Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our chairman, for the extraordinary job he as done in this legislation. This has been a work in progress as we all know for several months, over last year and into this year. This legislation, in the end, is something that will save millions of lives and something we can be proud of. I have an amendment that is co-sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) that I think is a critical clarification needed to make sure that the many successful and compassionate organizations are not inadvertently disqualified from participating in our international HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment efforts. The amendment is a one-phrase all-important clarification of the existing language in the bill. It will ensure that a qualified grantee that does not want to participate in all aspects of a treatment or prevention strategy is not disqualified from participating in our HIV/ AIDS efforts. For example, if a Muslim or Catholic organization is excellent in abstinence education or AIDS testing, they should not be disqualified from U.S. funding because they have a moral objection to condoms. The bill already says, I would point out, that organizations shall not be required as a condition of receiving the assistance to endorse or utilize a multi-sectorial approach to combatting HIV/AIDS. While this language is intended to protect organizations that are qualified in one phase of prevention or treatment from being disqualified if they have a moral or religious objection, the concern is that the language might be too vague. The word ``multi-sectorial'' has many meanings and might not protect organizations. That ambiguity--that infirmity--in the underlying bill is remedial by our amendment. Thus the amendment which we are offering today would clarify, according to the original intent of the bill, that organizations should not be disqualified if they have moral or religious objections to one part of a treatment or prevention strategy. The one phrase that would be added is this: ``To endorse, utilize or participate in a prevention method or treatment program to which the organization has a religious or moral objection.'' It could not be more clear. It could not be more transparent. Some of my colleagues may say faith-based organizations do not need this protection, but I assure them that the problem is real. In one case, a Catholic doctor who worked in sub-Saharan Africa for 31 years, caring for thousands of young people suffering from AIDS, was approached by USAID in Uganda and asked to draw up a program to prevent HIV/AIDS. Her group presented a project proposal which involved AIDS awareness and behavior change programs. In the project proposal, the emphasis was on abstinence and faithfulness as a way of preventing the spread of HIV and was for people of all faiths. USAID, however, responded by asking them to put in a component of promoting and distributing condoms. When this organization said they were not prepared to do so because of a religious objection, they were denied funding. This is one of many stories. And the ones who are harmed when this kind of action takes place are those who are suffering the most and are at greatest risk and need services. This provision would not require, I would say to my colleagues, a change in the overall strategy to fight HIV/AIDS. The overall strategy would stay the same even if certain groups only worked on parts of that strategy where they are qualified and successful. Let me say, finally, the Catholic Church, today, cares for one out of every four AIDS patients. One out of every four. If the bill remains unclear, this could potentially prohibit, could proscribe the funding of many of the initiatives of the Church, and I said earlier Muslim groups or Catholic Relief Services, which today cares for about 2 million people who are at risk or perhaps have been affected by AIDS, mostly in Africa but around the world as well. Two million by one Catholic agency alone We want inclusion. We want more people involved. I ask that this amendment be approved. This conscience protection is real and it would be impossible for anyone, at anytime to misconstrue Congressional intent. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), one of the sponsors of the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I just want to make it very clear, and I wish the gentlewoman had not gone the route of saying there is another motive here. The motive--my motive--is to say that there are a vast array of other people who are very competent in mitigating this crisis called AIDS, and maybe even ending it some day who are on the ground providing essential services as we speak. Others--if the wherewithal exists--will soon join them. I mentioned Catholic Relief Services earlier in the debate. Catholic Relief Services, today, provides HIV/AIDS services to 2 million people. They do it without a brass band or self promoting press releases and are very much underheralded. These saints who care for the afflicted are on the ground, village after village, heavily embedded in Africa, helping people with this horrible scourge and helping the people who are trying to cope with it and prevent it. Catholic Relief Services is made up of the most caring and compassionate people on earth. Let's hope they apply for more funding. I mentioned earlier the one case of a diocese, five dioceses in Uganda in the 1990s that had hoped to develop an AIDS plan with some funding augmented by the United States Government. And because the organization said they did not want to embrace the condom part, they were precluded from U.S. funding. So there is a real world tragedy and dark consequence as a direct result of not having an air-tight conscience clause. Again, we can fund condoms till the cows come home in this bill; but we are saying there are providers among the best an earth--the CRS--who are deeply respected in the community, with access to the at risk populations, yet who would not get funding without real conscience clause protection. Catholic and Muslim groups are the ones we are mostly talking about, and it seems to me that it is counterproductive in the extreme to everything we are trying to do here--to prevent their full participation. