Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the prime sponsor of H.R. 3253, as amended, I rise to urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation that will expand the role of the Department of Veterans Affairs in homeland security. It may come as a surprise to many that the Department of Veterans Affairs operates the world's largest integrated health care network, with over 200,000 health care professionals, 163 medical centers, more than 800 outpatient clinics, 115 medical research programs, affiliations with over 100 schools of medicine, and a $25 billion budget annually. Dedicated to providing health care to America's military veterans, the VA is now the Federal Government's leading provider of direct medical services, with over 4.5 million patients treated last year. From providing top-quality medical care to veterans to performing comprehensive cutting-edge research, such as for prosthetics and Alzheimer's disease, the VA health care system has become a unique national resource and a unique national treasure. That is why we fought so hard to increase its health care budget for next year. With bipartisan support from our committee and with the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle); the conference Chair, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts); the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey); and our distinguished Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), I am pleased to say that the budget that passed the House increased the VA discretionary health care funding by a record $2.8 billion for next year. However, there are still too many people who do not understand the capabilities of the VA health care system. I know from extensive research and from personal experience during the anthrax crisis that the VA is ready, willing, and able to play a significant role in homeland security; but it is often overlooked. When my post office in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, was attacked with anthrax, and is still closed, and many of the postal employees, in excess of 1,400 postal employees, were at risk of contracting that horrible disease, they were advised to take Cipro. The VA was there as a backup, ready to provide that life saving antibiotic. When I brought the VA's capabilities to the attention of the health commissioner. In New Jersey he was unaware of this important resource. I say with all respect to him, that this was a resource he could count on. And it should not be that way. The VA should be much more integrated, and the knowledge of what the VA can do must be more widely utilized. The Cipro was finally made available. Thankfully, at the last minute, the CDC came through and we were able to provide Cipro, which was lifesaving to so many. But, Mr. Speaker, the VA health care system must be an integral component of any homeland security strategy, especially on matters of biological, chemical, and radiological threats and terrorism. In fact, the VA today does have some defined roles in both the National Disaster Medical System and the Federal Response Plan in the event of national emergencies. Among the VA's current specialized duties are conducting and evaluating disaster and terrorist attack simulation exercises; managing the Nation's stockpile for pharmaceuticals of biological and chemical toxins; maintaining a rapid response team for radiological releases; and training public and private EMS medical center personnel around the country and properly responding to biological, chemical, and radiological disasters. Yet despite the VA's capacity and unique capabilities, their experience and their expertise in public health matters, it is almost routinely overlooked when it comes to discussions of homeland security, even those concerning bioterrorism, which is, I believe, just plain foolish and counterproductive. Mr. Speaker, in the administration's budget submission, almost $6 billion was requested to address bioterrorism, including $2.4 billion for additional research; yet not $1 was earmarked for the Veterans Administration. A month ago, I would just say parenthetically, we asked Tom Ridge to come and appear before our committee. He used to be a member. And like he has with all the other committees, he declined to come. But he too needs to be more aware of the VA's unique capabilities in this terrorism war. In fact, when we look at the administration's latest strategy document on homeland security, which can be found on their Web page, the VA is not even mentioned once. The VA can and must be asked to do more. That is why I introduced H.R. 3253, the legislation pending before the House. H.R. 3253 will create four national medical preparedness centers to be operated by the VA, with at least one concentrating on biological threats, at least one on chemical, and one on radiological threats. In coordination with DOD, Health and Human Services, FEMA, CDC, the NIH, and other agencies or organizations with appropriate expertise, these centers would research and develop new methods to detect, diagnose, vaccinate, and treat potential victims of chemical, biological, and radiological terrorism. The centers would serve both as direct research centers and as coordinating centers for ongoing and promising new research at other government agencies and research universities. Furthermore, these centers would serve as training resources for thousands of community hospitals that would be first responders to future bioterrorism attacks. Let me also point out that when anthrax hit my area, I was amazed, I was deeply dismayed that there was no protocol that could be taken off the shelf to prescribe what the course that ought to be followed in the event this happened. CDC was flying by the seat of their collective pants. Some very good scientists from CDC and other government agencies were deployed to New Jersey, and I sat in on some of those meetings. At