vietnamese government, its policy of repression, and its corrupt practices. Unfortunately, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, one of the country's greatest human rights leaders who has already endured two lengthy prison sentences, was arrested on March 17. This is a government that consistently pursues a policy of harassment, discrimination, and intimidation, and, increasingly in the last three years, imprisonment and other forms of detention, against those who peacefully express dissent from government's extreme policies against religion and freedom. This is a government that punishes not just individuals who oppose them, but also often their family members. At its Seventh Plenum in January 2003, the Communist Party's Central Committee issued a resolution calling for the establishment of cells of Communist Party members within each of Vietnam's six approved religions in order to foil ``hostile forces.'' All religious groups in Vietnam face great restrictions and suffer some form of persecution. To address these and other abuses, my amendment, based on the text of H.R. 1587: requires the President to issue a certification each year on the progress of the regime towards respecting human rights; prohibits an increase in nonhumanitarian U.S. assistance unless the regime shows improvement; seeks to fund the efforts of NGOs who promote democracy in Vietnam and help to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia; helps ensure continued access of refugees to our refugee resettlement programs; and requires the State Department to give detailed reports about the status of human rights in Vietnam that include victims lists. Unfortunately, the list of human rights abuses carried out by the regime goes on and on. Buddhists, Protestants, Catholics and members of indigenous Vietnamese religions are subject to persecutions that include detention and imprisonment of both religious leaders and believers, church closings, and confiscation of religious and personal property. One of the most courageous religious leaders imprisoned is Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest. Tens of thousands of children suffer exploitation as workers and many Vietnamese suffer under the government's official export labor program, in which the government forces its own people to endure involuntary servitude and debt bondage. As Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, I am particularly concerned about the continued persecution of the Montagnards, who were some of our greatest allies during the war. Many of our pilots are alive today and have families because they were rescued by Montagnards after bailing out of downed aircraft. We receive numerous and credible reports that allege that Montagnards are being imprisoned, tortured and systematically relocated to infertile lands by the Communist Party leaders in retaliation for their past loyalty to America. This past December, Vietnamese soldiers reportedly threatened to shoot Montagnard Christians if they celebrated Christmas, and several were arrested and tortured. I would like to submit the findings of H.R. 1587, which lay out a more complete case of Human Rights in Vietnam, to the Congressional Record. They were kept out of this amendment because of their length, but they speak loudly with respect to the regime and the world about the egregious human rights abuses occurring in Vietnam. Vietnam's continued policy of harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and persecution of religious and human rights leaders is shameful. The Vietnam Human Rights amendment in the State Department Authorization Bill sends as strong a message that this persecution and tyranny will not be tolerated. Findings From H.R. 1587, ``The Vietnam Human Rights Act'' Congress finds the following: (1) Viet Nam is a one-party state, ruled and controlled by the Vietnamese Communist Party. (2)(A) The Government of Viet Nam denies the people of Viet Nam the right to change their government and prohibits independent political, social, and labor organizations. (B) The Government of Viet Nam prohibits and hinders the formation of civil society in Viet Nam. (3)(A) The Government of Viet Nam consistently pursues a policy of harassment, discrimination, and intimidation, and sometimes of imprisonment and other forms of detention, against those who peacefully express dissent from government or party policy. This policy includes collectively punishing family members of individuals targeted for persecution. A government decree allows detention without trial for 6 months to 2 years. (B) Following the United States ratification of the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Viet Nam in 2001, the human rights situation in Viet Nam has remained extremely poor. For certain groups, such as the Montagnards, and other ethnic minorities in Central and North Vietnam, conditions have deteriorated dramatically. In late 2002, the Government of Viet Nam launched a fresh wave of arrests and crackdowns against peaceful critics of the Vietnamese Government, its policy of repression, and its corrupt practices. (C) Recent victims of such mistreatment, which violates the rights to freedom of expression and association recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, include Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, a leading human rights activist who was arrested on March 17, 2003, and has already served two lengthy prison sentences, Dr. Nguyen Thanh Giang, Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, linguist Tran Khue, businessman Nguyen Khac Toan, journalist Nguyen Vu Binh, publicist Le Chi Quang, writer Hoang Tien, military historian Pham Que Duong, Hoang Minh Chinh, Tran Dung Tien, Hoang Trong Dung, Nguyen Vu Viet, Nguyen