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, and with all due respect, and I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I would have to respectfully decline. Earlier we had spoken, and the gentleman had indicated he wanted to do a colloquy on identical language. The problem is the word ``undermine.'' If a group opposes a certain type of prevention such as condom use that could be construed in the eyes of someone who is making a grant or letting a grant, that organization should not get funded. The proposed Lantos language nullifies any conscience clause so I must reject it. Our hope with our amendment is that we empower the maximum army of volunteers and professional people to care and assist people who are at risk of HIV/AIDS as well as people who have already contracted this horrific disease. We should not limit our response to this crisis; we need to have a more flexible response. Be reminded, we are talking about grant money. So it is still up to the grantor--the United States Government--to decide whether or not the grant request that we are in receipt of meets the criteria in terms of what the project is all about, whether it be dealing with actual treatment of AIDS patients or hospice care or some prevention strategy or mother to child transmission initiatives. So with all due respect, I would have to decline.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay special tribute on the 10th anniversary of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. During the past decade, the institution and its dedicated staff members have worked tirelessly to promote remembrance of the Holocaust and to draw lessons for the future from this very dark chapter of mankind's recent history. When the Museum was dedicated and formally opened in late April 1993, this event culminated over 10 years of preparation that started in 1980 with the chartering of the institution by a unanimous Act of Congress. Recognizing the work of the Museum this week is very fitting, as it is the week of Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time for honoring the millions of Jews who died almost 60 years ago under Nazi tyranny. As set forth in its mission statement, the Holocaust Memorial Museum has become America's national institution for the documentation, study, and interpretation of Holocaust history, and is this country's memorial to the millions of people murdered during the Holocaust. The Museum and its International Archives Project focuses on all individuals who suffered during the Holocaust, in addition to the six million executed Jews, the horrific Nazi treatment of millions of Roma, disabled, religious and political prisoners, and prisoners of war. The Museum plays a critical role in advancing and disseminating information, documenting the historicity of the Holocaust, while also preserving the memory of individuals who suffered. While insuring that the lessons of the past will not be forgotten, the Museum has actively and creatively developed ways to work towards a better future. The institution's dedication to dealing with the horrors of genocide, whether in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Rwanda or Cambodia is a critical part of the effort to mobilize international action against this plague on all humanity. The Committee on Conscience plays a particularly significant role in bringing timely attention to acts of genocide or related crimes against humanity. The Museum has rightfully become one of Washington's most revered attractions. The hundreds of thousands of visitors who have toured the Museum since its opening have left with an unforgettable experience and the opportunity to reflect on the deep moral questions stemming from the tragedy of the Holocaust. The Museum's research center has served as a critical resource for scholars who try to help us better understand the lessons of this terrible chapter of human history. The creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has also encouraged other countries to move to establish comparable institutions including, most significantly, in Berlin, Germany. The U.S. Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, has worked with the Museum on several occasions, from pushing for the release of documents from the Romani concentration camp in Lety, Czech Republic, to urging Romania to give greater meaning to its stated commitment of rejecting anti-Semitism by removing Antonescu statues from public lands. In response to the alarming spike of anti-Semitic incidents found last summer in Europe, myself and other Members of the Commission have been very active in urging governments and elected officials to denounce the violence and ensure their laws are enabled to prosecute the perpetrators. In support of this effort, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 49, urging, among other things, European states to ``promote the creation of educational efforts throughout the region encompassing the participating States of the OSCE to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people, increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the necessary resources to accomplish this goal.'' It is my hope that other countries will copy the unique and effective model of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Congress has designated April 27th to May 4th as ``Days of Remembrance,'' when our nation will commemorate again the victims of the Holocaust. May we use this time of reflection that will reinforce our common determination to learn from history's harsh lessons.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce H.R. 1716, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act. Joining me as original cosponsors are Ranking Member Lane Evans, and the chairman and ranking member of the Benefits Subcommittee, Henry Brown and Michael Michaud, respectively.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 165, a resolution that calls for the rights of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to be protected. Most importantly, the resolution urges that steps be taken to resolve the longest unresolved conflict in Europe--the division of Cyprus. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I co- chair, has held several briefings over the last 18 months on the evolution of a hoped-for solution to the Cyprus impasse. The tone of these briefings varied from optimistic to skeptical. Those concerned about this problem were hopeful when United Nations Secretary General Koffi Annan put forth a proposed plan last November. After further discussions, Mr. Annan adapted the plan to encompass the concerns voiced by both sides of the conflict. Unfortunately, Mr. Rauf Denktash, leader of the Turkish Cypriots, failed to accept either the comprehensive settlement or the proposed referendum advanced by the Secretary General. Denktash's inability to find common ground with his fellow Cypriots from the Greek side keeps Cyprus divided. H. Res. 165 calls for the most logical resolution of the problem--let the people of Cyprus, whether they be Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots, determine their own fate at the ballot box. Tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots have demonstrated their support for this proposal in massive public marches. Many Turkish Cypriots are obtaining Republic of Cyprus passports in an attempt to move this process ahead. Mr. Denktash must heed the call of these times. The time for a single man to stand in the way of progress for an entire people, for an entire country, is past. I call on you, Mr. Denktash, to allow the referendum to be held now or step aside in the interest of your people and the prospect of reconciliation on the divided island nation of Cyprus!