first, they said no cross-contamination can occur. And I said, have you ever seen an envelope go through the processing machines? It is almost a violent procedure as it makes its way through. If you put a highly refined powder, in this case a weapons grade anthrax powder, surely a cloud of dust containing those harmful contaminants are likely to escape. Turns out, they did. A couple of weeks later, we found that other post offices were contaminated as well. Four of our area post offices were ``hot'' with Anthrax. My point? The experts need to move effectively work this issue, and we need to do it well in advance of any future contamination. Again, when we look at the threats that are possible--perhaps probable, and how do we deal with them, how do the first responders deal with them, the question arise as to whether we have worked with the kind of focus that will protect first responders, employees and then the public at large. Finally, let me just say that the centers would be charged with establishing state-of-the-art labs to help local health care authorities quickly determine the presence of dangerous biological and chemical toxins such as anthrax. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that H.R. 3253 calls for the cost of these new centers to be taken from additional funds provided to combat terrorism and not from already hard-pressed VA health care dollars. Mr. Speaker, there is ample precedent and experience within the VA for undertaking this expanded mission. The VA's extensive medical research programs are renowned for expertise in diagnosing and treating viral diseases with devastating health consequences, such as groundbreaking work on HIV and hepatitis C. Just a couple months ago, Dr. Karl Hostetler and his VA colleagues in San Diego announced significant progress has been made on a new oral treatment for smallpox, one of the most deadly bio-terror threats confronting the world today. Furthermore, the VA already operates two war-related illness centers tasked with developing specialized treatments for illnesses and injuries related to combat. In essence, these new national medical preparedness centers would work similarly to study illnesses and injuries most likely to come from a terrorist attack and develop new treatments and protocols to mitigate their dangers. H.R. 3253 also contains important provisions from H.R. 3254, legislation authored by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), to require the VA to work with military physicians to develop and disseminate education and training programs on the medical responses to the consequences of terrorist activities. Under this provision, the VA would also disseminate training programs to health professions, students, graduate medical education trainees, and active health practitioners. H.R. 3253 also contains an internal organizational provision proposed by the VA to add an additional Assistant Secretary for preparedness, security and law enforcement functions. Mr. Speaker, in the ongoing war on terrorism, America must take every precaution to protect our citizens from all dangers and especially from biological, chemical, and radiological threats. H.R. 3253 is just one way, I think it is an important way, to use the existing strength of the VA in homeland security while continuing to meet its primary mission of providing care to our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4514, as amended, the Veterans' Major Medical Facilities Construction Act of 2002. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee for authoring this very important piece of legislation. H.R. 4514, as amended, Mr. Speaker, would authorize $285 million in major medical appropriations for 10 construction projects at VA health care facilities, and would also authorize a capital lease at the VA outpatient clinic in Charlotte, North Carolina. At the outset, let me remind my colleagues that we included funding in the budget resolution that was approved in March to cover the costs of this much-needed construction. Mr. Speaker, last year this body passed H.R. 811, the Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act, to provide emergency funding to VA health care and research facilities for repairs and renovations. H.R. 811 would have provided $550 million over 2 years to make needed repairs at the VA hospitals where patient safety could be compromised, such as for seismic dangers. Under that legislation, the decision of which projects would be funded was left to the Secretary with the advice of an expert panel. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Senate has not acted on this measure and as a consequence, VA's health care infrastructure continues to deteriorate, which is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, a recent PriceWaterhouse study estimated that the physical assets of the VA were worth more than $35 billion and that normal replacement, repair and nonrecurring expenses of such a large infrastructure should normally be between 2 and 4 percent annually, for a total of between $700 million and $1.4 billion per year. We are nowhere near that. As a matter of fact, we have not been doing any of that for the last several years, or at least not much of it. It would be irresponsible to allow such a massive and valuable national asset as the VA health care system to decline for want of care. Since the Senate has not moved on our 2-year authorization, I am so glad and pleased that our chairman has decided to step up to the plate and offer this important legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4015) to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise and improve employment, training, and placement services furnished to veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentlewoman from California, the amendment that she offers, if enacted, will result in babies being brutally killed by abortion and will force pro-life Americans