Truc Cuong, Nguyen Thi Hoa, Vu Cao Quan, Nguyen The Dam, Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan, Father Chan Tin, author Duong Thu Huong, poet Bui Minh Quoc, Dr. Nguyen Xuan Tu (Ha Si Phu), Dr. Pham Hong Son, Mai Thai Linh, Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, Father Nguyen Van Ly, Pastor Nguyen Lap Ma, Father Phan Van Loi, numerous leaders of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church and of independent Protestant churches, and an undetermined number of members of the Montagnard ethnic minority groups who participated in peaceful demonstrations in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam during February 2001. (4) The Government of Viet Nam systematically deprives its citizens of the fundamental right or organized religious activities outside the state's control. Although some freedom of worship is permitted, believers are forbidden to participate in religious activities except under circumstances rigidly defined and controlled by the Government: (A)(i) In April, 1999 the Government issued a Decree Concerning Religious Activities, which declared in pertinent part that ``[a]ll activities using religious belief in order to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to prevent the believers from carrying out civic responsibilities, to sabotage the union of all the people, and against the health culture of our nation, as well as superstitious activities, will be punished in conformity with the law''. (ii) All public religious activities must be approved by the Government in advance. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom in October 2002 recommended that Viet Nam be classified as a country of particular concern. At its Seventh Plenum in January 2003, the Communist Party's Central Committee issued a resolution calling for the establishment of cells of Communist Party members within each of Vietnam's 6 approved religions in order to foil ``hostile forces''. (B)(i) The Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam (UBCV), the largest religious denomination in the country, has been declared illegal by the Government, and over the last 27 years its clergy have often been imprisoned and subjected to other forms of persecution. The Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church, 85-year-old Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, has been detained for 25 years in a ruined temple in an isolated area of central Viet Nam. (ii) Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the Executive President of the Unified Buddhist Church, has also been in various forms of detention since 1977, and was recently rearrested and placed under house arrest after he had proposed to bring Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang to Saigon for medical treatment. (iii) Many other leading Buddhist figures, including Thich Hai Tang, Thich Khong Tanh, Thich Thai Hoa, Thich Tue Si, Thich Quang Hue, Thich Tam An, Thich Nguyen Ly, Thich Thanh Huyen, Thich Thong Dat, Thich Chi Mau, Thich Chi Thang, Thich Chon Niem, Thich Thanh Quang are under tight surveillance. Several members of the UBCV have fled to Cambodia (C)(i) The Hao Hoa Buddhist Church was also declared to be illegal until 1999, when the Government established an organization which purports to govern the Hao Hoa. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, ``[t]his organization is made up almost entirely of Communist Party members and apparently is not recognized as legitimate by the vast majority of Hao Hoas . . . [n]evertheless, [this government-sponsored organization] has sought to control all Hao Hoa religious activity, particularly at the Hao Hoa village, which is the center of Hao Hoa religious life''. (ii)(I) Hao Hoa believers who do not recognize the legitimacy of the government organization are denied the right to visit the Hao Hoa village, to conduct traditional religious celebrations, or to display Hao Hoa symbols. Many have been arrested and subjected to administrative detention, and several Hao Hoa have been sentenced to prison terms for protesting these denials of religious freedom. (II) The Government interferes with Hao Hoa efforts to conduct charitable works, and prohibits public celebration to commemorate the founder's disappearance as well as the distribution of the founder's teachings. The Government controls greatly the leadership selection process of the Cao Dais, another indigenous Vietnamese religion. (III) At least the following Hao Hoa believers are known to be in prison or house detention: Ha Hai, Tran Van Be Cao, Tran Nguyen Huon, Phan Thi Tiem, Le Quang Liem, Nguyen Van Dien, Le Minh Triet, and Vo Van Thanh Liem. (D)(i) Independent Protestants, most of whom are members of ethnic minority groups, are subjected to particularly harsh treatment by the Government of Viet Nam. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, such treatment includes ``police raids on homes and house churches, detention, imprisonment, confiscation of religious and personal property, physical and psychological abuse, and fines for engaging in unapproved religious activities (such as collective worship, public religious expression and distribution of religious literature, and performing baptisms, marriages, or funeral services) . . . [i]n addition, it is reported that ethnic Hmong Protestants have been forced by local officials to agree to abandon their faith''. (ii)(I) According to human rights activists in Viet Nam, 2 secret central plans--Plan 184A and 184B--issued in 1999 by the Communist Party to combat Protestant believers were fully implemented throughout the country, and led to a crackdown on the Protestant movement, especially in the Central and Northern Highland areas. (II) An estimated 14,000 