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, along with Mr. Evans of Illinois, the Committee's Ranking Member, I am introducing a bill to strengthen the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) rights under law to recover the costs of providing medical care to veterans and other persons from certain third parties. A number of public health plans either refuse to reimburse VA, or are prohibited from doing so by current law. This bill would correct this problem by eliminating barriers to reimbursement for VA care. It is identical to a bill I introduced in the 107th Congress, H.R. 5530. That bill was referred exclusively to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 1715 is based upon the simple principle that acknowledges when VA provides medical care to an insured or Medicare-eligible veteran, VA should receive payment for the services it provides. This principle is not new. Since 1986, VA has had statutory authority to collect from traditional insurers such as Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Aetna, Mutual of Omaha and many others. These funds are used by VA to supplement appropriated funds to maintain high quality health care. VA also collects from so called ``Medi-gap policies'' that are an important adjunct to the Medicare program. But VA is unable to collect from the massive managed care sector, accounting now for over two-thirds of all health plans in the United States, including the managed care plans within Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. Nor can VA collect from the Medicare program. RAND Corporation has estimated that over 2 million Medicare-eligible veterans were enrolled in VA health care in fiscal year 2000, with that number increasing each fiscal year since then. My legislation would require these federal programs to pay VA for care it provides to covered beneficiaries. This would increase the amount of money VA could collect by hundreds of millions of dollars each year--providing funds that are desperately needed to reduce these intolerable waiting lists and promote better use of all available health care resources. This legislation will not limit the choices available to veterans in Medicare or any other federal health care plan, and I do believe it will create a modest incentive for veterans to remain enrolled in the VA rather than move back and forth between systems as they do now. This bill will also provide an important supplement to the VA health care system for the services it renders in caring for many of our nation's heroes. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense approach to improving veterans' health care, reducing waiting times for VA health care, and helping Medicare-eligible and other federally insured veterans gain better health care coverage from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill to repeal the four-year terms specified by law for certain officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and to add a provision that addresses the appointment of directors of principal geographic service areas. Fourteen years ago, when the Veterans Administration was established as an executive department and redesignated the Department of Veterans Affairs, Public Law 100-527 also established a Chief Medical Director (CMD), a Chief Benefits Director (CBD) and a Director of the National Cemetery Services (the Director). The CMD and the CBD were to be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, while the Director was to report to the Office of the Secretary. Subsequent laws further restated and reorganized the three key executive positions in the Department as the Under Secretaries for Health, Benefits and Memorial Affairs. Under current law, the Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits are appointed for four-year terms, with reappointment permissible for successive-like periods. There is no such restriction or term provision established in law for the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs. I am introducing H.R. 1718 to repeal term appointments for the Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits. This bill will align all three Under Secretary positions as Presidential appointments, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and allow the President maximum flexibility in the appointment of these primary executive positions. Current incumbents would not be affected by the enactment of this legislation. The President would also be required to notify Congress concerning the reasons for removal if the President should choose to terminate or remove one of the Under Secretaries of the Department. These term appointments likewise would be repealed for key officials assigned to the Office of the Under Secretary for Health, who are appointed by the Secretary subject to reassignment at the Secretary's discretion. With this bill, the designation of directors of principal geographic service areas are added to the group of key agency officials appointed by the Secretary and serving at the Secretary's discretion without term restrictions. As with the three under secretaries, H.R. 1718 requires that the Secretary notify the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House and Senate when one of these key officials is removed from one of these subsidiary positions. These officials may be entitled to reassignment, if they held a previous career position within the Department. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would allow the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs maximum flexibility to hold senior officials accountable and to align the agency's top leadership with the vision and goals of the Secretary and the Administration. I urge prompt House action on this important measure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. First of all, I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and all those Members who supported our efforts to provide higher funding for veterans benefits and services. It is important to note that the Nussle budget reflects an agreement on veterans spending that was reached before the House voted on the budget last March 21. Chairman Nussle honored his commitment, and he delivered. The budget includes new budget authority for veterans in fiscal year 2004 of $63.8 billion, a $6.2 billion increase in budget authority over 2003. Of that, $3.4 billion, or 12.9 percent, will be devoted to discretionary spending, the bulk of which is for medical care. It is important to note that every penny of that increase is justified by the compelling needs, the medical needs of our veterans. I would point out to my friend that, in a hearing I chaired earlier this year, Dr. Robert Roswell, who is the Under Secretary for Health, testified that we needed about 13 percent to take care of our core veteran population. This budget hits that number right on the mark. My colleagues can laugh all they want. It hits it right on the mark. I am also happy to point out that this budget, pursuant to the agreement before we voted on March 21, requires no cuts whatsoever in mandatory spending. Let me just remind my colleagues that the budget offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was $1.6 billion less in budget authority than the budget being presented on this floor today. So when I hear about veterans, I have been on that committee for 23 years, and this budget is good for veterans. And I would hope that Members would look at this and stop the rhetoric that is distortion and misrepresentation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce H.R. 1683, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2003. Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lane Evans, as well as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Benefits Subcommittee, Henry Brown and Michael Michaud, respectively, join me as original cosponsors of the bill. H.R. 1683 would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to veterans' benefits, effective December 1, 2003. The VA Committee periodically reviews the service-connected disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) programs to ensure that the benefits provide reasonable and adequate compensation for disabled veterans and their families. Based on this review, Congress acts annually to provide a cost-of-living adjustment in compensation and DIC benefits. Mr. Speaker, Congress has provided increases in these rates for every fiscal year since 1976. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget submission, as well as the House Budget Resolution, includes funding for an increase that is currently estimated to be 2.0 percent. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, since mid-March the Castro dictatorship has carried out a massive crackdown on human rights defenders, independent journalists, and trade unionists and other brave and noble pro-democracy activists throughout Cuba. Not satisfied with the ongoing torture and mistreatment and incarceration of approximately 400 political prisoners, Castro has begun a new, ominous, and shameful attack on another 80 of the best and brightest and most courageous of Cuba. Now, as we meet here today, his people and his thugs are beating, victimizing, and sentencing to very long prison sentences those who are the cream of the crop in Cuba, who believe in freedom and democracy. Castro, with all eyes diverted on Iraq and the war in Iraq, is trying to silence dissent with violence, ``show'' trials, and incarceration. This latest manifestation, Mr. Speaker, of cruelty by the Castro dictatorship is but another, but a highly significant other, reminder of the true character of this regime. It is cruel, brutal and an egregious violator of human rights. Mr. Speaker, Castro's brutal actions hopefully will serve as a wake- up call to those in the United States, especially those in the United States Congress who argue that it is time to lift the travel ban and sanctions against Cuba. I especially want to focus, Mr. Speaker, on those in the European Union who have been trading with the island country of Cuba for so many years without any linkage whatsoever to human rights. Trade, trade, trade, while this barbaric dictatorship gets worse and worse and worse. In previous Congresses, Mr. Speaker, I have offered an amendment to lift the travel ban, if and only if political prisoners are freed and felons who have committed acts of violence in the United States against U.S. police, including a trooper from the State of New Jersey, are brought to the U.S. in order to be held accountable. That amendment, sadly, lost. Now, today on the floor we are united in rhetoric and sentiment for those who are being incarcerated and mistreated. But we also need linkage, Mr. Speaker. We need to recognize that actions, and particularly those that are linked to trade and travel bans, can be very efficacious--actions always speak louder than our words. I call upon the European Union, Mr. Speaker, to engage the human rights abuses of Castro with something more than rhetoric. Members of the EU have been trading, as has Canada, for so many years. What have they gotten for it? Maybe they made a few bucks or a few Euros or a few Canadian dollars, but they have, however unwittingly, aided and abetted this brutal tyrant in horrific repression against his people. I urge strong support for the gentlewoman from Florida's (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) resolution, and I hope this is a wake-up call about what this regime is all about.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time and for his great work on behalf of this legislation, and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for his superb leadership in crafting this bill. I rise in strong support, Mr. Speaker, of the Clean Diamond Trade Act, a long overdue measure that will restore the U.S. in a leadership position in the fight against the trade in conflict diamonds. For too long, the international community has looked the other way as rebel groups have trafficked in the sale of lethal military weapons using the profits from the sale of these diamonds to finance efforts to overthrow legitimate governments. This bill will put in place the required laws and regulations designed to monitor and control the import and export of the trade in conflict diamonds so they can no longer be used to support instability and armed conflict throughout much of Africa and other parts of the world. By all accounts, they are aptly named conflict diamonds. During the past decade, more than 6 million people from Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been