to facilitate the slaughter of innocent children. This is an abortion facilitation amendment. It will turn our military hospitals into abortion mills. Mr. Chairman, it is time we ended our collective denial. Abortion is violence against children. Some abortion methods dismember and rip apart the fragile, precious bodies of children. Abortion methods also chemically poison children. There is nothing benign, there is nothing curing or nurturing about abortion. It is violence against children. We worry a lot about chemical weapons, especially in the post-anthrax scare that we had, which actually affected my own district. What do my colleagues think these abortion chemicals do to children when they are injected into the amniotic sac? A high-concentrated saline badly burns the baby. It is violence against children. Let us be about nurturing, promoting prenatal care and maternal health care, not the killing of babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, next year the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs will spend over $40 billion combined on health care for current or former military personnel and their families. Despite this enormous sum, despite the fact that this year under the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the discretionary spending, the health care spending will increase just for VA alone by $2.8 billion, there is still not enough to meet the growing demand. The bipartisan amendment that I offer today on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), is designed to provide additional resources to both health care systems by providing sharing agreements between the Department of Defense and the VA. Mr. Chairman, while statutory authority to allow resource sharing has existed for more than 20 years, as a matter of fact, the legislation was enacted during my first term 21 years ago, the latest figures tell us that the level of sharing between the VA and the DOD remains extremely low, almost a joke, accounting for less than 1 percent of their combined health care budgets. The Federal Government can and must do more to increase resource sharing whenever and wherever feasible. Our amendment accomplishes that by providing additional incentives and putting additional pressure on both the Department of Defense and the VA to move forward with common- sense, practical steps to increase the level of resource sharing between these two massive health care systems. Under our amendment, the VA and DOD would establish at least 5 health care resource sharing projects at locations where both have significant medical facilities. These projects would, to the extent feasible, adopt a new management system to look at ways to eliminate differences between the budget, health care provider assignment, and medical inpatient information systems. The amendment would also establish a permanent joint committee in the Departments of Defense and VA to provide stronger strategic direction and oversight of sharing initiatives and would authorize $30 million over each of the next 3 years to reward sharing innovations. Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. This amendment will not in any way compromise the quality or variety of care available to military veterans, military personnel or their families, or the veterans as well. It will expand health care services, because any savings that are achieved will be reinvested locally so that those benefits will accrue at the local level. Mr. Chairman, I do have a much longer statement, but let me just finally say that this is backed by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the VFW, American Legion, and the DAV. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members will support the amendment, and I herewith submit for the Record letters of support for this amendment from the organizations I referred to earlier: The American Legion, Washington, DC, May 8, 2002. Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 2.8 million members of The American Legion, I would like to express our full support for the Department of Defense (DoD)--Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Resources Sharing and Performance Improvement Act of 2002. The initiatives outlined in this bill would improve health care access for veterans and DoD beneficiaries by authorizing the sharing of health resources between DoD medical treatment facilities and VA health care facilities. The American Legion recognizes the benefits from current sharing agreements between DoD and VA health care facilities and the potential gains from additional efforts. Clearly, there are multiple venues for sharing agreements that will augment services, build on the respective strengths of the participants and improve overall health care for all DoD and VA beneficiaries. The American Legion has long supported the goal of improving the quality and access of health care through the sharing and coordination of VA-DoD health care resources. This bill is a solid first step toward achieving that goal. Once again, The American Legion fully supports the DoD-VA Health Resources Sharing and Performance Improvement Act of 2002. The American Legion appreciates your continued leadership in addressing the issues that are important to veterans, members of the Armed Forces, and their families. Sincerely, Steve A. Robertson, Director, National Legislative Commission.