Christians fled from the North to the Central Highlands in the past 5 years. According to the Southern Evangelical Church of Viet Nam, the Government of Viet Nam forcibly closed 354 of the 412 churches in Dak Lak province, 56 pastors from the Central Highlands have disappeared, and at least 43 evangelical Montagnards have been sentenced to prison. Freedom House has reported on the beating death of Hmong Christian Mua Bua Senh by police authorities. (E)(i) Other religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, are formally recognized by the Government but are subjected to pervasive regulation which violates the right to freedom of religion. For instance, the Catholic Church is forbidden to appoint its own bishops without Government consent, which is frequently denied, to accept seminarians without specific official permission, and to profess Catholic doctrines which are inconsistent with Government policy. Government restrictions on the seminary process have caused a severe shortage of priests. (ii) A Catholic priest, Father Nguyen Van Ly, was arrested in March 2001 and remains in detention after submitting written testimony to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. On October 19, 2001, he was sentenced to a total of 20 years of imprisonment and house arrest; the trial in Hue took place closed to the public and without a defense lawyer. (iii) In October 2002, the Vietnamese Bishops Conference took an unprecedented step when they protested to the National Assembly about the persecutions endured by Catholic ethnic minorities. (F) The Government has also confiscated numerous churches, temples, and other properties belonging to religious organizations. The vast majority of these properties--even those belonging to religious organizations formally recognized by the Government--have never been returned. (5)(A) Since 1975 the Government of Viet Nam has persecuted veterans of the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam and other Vietnamese who had opposed the Viet Cong insurgency and the North Vietnamese invasion of South Viet Nam. Such persecution typically included substantial terms in ``re-education camps'', where detainees were often subjected to torture and other forms of physical abuse, and in which many died. (B) Re-education camp survivors and their families were often forced into internal exile in ``New Economic Zones''. Many of these former allies of the United States, as well as members of their families, continue until the present day to suffer various forms of harassment and discrimination, including denial of basic social benefits and exclusion from higher education and employment. (6)(A) The Government of Viet Nam has been particularly harsh in its treatment of members of the Montagnard ethnic minority groups of the central Highlands of Viet Nam, who were the first line in the defense of South Viet Nam against invasion from the North and who fought courageously beside members of the Special Forces of the United States, suffering disproportionately heavy casualties, and saving the lives of many of their American and Vietnamese comrades-in-arms. (B) Since 1975 the Montagnard peoples have been singled out for severe repression, in part because of their past association with the United States and in part because their strong commitment to their traditional way of life and to their Christian religion is regarded as inconsistent with the absolute loyalty and control demanded by the Communist system. The Government employs a policy of assimilation and oppression against the Montagnards, forcibly displacing them from their ancestral lands to make way for North Vietnamese settlers, coffee plantations, and logging operations. (C) Between February and March 2001, several thousand members of the mountain tribes Djarai, Bahnar, and Rhade from the provinces of Pleiku, Gialai, and Daklak took part in a series of peaceful demonstrations to demand the release of 2 Montagnard Christians, religious freedom and restoration of their confiscated lands. The Government responded by closing off the Central Highlands and sending in military forces, tanks and helicopter gunships. Hundreds of demonstrators were injured. Altogether, more than 200 people, among them 60 evangelical priests and tribal chieftains, were arrested. Some regions of the Central Highlands remain closed to journalists and foreign diplomats. (D) Credible reports by refugees who have escaped to Cambodia indicate that the Government has executed some participants in the demonstrations and has subjected others to imprisonment, torture, and other forms of physical abuse. (E) The Government of Viet Nam has also taken steps to prevent further Montagnards from escaping, and there are credible reports that Vietnamese security forces in Cambodia are offering bounties for the surrender of Montagnard asylum seekers. (F) According to Human Rights Watch, in December 2002 `[The Government] arrested or detained dozens of highlanders and banned Christmas church services in order to prevent minority Christians from gathering. Six highlanders were detained during the third week in December in Krong Ana and Cu Jut districts, Dak Lak, during Christmas prayer services, while another eight were taken into custody as they are attempting to cross the border to Cambodia. Villagers throughout the Central Highlands were warned they would face fines and even imprisonment if they organized Christmas services. In many areas authorities banned gatherings of four or more people'. (7) The Government of Viet Nam has also persecuted members of other ethnic minority groups, including the Khmer Kron from the Mekong Delta, many of whom fought alongside United States military personnel during the Viet Nam war and whose Hinayana Buddhist