driven from their homes by wars waged in large part for control for diamond mining areas. I have met on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, with David Crane, the Sierra Leone Special War Crimes Prosecutor, who told me about ghastly war crimes committed in the name of diamond profits. Not only has the illegitimate trade of diamonds led to systematic and gross human rights violations and civil unrest, so too it has hurt the trade in legitimate diamonds, which makes a critical contribution to the economies of many developing countries. Numerous resolutions, Mr. Speaker, of the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, including resolutions 1173, 1295, 1306, and 1343, as well as a United Nations General Assembly resolution in 2000 have laid the groundwork for devising an international regime to stop the flow of these conflict diamonds. The first meeting, as I think Members know, to discuss this took place in Kimberly, South Africa, in May of 2000 at the initiative of the African producing countries. Many technical and working group meetings took place subsequent to that throughout Africa and Europe, culminating in the November 2002 meeting in Interlaken, Switzerland, finalizing the so-called Kimberly Process. This historic meeting committed all 48 participants, including the United States, to the rapid implementation of its diamond certification scheme for rough diamonds consistent with international trade rules. Fully consistent with the work of the diamond industry, including the World Diamond Council, numerous civil society representatives and key NGOs, the voluntary self-regulating initiatives from many producing importing countries have now been melded through the Kimberly Process into a global system of mutually recognized certificates for legitimate diamonds. Our own Nation's extensive participation in this effort, under the auspices of the State Department's special negotiator for conflict diamonds, is reflected in the measure before us today. The bill implements our obligations to prohibit the import or export of rough diamonds not controlled by the Kimberly Process. The bill specifies that the exporting authority under the bill will be the Bureau of the Census, and their role will be to issue the required regulations and guidelines to ensure that any proposed exports of rough diamonds be made through the automated export system. Any efforts to fully evaluate and enforce this system validating Kimberly Process Certificates would be undertaken by the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I would also point out to my colleagues that the legislation gives the State Department a lead role, together with the Treasury, in implementing the legislation. In this regard, the existing special negotiator for conflict diamonds in the Bureau for Economic and Business Affairs should continue to play a key role in this effort. Mr. Speaker, it is the expectation of the Committee on International Relations that it will be fully consulted by the Department to the extent it decides to take any action to modify this position in any way. It has been brought to my attention that a number of nongovernmental organizations who are taking an active role in monitoring the implementation of the Kimberly Process have expressed concerns that several countries, including the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe and the Central African Republic, have been admitted as participants in the certification scheme despite evidence of continued illegal trade in rough diamonds. I would ask the Department to examine this evidence and take any and all appropriate actions necessary to mitigate and stop this illegal activity. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I want to acknowledge and welcome the March 14th statement of the President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, pledging his commitment to religious freedom for all Georgians and promising the punishment of individuals complicit in mob attacks on religious minorities. (I am submitting the statement for the Record below.) President Shevardnadze made this pledge during an ecumenical service in Tbilisi's Evangelist-Baptist Cathedral Church, attended by leaders of the Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Baptist churches and many individuals from the diplomatic community. The U.S. Ambassador to Georgia, Richard Miles, also attended and addressed the gathering. Reportedly, so many people came that hundreds had to listen via loudspeakers in the churchyard. The service was initially planned for late January, but defrocked priest Basil Mkalavishvili and his crowd of thugs assaulted worshipers and clergy an hour before it was scheduled to begin--as they have been doing with impunity since 1999. Individuals were beaten as they tried to leave, with rocks and stones being reportedly thrown. While President Shevardnadze quickly condemned that attack, ordering the Interior Minister, the Prosecutor General, State Chancellery Head, and the Security Council Secretary to investigate and punish the perpetrators, no arrests or prosecutions followed. Despite Georgia's appalling record on religious tolerance for the last few years, I hope President Shevardnadze's speech at the Baptist church signals a new determination to arrest and aggressively prosecute the mob leaders and their henchmen. He promised that ``as the President of Georgia and a believer, I shall not restrict myself only to a mere expression of resentment. I do promise that the President and the Authorities of Georgia will do their utmost to grant every person freedom of expression of faith.'' Driving home the point further, Mr. Shevardnadze declared, ``the state will exert its pressure on whoever comes in defiance of this principle. You may stand assured that the aggressors will be brought to justice.'' As Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, over the past three years I have watched with increasing alarm the escalation of mob violence. On September 24th I chaired a Commission hearing focused on this disturbing pattern. The Jehovah's Witnesses have borne the brunt of attacks, along with Baptists, Pentecostals, Adventists and Catholics. Most disheartening has been the government's indifference; victims throughout the country have filed approximately 800 criminal complaints, without one criminal conviction. Despite a series of statements by President Shevardnadze, Georgia's Minister of Interior and Prosecutor General appear unwilling to effectively enforce the rule of law, refusing to arrest mob leaders like Mkalavishvili and Paata Bluashvili and not attempting serious prosecutions. For example, the