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the murder of Ukrainian investigative journalist Heorhiy Gongadze remains unsolved. On September 16, 2000, Gongadze, editor of an Internet news publication critical of official, high-level corruption in Ukraine, disappeared. Seven weeks later, his remains were found in Tarashcha in the Kyiv region. Repeated expressions of concern to the Government of Ukraine have been met with stonewalling. Over the last 18 months, the Helsinki Commission, Members of the House and Senate, the Department of State, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and other international institutions repeatedly have raised this case and urged President Kuchma and the Ukrainian Government to undertake a speedy, serious, open and transparent investigation into the Gongadze murder case. Back in December of 2000, 1 urged Ukrainian authorities to resolve this grave matter in a timely and just manner before the case further tarnished their credibility in dealing with fundamental human rights. Last July, a number of us were present at the Paris OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting, where Gongadze's widow Myroslava accepted the OSCE PA Prize for Journalism and Democracy on his behalf. A resolution adopted by the OSCE PA in Paris expressed dismay ``that the criminal investigation into the murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze has been obstructed by authorities and has not been carried out in accordance with the rule of law.'' Last month, Ukrainian authorities blocked FBI experts from examining evidence gathered during the initial investigation. The Bureau had been invited by Ukrainian authorities to advise and assist in the investigation of the case and earlier had participated in identifying Gongadze's remains. Over the last year, Ukrainian prosecutors routinely cited their request for assistance from the FBI as evidence that they were working diligently to solve the murder. According to a statement released by the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, the four FBI experts were told that Ukrainian law prohibits prosecutors from releasing any information to them. They were ``unable to discuss any aspects of the case, share evidence or conduct a joint site inspection. Because of this, the FBI team could not provide suggestions that might help Ukrainian law enforcement authorities advance the investigation of the murder of Mr. Gongadze.'' This lack of cooperation after promises to accept the U. S. technical assistance--is an indication of bad faith on the part of the Ukrainian authorities. This is only the latest example which seriously questions the Ukrainian authorities' commitment to resolving this case and has led many to conclude that the Procurator General's office is hampering the investigation into Gongadze's death. Particularly telling was the Procuracy's initially casting doubt on the results of a DNA test reported in February 2001, which determined with a 99.6 percent probability that the body exhumed from a shallow grave in Tarashcha was, indeed, that of Gongadze. The Procurator General, Mykhaylo Potebenko, who recently announced he would resign to become a Member of Parliament from the Communist Party, has also been uncooperative with Gongadze's widow and mother, even after the court gave them status that legally permitted them access to details of the investigation. An assessment of the case last year by Freimut Duve, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of Media, found that the investigation into Gongadze's disappearance has been ``extremely unprofessional.'' It is high time for the Ukrainian authorities to mount a serious, transparent investigation into this case as well as the cases of other murdered journalists. Since 1998, 11 journalists have been killed in Ukraine and 48 severely injured in unexplained attacks, according to Reporters Without Borders. Over the last year, several international bodies have called on Ukrainian authorities to launch a fresh investigation into the disappearance and death of Mr. Gongadze and other journalists and to allow for an independent investigation or to set up a new independent commission of inquiry comprised of international investigators. I also hope that the newly elected Ukrainian parliament will take aggressive action in encouraging governmental accountability for solving the murder and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Mr. Speaker, on March 31, Ukraine held parliamentary elections. Despite governmental interference in the campaign and abuse of state resources, the Ukrainian electorate showed a strong independent streak with a strong pro-democratic, pro-European orientation. A substantial portion of the Ukrainian people clearly want change--they want to live in a country where democracy and human rights are honored and where the rule of law prevails. The United States remains committed to encouraging these yearnings. The U. S. Government is the largest bilateral donor in Ukraine, and American companies still are the largest investors in Ukraine. We are deeply engaged with Ukraine in military and security issues, educational exchanges, small business, agriculture, energy, and the development of civil society. American engagement with Ukraine is a testament to the importance that we attach to U.S.--Ukraine relations. However, the level of U.S. engagement is increasingly being questioned, in part because of the obstructionist actions of the authorities concerning the Gongadze case, the curtailing of media freedoms, the persistent debilitating problem of corruption and, most recently, troubling allegations that President Kuchma may have authorized the clandestine sale of the Kolchuga radar system to Iraq in violation of LJN sanctions. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I once again urge in the strongest possible terms Ukrainian authorities to take seriously the concerns regarding the circumstances that led to the Gongadze murder and the subsequent investigation. His widow, young children, and mother deserve better. The Ukrainian people deserve better.