religion is not among those recognized by the Government. (8) The Government of Viet Nam also engages in or condones serious violations of the rights of workers. In August 1997, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reported that child labor exploitation is on the rise in Viet Nam with tens of thousands of children under 15 years of age being subject to such exploitation. The government's official labor export program also has subject workers, many of whom are women, to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, and other forms of abuse, and the reaction of government officials to worker complaints of such abuse has been to threaten the workers with punishment if they do not desist in their complaints. The government of Viet Nam has made some minor efforts to improve this situation, but enforcement of child labor laws remains weak, and the child exploitation still persists. (9)(A) United States refugee resettlement programs for Vietnamese nationals, including the Orderly Departure Program (ODR), the Resettlement Opportunities for Returning Vietnamese (ROVR) program, and resettlement of boat people from refugee camps throughout Southeast Asia, were authorized by law in order to rescue Vietnamese nationals who have suffered persecution on account of their wartime associations with the United States, as well as those who currently have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. (B) In general, these programs have served their purposes well. However, many refugees who were eligible for these programs were unfairly denied or excluded, in some cases by vindictive or corrupt Communist officials who controlled access to the programs, and in others by United States personnel who imposed unduly restrictive interpretations of program criteria. These unfairly excluded refugees include some of those with the most compelling cases, including many Montagnard combat veterans and their families. (C) The Department of State has agreed to extend the September 30, 1994, registration deadline for former United States employees, ``re-reduction'', survivors, and surviving spouses spouses of those who did not survive ``re-education'' camps to sign for United States refugee programs. (D) The Department of State has agreed to resume the Vietnamese In-Country Priority One Program in Viet Nam to provide protection to victims of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group who otherwise have no access to the Orderly Departure Program. (E) The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service in the Department of Homeland Security has agreed to resume the processing of former United States employees under the U11 program, which had been unilaterally suspended by the United States Government. (F) The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service has agreed to review the applications of Americans, children of America servicemen left behind in Viet Nam after the war ended in April 1975, for resettlement to the United States under the Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1988.. (10) The Government of Viet Name systematically jams broadcasts by Radio Free Asia, and indepdent broadcast service funded by the United States in orderly to provide news and entertainment to the people of countries in Asia whose government deny the right to freedom of expression and of the press. (11) In 1995 the Governments of the United States and Viet Nam announced the ``normalization'' of diplomatic relations. In 1998 then-President Clinton waived the application of section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (commonly) known as the ``Jackson-Vanik Amendments'', which restircts economic assistance to countries with non-market economies whose government also restrict freedom of emigration. In 1999 the Governments of the United States and Viet Nam announced ``an agreement in principle,'' on a bilateral trade agreement. This agreement was signed in 2000 and came into effect on December 10, 2001. (12) The Congress and the American People are united in their determination that the extension or expansion of trade relations with a country whose Government engaged in serious and systematic violations of fundamental human rights must be considered as a statement of approval or complacency about such practices. The promotion of freedom and democracy around the world--and particularly for people who have suffered in large part because of their past association with the United States and because they share our values--is and must continue to be a central objective of United States foreign policy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), for his kind remarks. I want to especially thank him for his leadership on this issue and all human rights, especially in Asia. He has been outspoken and a very, very effective lawmaker. I want to thank him for his leadership. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his sponsorship of this very important piece of legislation which we have before the body today. I do rise in strong support of H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. As I think my colleagues are well aware, on May 30 a group of government-affiliated thugs carried out a premeditated ambush of the motorcade of Burma democracy leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been jailed since then. An undetermined number of her supporters were murdered in that vicious attack. Burma's military dictatorship, which euphemistically calls itself the State Peace and Development Council, has maintained its grip on power for the past 15 years with the use of brutal force. Although Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won the majority of National Assembly seats in a free and fair election in 1990, the junta