trial of Mkalavishvili has dragged on for more than a year, without a single piece of evidence considered yet. I would hope the provision of adequate and visible security, which took months to organize, will continue and that the prosecutor will begin his case shortly. Also, the inauguration of trial proceedings against Bluashvili in Rustavi is positive; I trust the delays and shenanigans seen in Mkalavishvili's trial will not be repeated there. I also urge the Government of Georgia to arrest and detain Mkalavishvili, Bluashvili and other indicted persons who continue to perpetrate violent criminal acts against religious minorities. Undoubtedly, President Shevardnadze's presence at the March 14th service and his statement illustrate his personal commitment to religious tolerance and basic law and order. Yet, while I appreciate his gesture, it is time for real action. If the attacks are allowed to continue, it will only become more difficult to rein in this mob violence. If presidential orders are repeatedly ignored, it will only further weaken the government's ability to enforce the rule of law. And, of course, we must not forget the plight of minority religious communities that continue to live in a state of siege, without any real protection from their government. Ironically, it appears that minorities religious communities are freer to profess and practice their faith in regions of Georgia not under the control of President Shevardnadze's government. In closing, I urge President Shevardnadze to fulfill his most recent commitment to punish the aggressors, thereby restoring Georgia's international reputation and upholding its international commitments as a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. I and other Members of Congress are acutely interested in seeing whether the Government of Georgia will actually arrest the perpetrators of violence and vigorously prosecute them. Representatives of all Religions and Nations have to Raise Prayers for Peace Together My dear friends, Christians, dear Ambassadors: I am here to give utterance to my contentment and admiration, which derives from seeing you, all Christians, or, to be more precise, representatives of all Christian folds, assembled here, under the same roof of this temple, in the capital of Georgia famed as the Virgin's lot. I am happy to be a witness to this occurrence. I am happy because you are together, because we are together. But all of us have our own faith. I am an Orthodox believer, but we are all Christians. It is what we should always bear in mind and keep intact this wholeness and unity. Georgia is one of those countries on the planet whose roots go back the farthest in history. Tolerance has become particularly entrenched in its history and nature since the days we embraced Christianity. Christ granted that we be together. And more than this: Georgia is a multinational country, where Muslims and followers of other confessions have dwelt along with Christians in the course of centuries. We live presently in a world of stark contradictions. It remains anybody's guess when a bomb may blast. You probably understand what I mean. Therefore, we should pray for peace, and these prayers should be raised by all of us: Christians, Muslims, representatives of every religion, confession and nation. But prayers alone will not keep us together. We have also to struggle, in order that, through our benevolence, faith, love and respect to one another, we may put up resistence to the eradicating processes of which I already made a mention. As was customary with my great ancestors, I go to an Orthodox church. But nor do I keep distance from synagogues, mosques or churches of different Christian confessions. I feel respect for all who have confident belief in kindness and its victory. I am happy to see, along with Georgian citizens, the attendance of the distinguished ambassadors and diplomats accredited in Georgia, who have come this evening to share our happiness. I cannot but express a deep sense of regret, even resentment at the gross infringement of our unity, mutual respect and freedom of faith by some of the aggressors. As the President of Georgia and a believer, I shall not restrict myself only to a mere expression of resentment. I do promise that the President and the Authorities of Georgia will do their utmost to grant every person freedom of expression of faith. The state will exert its pressure on whoever comes in defiance of this principle. You may stand assured that the aggressors will be brought to justice. I would like to greet you once more and wish you happiness and advancement of goals. So as with Georgia, a multinational country of various religious confessions, my wishes are for joy, happiness and prosperity.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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.R. 1208, the bill that is now under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1208) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 of United States contributions to the International Fund for Ireland, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me begin by thanking our leadership, beginning with the leadership on the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and for the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for scheduling this very, very important piece of legislation for House consideration. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1208, the Northern Ireland Peace and Reconciliation Act of 2003, reauthorizes U.S. contributions to the International Fund for Ireland and reaffirms our government's commitment to fostering peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Historically, the United States has helped advance the peace process in Northern Ireland through several avenues. Since 1997, for example, we have had hearings in the Committee on International Relations, as well as in the Helsinki Commission; as a matter of fact, I chaired seven of those hearings, examining the root causes of the violence in Northern Ireland and the need to secure due process rights and fundamental freedoms for both sides of the divide. The Congress has also adopted several bills promoting human rights, police reform, and the elimination of job discrimination in Northern Ireland. In addition, we have provided critical economic support through the International Fund for Ireland. Created in 1986 by the British and Irish Governments, the IFI is an independent, international organization with two primary objectives: First, it is designed to promote economic and social advance in Northern Ireland; and secondly, the IFI is charged with