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise again, as we do at this time every year, to commemorate those who lost their lives, their families, and their livelihood in the Armenian genocide. That terrible tragedy, perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and afterwards, marked the first of the 20th century's state-ordered genocides against a minority group. Traditionally, Armenians everywhere have set apart April 24 to mark the genocide in solemn remembrance. For friends of Armenians, this is an occasion to express solidarity with the worldwide Armenian community. We mourn the dead and express our condolences to their living descendants. On this occasion, we reflect upon the meaning and lessons of their suffering and sacrifice. Surely the most basic lesson we should have learned from Armenia's catastrophe is elementary courtesy towards the truth in the face of horror. It is always better to build the future on a foundation of transparency, honesty and reconciliation about the past. We should not, we must not, shrink from the correct term to characterize what happened. I appreciated very much Governor George W. Bush's statement in February 2000 when he said, ``The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity.'' In a letter to the President last year, I noted my support for his ``principled stand on the issue [which was] a welcome change from previous practice.'' Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate this appalling tragedy of last century resulting in the massacre of ``as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile and murder'', let us not shy away from using the correct term: genocide. I do agree with the President's statement yesterday ``recognizing that demonizing others lays the foundation for a dark cycle of hatred. Transcending this venomous pattern requires painful introspection about the past and wise determination to forge a new future based on truth and reconciliation. In this spirit, I look forward to Turkey restoring economic, political, and cultural links with Armenia.'' Mr. Speaker, next year, we will mark this somber anniversary once again. Let us hope that Armenians and their friends all over the world will take some solace in the vision of Armenia living in peace with her neighbors and in prosperity and impressing the world with the spiritual and material products of the unbreakable Armenian spirit.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and a deep sense of solemnity that I introduce, along with Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, a resolution to bestow honorary citizenship posthumously upon a man whose contribution to world peace and the struggle for human rights inspired, and continues to inspire, his own generation and those who have followed him. That man is the late Dr. Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, renowned physicist, humanitarian, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Dr. Sakharov was a man of great stature in the Soviet scientific community, working on defense projects of the greatest importance to the Soviet government. His induction into the Academy of Sciences in 1953 made him the youngest-ever member of the Academy. He enjoyed every privilege that Soviet society had to offer, but he abandoned his elevated position to protest the threat to humankind posed by nuclear testing and the build up of nuclear arms. This led to Dr. Sakharov's becoming a leader of the effort for internal reform in the Soviet Union and a strong advocate for human rights throughout the world. In 1962, Dr. Sakharov proposed to his government that the Soviet Union sponsor a partial Test Ban treaty along the lines proposed by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower in the late 1950s. On August 5, 1963, the effort resulted in the signing of the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water in Moscow. In 1968, The New York Times published Dr. Sakharov's ground-breaking essay ``Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom'' which pursued two major themes. The first was to challenge Soviet authorities to increase intellectual freedom in the interest of peaceful co-existence with the West and ending the Cold War. Conversely, it stimulated Western interest in disarmament and scientific exchanges, and convinced many opinion-makers in the West that it was worth entering into a dialogue with Soviet intellectuals and that change from within was possible in the USSR. Ultimately, more than 18,000,000 copies of the essay were printed around the world in various languages. Within two years, Dr. Sakharov, along with Valery Chalidze and Andrei Tverdokhlebov, became one of the three founding members of the Moscow Human Rights Committee. This gave institutional expression to Sakharov's developing interest in human rights and the rule of law as guiding principles in the effort to reform and liberalize the Soviet regime. When the Helsinki Accords were signed in 1975 by the Soviet Union, the United States, Canada and 32 European countries, he noted that the Accords had meaning ``only if [the Accords] are observed fully and by all parties. No country should evade a discussion on its own domestic problems * * * [n]or should a country ignore violations in other participating states. The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.'' As he became more committed to the human fights struggle in his country and peace throughout the world, Dr. Sakharov continued to speak out on peace and disarmament, as well as freedom of association and movement, freedom of speech, against capital punishment, and in defense of preserving the environment. Such ``heresy'' against his government's denial of basic human rights brought upon him reprisals from the Soviet government and its secret police, the KGB. He was barred from classified work, and many of his professional privileges rescinded. Only after a 17-day hunger strike by Dr. Sakharov and his wife and fellow human rights activist, Dr. Elena Bonner, did authorities allow his daughter-in-law to join her husband in the United States. Only after another long struggle was Dr. Bonner permitted to go abroad for medical treatment. At the same time, the international community was closely following