nullified the results and imprisoned hundreds of NLD leaders. The military regime has committed numerous other human rights abuses, such as large-scale forced labor and the use of rape as a weapon in its fight against insurgencies by ethnic minorities. With this latest outrage, Mr. Speaker, the Burmese regime has exhausted the patience of the United States and hopefully the rest of the international community. I applaud the gentleman from California again for these efforts, for his ongoing efforts, but especially for his efforts in drafting and introducing H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which the Committee on International Relations reported favorably on June 17. The bill includes a number of measures, such as a ban on trade that supports the military regime, and will send an unequivocal message to the generals in Rangoon: The people of Burma must be allowed to pursue the path of peaceful democratic development that they bravely chose 13 years ago. Although trade sanctions are sometimes the source of controversy on this floor, they are more than justified in this situation both because of the Burmese regime's egregious behavior and because export trade is a key source of foreign exchange for the junta and its apparatus of repression. The bill includes waiver authority for the President and outlines generous conditions under which sanctions could be lifted. In addition, the text before us requires annual reapproval of the trade ban and imposes a 3-year sunset on the sanctions. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this very important human rights legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ackerman-LaTourette Amendment which would end the sale of ``downed animal meat'' for human consumption. Simply put, this Amendment would take livestock that is too diseased, too weak, or too injured to even stand on its own feet out of our food chain. American families do not want to put downed animal meat products on their dinner tables, and they do not want to worry about whether the meat products purchased from a restaurant contains meat from downed animals. As a matter of fact, new animal welfare standards followed by burger-giants McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's have ended the purchase of meat from downed animals in their food products. I applaud these moves and America's consumers applaud them as well. Common sense, as well as scientific data, says that the meat taken from a downed animal is unfit for human consumption--its risk of bacterial contamination and other diseases is much much higher than the meat taken from a healthy animal. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) records show that downed animals are often afflicted with gangrene, malignant lymphoma, pneumonia, and other serious illnesses. According to the Food and Drug Administration downed animals are responsible for half of the drug residue found in meat because these animals are often very sick animals, and therefore, are often receiving a variety of drug treatments. Why would anyone want to take a chance and eat this meat? Not only would this legislation remove tainted meat from the American marketplace, it would help improve the treatment of animals at auctions and slaughterhouses. Most downed animals are old dairy cows, crippled veal calves, and sometimes injured beef cattle. These downed animals, too weak to stand up on their own, are often shocked with electricity, moved with bulldozers, kicked and dragged, all in the effort to move them along the assembly lines to be slaughtered. Mr. Chairman, our Nation has made great strides in food processing and food production over many years. We've come a long way since the publication of Upton Sinclair's famous century-old work, ``The Jungle.'' But there's still a lot of needless cruelty that goes on in these places. Upton Sinclair wrote back then that the animals were strung up one by one in a ``cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a pretense of apology.'' This still occurs today. For instance, cows with broken legs are often left for hours or even days without food and water, let alone veterinary care. There is no excuse for this cruel and inhumane treatment in a civilized society. For the sake of our society, our animals, and those who eat meat products, the practice of slaughtering and consuming downed animals must be brought to an end. Americans rightly do not want to eat meat from downed animals nor do they want to see downed animals cruelly treated the way they are at our slaughterhouses and animal auctions. Five months after the publication of ``The Jungle,'' President Theodore Roosevelt and Congress took action by passing the first ``Pure Food and Drug Act'' and the first ``Meat Inspection Act.'' Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to act again. Americans want animals to be treated properly, and they want their food to be safe. I urge Members to support and vote for the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State last week made its determination to certify compliance by the Government of Serbia and Montenegro with the terms of section 578 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7). This section conditions certain bilateral assistance to Serbia on progress in three areas, although by far the most critical being cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I agree with the Department's assessment that progress has been made, especially since March. In particular, I welcomed action earlier this month by the Serbian authorities to apprehend Veselin Svjilancanin, indicted by the Tribunal for the 1991 massacre near Vukovar in Croatia. Although there was resistance, this action was a success and signaled what is perhaps a new determination by Belgrade to transfer all remaining indictees. Having been in Vukovar, along with my good friend and colleague Mr. Wolf, just before the city fell to Serb forces, I am glad to see all three indicted by the Tribunal for this crime will be tried in The Hague. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Department's determination was the wrong one to make. While progress has been made, it remains insufficient. Still at large and believed to have been in Serbia are several other persons, including Ratko Mladic and others-- Ljubisa Beara, Vujadin Popovic, Ljubomir Borovcanin, Vinko Pandurevic and Drago Nikolic--indicted by the Tribunal for their connection to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in which thousands of innocent people were executed. I am concerned, deeply concerned, that these individuals will continue to evade justice while officials in Belgrade may get the impression they have done enough. Clearly, they have not. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Serbian authorities to take the action necessary to remove ``cooperation with the Tribunal'' as an outstanding issue in our bilateral relationship. In doing so, they will also continue to help Serbia emerge from Slobodan Milosevic's legacy of nationalist hatred. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I also urge the State Department to use remaining levers to encourage not just better, but full, cooperation with the Tribunal, which Secretary Powell had assured Mr. Cardin and myself in correspondence was a position we all shared. The crimes which occurred were too severe and too horrendous to allow those responsible to escape justice.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, which is intended to improve the United States efforts in combating the scourge of human trafficking. I am very pleased to have Congressmen Lantos, ranking member of the International Relations Committee, Congressman Pitts and Congresswoman Slaughter, join me as original cosponsors. According to a recently released U.S. Government estimate, 800,000 to 900,000 women, children, and men fall victim to international trafficking each year and end up prisoners of slavery like practices in the commercial sex industry, domestic servitude, sweatshops, and agricultural farms, among other destinations. In October 2000, we adopted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), P.L. 106-386. As a result of that law, the U.S. Government allocated $68.2 million last year to combat trafficking in human beings. In the past two years, federal prosecutors initiated prosecutions of 79 traffickers--three times as many as in the two previous years. Nearly 400 survivors of trafficking in the United States have received assistance, facilitated by the Department of Health and Human Services, to begin recovering from their trauma and to rebuild their shattered lives. Thanks to the efforts of the State Department, USAID, and the spotlight put on the issue through the annual Trafficking in Persons Report, governments worldwide have also begun taking significant actions against human trafficking. Despite these substantive inroads, people continue to be bought and sold in modern day slavery. Victims continue to face obstacles in the process of securing needed assistance. We are not yet addressing trafficking in persons as an organized crime activity. We have not yet aggressively targeted sex tourism as a factor contributing to the demand for trafficked persons in prostitution, and more specialized research is needed. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) would address these and other areas of concern, would authorize funding to continue our government's efforts against trafficking, and would build upon the experience of implementing the TVPA to refine U.S. laws and practices to better fulfill the intent of that law. Specifically, the TVPRA would enhance the prevention of human trafficking by: Requiring that U.S. Government contracts relating to international affairs contain clauses authorizing termination by the United States if the contractor engages in human trafficking or procures commercial sexual services while the contract is in force; Promoting innovative trafficking prevention initiatives, such as border interdiction programs; and Requiring airlines to inform passengers about U.S. laws against sex tourism. The TVPRA would enhance protections for trafficking victims by: Allowing Federal, State, or local law enforcement authorities to certify, for the purpose of receiving benefits, that a victim of trafficking has cooperated in the investigation or prosecution of trafficking crimes; Allowing trafficking victims to sue their traffickers in U.S. courts; Eliminating the requirement that a victim of trafficking between the ages of 15 and 18 must cooperate with the investigation and prosecution of his or her trafficker in order to be eligible for a T-visa; Allowing benefits and services available to victims of trafficking to be available for their family members legally entitled to join them in United States; and Providing for the confidentiality of T-visa applications. The TVPRA would enhance prosecution of trafficking-related crimes by: Permitting federal anti-trafficking statutes to be used to prosecute acts of trafficking involving foreign commerce or occurring in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States; Making human trafficking crimes predicate offenses for RICO charges; and Encouraging the use of International Law Enforcement Academies to train foreign law enforcement authorities, prosecutors and members of the judiciary regarding human trafficking. The TVPRA would improve the U.S. Government's response to trafficking by: Encouraging critical research