fostering contact, dialogue, and reconciliation between Unionists and Nationalists throughout Ireland. I would point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that the United States, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand are all donor countries to the fund. To date, the United States has provided more than $380 million to the fund, and the economic results have been impressive. A recent report conducted by a consortium of independent consultants led by KPMG catalogued the following achievements of the IFI: One, 4,400 business projects have been supported, helping to create more than 37,500 jobs. Secondly, more than 10,000 young people from the most disadvantaged parts and areas of North and South have participated in the Wider Horizons Program, which brings people together, ages 18 to 28, to work camps where they receive training and improvement in their employment prospects. Overall, 91 percent of the fund's commitments have been to projects in designated disadvantaged areas, and more than 120 strategic alliances have been supported between businesses in Northern Ireland and the border counties and businesses elsewhere in Europe and North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Mr. Speaker, these statistics are impressive, they are tangible, but there is much more to the success of the International Fund for Ireland. It is called the peace dividend. Each day, in disadvantaged and troubled areas of Northern Ireland, the IFI is at work bringing Catholics and Protestants together at jobs and job training sites. Working side by side, people who traditionally had no contact with each other are now communicating and learning a little bit more about who their neighbors are. They share an interest and investment in their community and new bonds have been developed where they never existed before. It is also important to note that when people have solid jobs, they are less likely to get caught up in the sectarian strife that has tragically plagued this region. By focusing on the regeneration of impoverished neighborhoods where unemployment is the highest, the fund helps direct young Catholics and Protestants to job training and employment opportunities instead of gangs and paramilitary organizations. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I believe, and Members of this Congress believe that justice and sustainable peace will come about in Northern Ireland not merely through the political discussions of a few leaders, but the efforts to change the hearts and minds of individuals. This is a core part of the mission and underlying purpose of the International Fund for Ireland, bringing about peace by bringing together men and women from disparate backgrounds and disparate religious denominations and a successful economic environment. Indeed, the future is brighter in Northern Ireland in large part because of a new working relationship that has been forged with the economic help of the IFI. Mr. Speaker, on the political side, progress indeed is being made in Northern Ireland. We all know it and celebrate it. I recently returned from a human rights mission to Belfast and to Northern Ireland and I am pleased to report that much has changed from my last trip in 1997 and much significant change, dramatic change has occurred over the last decade. There are now many signs of hope. Sections of Northern Ireland have experienced substantial economic growth and, as a result of the restored cease-fire of 1997 and the Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998, both communities in the North are working hard to obtain a just and lasting peace and to secure local democratic government. Regrettably, the process is not without obstacles. Last October, the British Government suspended the Northern Ireland Assembly. Policing reform and criminal justice review, demilitarization, and the completion of decommissioning are among the issues that still need to be resolved. However, in recent weeks, let me point out to my colleagues, there has been a renewed and concerted effort by the British and Irish Governments to address these issues, to bring the major political parties together, and to find a way forward before new elections are held in May. H.R. 1208 ensures that the IFI will continue to benefit from U.S. contributions and continue to do its good work for peace and for reconciliation. The bill provides a $50 million amount over the next 2 years. It also encourages the IFI to develop new ways to promote reconciliation in the North. In particular, we are hoping that the IFI will look even more closely at programs aimed at enhancing intercommunity relations, community relations with the new police service, and programs that promote and ensure fundamental human rights. For example, the legislation specifically urges the IFI to do more work to enhance relations between the police and the communities they serve through promoting human rights training and enhancing the new district police partnership police boards recommended by the Patten Commission. It also encourages a fund to assist in the transition of former British military sites into venues for housing, retail, and other community-supported uses. Again, I want to thank my colleagues who helped work for and support the final passage of this legislation, especially the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) from the Committee on International Relations who have all lent their strong support to this legislation, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). All are longtime supporters of the Northern Ireland peace process and are true friends of the people of Northern Ireland and of Ireland itself. I would like to note that the text we are considering today contains a technical amendment to reflect progress the IFI is making towards using funds for specific reconciliation projects and, again, I hope that Members will support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his longstanding leadership on behalf of peace and justice and fairness in Northern Ireland. He has been indefatigable over these many years, and he continues to be. I would thank him for his leadership and remind my colleagues of the importance of trying to get the IFI to look further into reconciliation projects and police reform projects. As I indicated earlier, we have had seven hearings on police reform in Northern Ireland with a focus on what the United States can do to try to foster that, so there is total transparency, and the best type of methods used by police with human rights training being part of that. It has become very clear that this would help to advance that kind of understanding