his efforts, understanding that his struggle touched us all. In 1975, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Dr. Sakharov for his ``personal and fearless effort in the cause of peace.'' It was, Dr. Sakharov wrote, ``a great honor for me, as well as recognition for the entire human rights movement in the USSR.'' On January 22, 1980, in response to Dr. Sakharov's protests against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Dr. Sakharov was picked up by the police on a Moscow street and sent into ``Internal exile'' in the closed city of Gorky. Joined subsequently by Dr. Elena Bonner, he was kept under house arrest, with a round-the-clock police guard, until December 1986. Dr. Bonner describes their plight eloquently in her book, Alone Together. Meanwhile, at the direction of the Congress, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed May 21, 1983--Dr. Sakharov's birthday--``National Andrei Sakharov Day.'' In his published statement, President Reagan praised Dr. Sakharov's ``tireless and courageous efforts on behalf of international peace and on behalf of human freedoms for the peoples of the Soviet Union.'' Upon his release from internal exile on December 16, 1986 by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Dr. Sakharov continued the fight for human rights in the Soviet Union and was elected to the newly-formed Congress of People's Deputies. Just before his death in 1989, he completed his draft of a new constitution and submitted it to the Constitutional Commission. While many of its specific points were provisional and advanced to provoke debate, the draft fundamentally provided for a democratic political system, revoking the Communist Party monopoly on power. Indeed, a few months after Dr. Sakharov's death, the Congress of People's Deputies repealed Article 6 of the Constitution which had provided the legal basis for the Communist Party's monopoly on power in the Soviet Union. This loss of Communist Party monopoly led inexorably to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which removed from the earth a vast state that repressed its own citizens and presented a powerful military threat to the United States. Recently, President Putin, a former KGB agent himself, called Dr. Sakharov ``a visionary * * * someone who was able to not only see the future, but to express, to articulate his thoughts, and do that without any fear.'' Fearless in the face of state repression, principled in his devotion to peace and disarmament, selfless in the pursuit of human rights for all, this was Dr. Sakharov's character. Mr. Speaker, honorary citizenship is conferred by the United States Government on rare occasions to individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to this country or to humankind throughout the world. It is and should remain an extraordinary honor not lightly conferred nor frequently granted. Mr. Speaker, I believe that for his contribution to world peace, the end of the Cold War, the recognition of the inextricable link between human rights and genuine security and the achievement of human rights, however rudimentary in some areas, in the nations of the former Soviet Union, Dr. Andrei Sakharov is worthy of being posthumously granted honorary citizenship of the United States. I hope my colleagues share my enthusiasm for this initiative and will support this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Dooley motion to lift current human rights limitations on the financing of private agricultural sales to Cuba. While the motion in support of section 335 of the Senate version of the farm bill purports to assist American commercial interests, it is absolutely clear that the prime beneficiary would be the Castro dictatorship. Amazingly, it seems to escape the notice and concern of certain Members of Congress that the Cuban dictator not only tortures thousands of people in Cuba, but he is also a terrorist. Cuba continues to share the dubious distinction of being named a terrorist state by the U.S. State Department, joining countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korean, Sudan and Syria, great company, and we want to trade more with these individuals? Last year as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) pointed out earlier, when Castro was in Iran, and this was in the Agence France Presse, he said after meeting with the Iranians, ``The U.S. regime is weak, and we are witnessing this weakness close up.'' He also said that Iran and Cuba, tightly together, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. Mr. Speaker, ``bring America to its knees,'' and we want to reward this terrorist, Castro, by trading more with him? The mention was just made that in China and Vietnam, we trade with them, why not Cuba. There has been no amelioration of human rights abuses in those countries. I would ask my colleague, the author of this motion, has the gentleman read the country reports on human rights practices with regard to Cuba? Has the gentleman read it? No. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman and every Member who wants to lift this part of the sanction to read this. It reads like an indictment of the Cuban dictatorship. This report points out over and over again in this 21-page, single space country report, out of the State Department, that harassment, murder, killing, beatings--if one steps out of line in Cuba, bang, they come at you and beat you with their fists. And we want to reward this dictatorship? The gentleman from California mentioned China. China has gotten worse in its human rights. Read that report. It is over 60 pages put out by the U.S. Department of State. We cannot aid and abet dictatorship. He is a terrorist. He is a mass violator of human rights, and he would be the prime beneficiary of the gentleman's motion and the Senate language. I urge a ``no'' vote on this. This is wrong. It makes us, however unwittingly, accomplices in crimes against humanity. The Government's human rights record remained poor. The Government continued to violate systematically the fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens. Citizens do not have the right to change their government peacefully. Prisoners died in jail due to lack of medical care. Members of the security forces and prison officials continued to beat and otherwise abuse detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists. The Government failed to prosecute or sanction adequately members of the security forces and prison guards who committed abuses. Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening. The authorities routinely continued to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, detain, imprison, and defame human rights advocates and members of independent professional associations, including journalists, economists, doctors, and lawyers, often with the goal of coercing them into leaving the country. The Government used internal and external exile against such persons, and it offered political prisoners the choice of exile or continued imprisonment. The Government denied political dissidents and human rights advocates due process and subjected them to unfair trials. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Government denied citizens the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association. It limited the distribution of foreign publications and news, reserving them for selected faithful party members, and maintained strict censorship of news and information to the public. The Government restricted some religious activities but permitted others. The Government limited the entry of religious workers to the country. The Government maintained tight restrictions on freedom of movement, including foreign travel and did not allow some citizens to leave the country. The Government was sharply and publicly antagonistic to all criticism of its human rights practices and discouraged foreign contacts with human rights activists. Violence against women, especially domestic violence, and child prostitution were problems. Racial discrimination was a problem. The Government severely restricted worker rights, including the right to form independent unions. The Government prohibits forced and bonded labor by children; however, it required children to do farm work without compensation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion. I would remind my colleagues that this motion offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is essentially the same as the one that was offered back in 1999, and it was defeated by this body 164 to 268. This motion again seeks to cut out the parent. And the parent, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) just pointed out--not the religious leader, not some grandparent, not a sibling that happens to be an adult--is the legal guardian. If there is a problem, if there is some kind of injury that results as a result of that abortion, who is responsible? It is not going to be the brother or the sister. It is certainly not going to be the grandparent. It will be the parent. We should not cut the parent out of parental involvement by refusing them consent or knowledge about an abortion. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been very carefully crafted by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and members of the Committee on the Judiciary. This is a killer motion, and I hope it will be defeated.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, imagine as a parent the shock and profound sorrow upon learning after the fact that some adult stranger deliberately kept the parents out of the decision-making process and took an underaged girl for a secret abortion in another State. Imagine the feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and violation that you would feel when your extremely vulnerable daughter, perhaps confused, frightened and even numb, was whisked away to an abortion mill by a stranger to pursue the violent death of her baby. Her baby, your grandchild, dead in a sneaky scheme deliberately contrived to deceive the parent about what was really going on, perhaps scarred for life by the unpardonable intervention of the adult stranger who acted as a parental surrogate. If there are complications, severe bleeding, perforated uterus, emotional or psychological aftermath, do not expect any help from the stranger; but of course a parent would be there to help, to love and to nurture and to heal. It is both a parental moral duty and legal duty, but it is really out of deep love. A parent would sacrifice thier own life for their daughter and be there; the stranger would not. It would not take very long to ask, Mr. Speaker, did the meddling stranger tell her that abortion has significant physical and emotional consequences? Did the stranger inform her that it might increase her risk of breast cancer? A 1994 study by cancer researcher Janet Daling of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center indicated if a girl under the age of 18 has an abortion, the risk of breast cancer increases by 150 percent. If she or any member of her family has any history of breast cancer, that first abortion means that her risk of breast cancer skyrockets to 270 percent. Dr. Daling's National Cancer Institute-funded study comports with more than two dozen similar studies showing the abortion-breast cancer link. Mr. Speaker, we can take it to the bank: neither the stranger nor the abortionist himself informed her of this long-term, deleterious consequence. Mr. Speaker, it is tragic beyond words that the abortion rights movement not only promotes mutilations, dismemberment and chemical poisoning of children by abortions, they further destroy the family by invading the sacred space between parents and their teenage daughters. The so-called choice to mutilate, dismember and chemically poison little children is unconscionable. Currently even a 14-year-old, often with the assist from a stranger, has an unfettered and secret right in many States to have her baby destroyed in a horrific procedure. I urge my colleagues to wake up. Abortion is violence against children. Enabling a stranger to facilitate a minor's secret abortion only adds abuse to abuse.