initiatives; Mandating a report on Federal agencies' implementation of the TVPA; Designating that the Director of the State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking shall have the rank of Ambassador-at- Large; and Prohibiting the use of funds to promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution. The TVPRA would reauthorize appropriations for each of FY 2004 and 2005: $4 million to the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking; $15 million to the Department of Health and Human Services; To the Secretary of State, $15 million for assistance for victims in other countries; $15 million for programs to improve law enforcement and prosecution; and $15 million for trafficking prevention initiatives; $300,000 to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for trafficking prevention and legal reform programs; $15 million to the Department of Justice for assistance to victims in the United States and $250,000 for anti-trafficking training activities at the International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEAs); $15 million to the President for foreign victim assistance (prevention activities); $15 million for assistance to foreign countries to meet the minimum standards to combat trafficking; $300,000 for research; and $250,000 for anti-trafficking training activities at the ILEAs; and $10 million to the Department of Labor. Mr. Speaker, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. We are making progress in our battle against modern day slavery, but clearly there is still much work to be done by government authorities, by civil society, by our faith communities, and by all men and women of good will. As lawmakers, we have the opportunity to make our contribution to this endeavor. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this commonsense reauthorization bill to support and enhance the good work which has been undertaken.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time for purposes of yielding the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the most recent conference that was held in Vienna, I just want to again thank the great work that Ambassador Minikes did, our Ambassador to the OSCE. He has worked very, very hard to help put together that anti-Semitism conference. He did an outstanding job. Ambassador Cliff Sobel, our Ambassador to the Netherlands, also worked very hard on it as well, as did many others in the State Department. It was a joint effort. Again I want to thank Rudy Giuliani for the good work he did in leading that. Let me just also say that, Mr. Speaker, next week in Rotterdam we will have an OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and I plan on offering another resolution on anti-Semitism at that and hopefully we continue not only this dialogue but this outrage that we are expressing about intolerance. The more we raise our voices, the more we have mutually reinforcing policies, including good law, good law enforcement and hopefully a chronicling of these misdeeds so that law enforcement knows that they do indeed have a problem. This has been a particular problem in Europe, where hate crimes are committed and they are not attributed to the hate crimes that they represent. The more we chronicle, the more we will see that there is an explosion of anti-Semitism in Europe. This is a good resolution. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I thank the gentleman and chairman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for moving this bill expeditiously through the committee and for his strong support for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, anti-Semitism is a deadly disease of the heart that leads to violence, cruelty, and unspeakable acts of horror. The anti- Semite is, as Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel grimly wrote last week, an ideological fanatic and pathological racist: ``An anti-Semite is someone who never met me, never heard of me, yet he hates me.'' While we all are aware and deplore the hate crimes and cowardly acts that are committed routinely by Hamas and their like-minded murderers, what is new, Mr. Speaker, is the enormous surge in anti-Semitic acts and the resurgence of hatred for Jews in Europe, the United States, and in Canada. Just a brief look, Mr. Speaker, of some of the startling statistics makes the point. In France, for example, there was a 600 percent increase in anti-Semitic acts from the year 2001 to the year 2002. Thankfully, the French have moved with new legislation designed to not only chronicle and get a better handle on how often these hate crimes are occurring, but they are also trying to stop them. The Anti-Defamation League, Mr. Speaker, did a survey that also showed a spike in five other countries of Europe. They found that 21 percent of the people in those five countries had strongly anti-Semitic perspectives or views. The ADL also looked at the United States and found that 17 percent of our own people in the United States had strong anti-Semitic views. If you extrapolate that, Mr. Speaker, that is about 35 million Americans. That is up 5 percent from just 5 years ago. H. Con. Res. 49 recognizes this dangerous and alarming trend, condemns this ancient-modern scourge, and calls on each of the 55 countries that make up the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to take concrete steps to eradicate anti-Semitism. The resolution before us today is an unequivocal condemnation of violence against Jews and Jewish cultural sites, racial and ethnic hatred, xenophobia and discrimination, as well as persecution on religious grounds wherever it occurs. The resolution calls on all the states of the OSCE to ensure effective law enforcement and prosecution of individuals perpetrating anti-Semitic violence as well as urging the parliaments of all those states to take concrete legislative action at the national level. We are encouraging, Mr. Speaker, the creation of education efforts to counter these anti-Semitic stereotypes and the attitudes that we are seeing increasingly among younger people. We are calling for an increase in Holocaust awareness programs, and seeking to identify necessary resources to accomplish these goals. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I chaired a congressional hearing and three international summits on anti-Semitism within the last year alone. Joined by my good friend and colleague from the German Bundestag, Gert Weisskirchen, at the three special summits, and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who I thank as well for his good work on this, these summits have focused on this rising tide of anti-Semitism. The summits, Mr. Speaker, were held in Berlin, in 2002; in Washington, in December of 2002; and in Vienna, earlier this year, in February. We heard from world renowned leaders, including Rabbi Israel Singer, President of the World Jewish Congress; Ambassador Alfred Moses, Abraham Foxman and Ken Jacobson of the Anti-Defamation League; Mark Levin from the NCSJ; Rabbi Andrew Baker of the American Jewish Committee; Dr. Shimon Samuels, director of the Weisenthal Center located in Paris; and many others, Amnesty International and other human rights' organizations, all of whom made very powerful statements about this alarming rise of hate directed towards Jews. Let me just quote for my colleagues what Dr. Samuels said, very briefly: ``The Holocaust, for 30 years, acted as a protective Teflon against blatant anti-Semitic expression. That Teflon has eroded, and what was considered distasteful and politically incorrect is becoming simply an opinion. But cocktail chatter at fine English dinners can end as Molotov cocktails against synagogues. Political correctness is also ending for others, as tolerance for multiculturalism gives way to populist voices in France, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, and the Netherlands. These countries' Jewish communities can be caught between the rock of radical Islamic violence and the hard place of a revitalized Holocaust-denying extreme right. Common cause must be sought between the victimized minorities against extremism and against fanaticism.'' Dr. Jacobson pointed out, and I quote, ``Sadly, some European leaders have rationalized anti-Jewish attitudes and even more violent attacks against Jews as nothing more than a sign of popular frustration with events in the Middle East. Something to be expected, even understandable, they say.'' Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing more and more about this idea of pretext; that there is a disagreement with the policies of the Israeli Government, that somehow that gives license and an ability and permission for some people to hate the Jews themselves. We can disagree, as we do on this House floor. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I have been working on this for years, and of course the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). We disagree on some issues, but anti-Semitism? We do not hate. We do not use that as a pretext, as a front to promote hatred. That is exactly what is happening in Europe, in the United States, and in Canada. Let me point out too that, as a result of these summits, we have come up with an action plan. Mr. Weisskirchen and I have signed it, it has been agreed to by our commissions, and we are trying to promote it among all our States. Again, education, trying to get parliaments to step up to the plate, and trying to make a meaningful difference to mitigate and hopefully to end this terrible anti-Semitism. Last week, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I joined Rudy Giuliani in Vienna for an OSCE assembly focused on anti-Semitism. We have been doing it in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, but now the OSCE itself has taken up this important cause. And it will be followed up with a meeting, most likely in Berlin next year, to focus on anti- Semitism so that we rally the troops all over the world, starting with Europe, the U.S., and Canada to say ``never again.'' Let me also point out to my colleagues, and I thought his statement said it all, when Abraham Foxman, who gave riveting testimony at our Berlin conference, pointed out just recently in the Jerusalem Post, just a couple of days ago, and I would like to close with his statement, he said ``Anti-Semitism is surging in the world to the extent unprecedented since the end of World War II. Europe must take seriously the ideology of anti-Semitism coming out of the Arab and Islamic world. It must denounce the deliberate targeting of Jews by terrorist groups, whether it be al Qaeda or Hamas. It must denounce the vicious anti-Semitic material in the Arab press and educational systems and call on Arab leaders to do something about it. It must understand that the Holocaust happened not only because Germany was taken over by the Nazis, who developed a massive military power to conquer most of Europe, but also by the complicity--active and passive--of other Europeans. Today, the great threat comes from the combination of the ideology of hatred with Islamic extremists to acquire weapons of mass destruction.'' And then he bottom lines it and says, ``Let Europe never again be complicit in developments of this kind.'' Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to go on record in a bipartisan way, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals to say anti-Semitism, never again, and we need to do it strongly today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).