between the two communities. Those barriers need to be broken down. We do it by getting both communities working together. We are, I think, or many of us, very encouraged that Hugh Orde is the new chief constable. He replaces a man that many of us had very serious disagreements with in the past, and our hope is that he will continue and even accelerate the pace of reform. This helps to build under him additional strong Earth and concrete, and a base for him to go forward. This bill has worked; this law has worked; and the IFI, the International Fund for Ireland, has worked for many years to foster reconciliation. This bill gives it an additional push and would provide $25 million authorization for each of the next 2 years. Again, I want to thank all Members for their support. It is a bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, while the world's eyes were focused on the momentous events taking place in Iraq, a constitutional referendum was held in the war-torn region of Chechnya. The referendum was held as part of the Russian Government's attempt to ``normalize'' the situation in that tortured part of Russia's North Caucasus. For the last ten years, Chechnya has been the scene of a bloody war between armed Chechen rebels and Russian military forces. Hostilities were precipitated in late 1994 when, in the wake of Chechnya's attempt to secede from the Russian Federation, Russian military forces launched a fullscale assault on the Chechen capital of Grozny. There was a restive peace from 1996 until the summer of 1999, when the armed clashes erupted anew. The roots of this conflict go back to Tsarist conquests in the 19th century and Stalin's brutal deportation of the Chechen people to Central Asia during World War II. Unfortunately, certain radical Islamic militant elements linked to international terrorism have become involved on the Chechen side, though the State Department has stressed that not all Chechens are terrorists. Despite Moscow's repeated claims that heavy-handed Russian tactics in Chechnya are part of the war against global terrorism, the situation is far more complex. Many Chechens have taken up arms against what they believe is a repressive colonial power and wish to see Chechnya as an independent state that will be able to make the critical choice regarding the future of its people. As is so frequently the case, the civilian population has suffered terribly from the war. While both sides are guilty of violations of international humanitarian law, the Russian military and special operations units have been responsible for numerous and well-documented instances of gratuitous, brutal and mass violence against the civilian population. During my years in the leadership of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Commission has conducted eight hearings and briefings on Chechnya. Witnesses, including a nurse who was present in a Chechen town where some of the worst atrocities by Russian forces took place, have described the appalling fate of the civilian population. According to the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2001, ``The indiscriminate use of force by government troops in the Chechen conflict resulted in widespread civilian casualties and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons, the majority of whom sought refuge in the neighbouring republic of Ingushetia. Attempts by government forces to regain control over Chechnya were accompanied by the indiscriminate use of air power and artillery. There were numerous reports of attacks by government forces on civilian targets, including the bombing of schools and residential areas.'' The report continues: ``Command and control among military and special police units often appeared to be weak, and a climate of lawlessness, corruption, and impunity flourished, which fostered individual acts by government forces of violence and looting against civilians.'' Among the examples of such lawlessness and impunity in the Country Reports were ``. . . reports of mass graves and `dumping grounds' for victims allegedly executed by Russian forces in Chechnya'' and ``cleansing'' operations directed against guerrillas but resulting in deaths and the disappearance of non-combatants. The State Department points out that Chechen forces also committed serious abuses: ``According to unconfirmed reports, rebels killed civilians who would not assist them, used civilians as human shields, forced civilians to build fortifications, and prevented refugees from fleeing Chechnya. In several cases, elderly Russian civilians were killed for no apparent reason other than their ethnicity.'' Against this unsettling backdrop, with an estimated 100,000 internally displaced persons living in refugee camps in neighbouring Ingushetia, and under the guns of approximately 80,000 Russian soldiers in Chechnya, the Chechen people have reportedly voted overwhelmingly for the proposed new constitution. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that a genuine assessment of the public will would have been determined under such circumstances. I would ask the same question I asked in a Helsinki Commission press release over a month ago: ``Are we supposed to believe that this referendum will stabilize Chechnya while armed conflict between the Russian military and Chechen fighters continue to produce death and destruction?'' The well-respected Russian human rights group, Memorial, has charged that Chechens were pressured to vote with the threat of losing their pensions or humanitarian aid. A joint assessment mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe stated that ``no group has been able to campaign officially against the referendum in the mass media or distribute literature arguing against the referendum,'' although some opposition opinions were voiced in the media. Incidentally, in the concluding communique of the 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit, the Russian Government agreed that all sides should seek a political solution to the conflict, and avail themselves of the assistance of the OSCE. This commitment was seriously undermined when the Russian government evicted the OSCE Assistance Mission to Chechnya at the end of last year. Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration has stated that ``. . . we hope [the referendum] can be the basis for a political solution to that tragic conflict.'' I find that rather optimistic. The Russian Government might better instruct its military to stop terrorizing the civilian population, prosecute human rights violators and rebuild Chechnya. Then perhaps it would not have to hold referenda in Chechnya under armed guard.