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 60th anniversary of the infamous Bataan Death March, in which thousands of American and Filipino soldiers lost their lives in one of the most brutal episodes of World War II. On December 22, 1941, the Japanese Army landed in northern Luzon in the Philippines and began to push southward toward Manila. At first, General Douglas MacArthur was inclined to confront the Japanese on the beaches, but without air support the U.S. Navy's small Asiatic fleet was in no position to challenge Japan at sea. While the U.S. regulars and Philippine Scouts were excellent troops, they were severely outnumbered and would have had no air support. Giving up his initial strategy of defeating the enemy on the beaches, General MacArthur instead decided to withdraw to the Bataan Peninsula and pursue a strategy of defense and delay, by shortening his lines and using the mountainous, jungle-covered terrain to his advantage. He hoped they could hold out long enough for a relief force to be mounted from the United States. By March 1942, however, it was clear that help from the United States would not arrive in time. Lacking sufficient food and ammunition, and wracked by dysentery and malaria, nevertheless the American-Filipino force bravely continued to fight. In March, President Roosevelt ordered General MacArthur to leave the Philippines and escape to Australia, handing over his command to Lt. Gen. Jonathan Wainwright and to Maj. Gen. Edward King. On April 9, 1942, with food, supplies and ammunition virtually gone, after four months of gallant resistance, the exhausted and starving U.S. troops in Bataan were forced to surrender. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the courageous defense of Bataan had a shockingly tragic end. Marching their prisoners toward camps in northern Luzon, the Japanese denied food and water to the sick and starving American and Filipino soldiers for more than a week. When the weakest prisoners began to straggle, Japanese guards shot or bayoneted them and threw their bodies to the side of the road. Even those soldiers who were healthy when the March started became ill with dysentery and malaria along this long road. It is estimated by some historians that Japanese guards may have killed more than 600 Americans and 10,000 Filipino prisoners during this long and brutal March, and that more than 1,500 American and 25,000 Filipino soldiers may have lost their lives after reaching their destination. Meanwhile, General Wainwright and his troops on the small, fortified island of Corregidor in Manila Bay had been able to continue resisting for another month, despite being under constant Japanese artillery and air bombardment. But on May 6, 1942, after Japanese troops stormed ashore on the island, General Wainwright agreed to surrender Corregidor and all other U.S. troops on the Philippine islands. And by May 9, 1942, the battle for the Philippines had ended, though there remained some Americans and Filipinos who escaped to the mountains and continued to wage a guerrilla war against the Japanese. Mr. Speaker, this week, on the 60th Anniversary of the Bataan Death March, there remain thousands of surviving American and Filipino veterans who continue to bear the scars, both physical and emotional, of that war crime. All of the courageous soldiers who fought, persevered or perished on the Island of Philippines at Bataan and Corregidor played a distinctive and vital role in World War II. Their stories, and the full history of the Bataan Death March must never be forgotten. Inscribed on a monument in Corregidor, there is a poem by an unknown poet that pays homage to these brave soldiers: ``Sleep my sons, your duty done. For Freedom's light has come. Sleep in the Silent Depths of the sea or in your bed of hallowed sod. Until you hear at dawn the low clear reveille of God.'' Mr. Speaker, I call on all Americans who cherish liberty and freedom to join us this week in respectful recognition of the brave United States and Filipino soldiers who served in the Philippines during this fateful event.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to recognize and commend Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), an organization that has dedicated itself to the well being of some of America's most catastrophically disabled veterans for over 50 years. PVA traces its origins back to February 1947, when delegates from seven groups of paralyzed veterans from around the country met at the Hines VA Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, to form a national organization to address the inadequacy of veterans health care, specifically for severely disabled veterans. At this meeting they immediately set some very specific goals, including increasing funding for the needs of spinal cord injured veterans and establishing a grant program to provide specially-adapted housing so that paralyzed veterans could leave the hospital and live more independent lives at home. PVA was Congressionally chartered as a veterans' service organization on August 11, 1971 and since that time has continued to develop a unique expertise on a wide variety of issues involving the special needs of its members--veterans of the armed forces who have experienced spinal cord injury or dysfunction. PVA has more than 40 chapters and sub-chapters nationwide and nearly 20,000 members. In addition to its Washington, D.C. headquarters, PVA operates 58 service offices around the country to serve the needs of all veterans seeking Department of Veterans Affairs' claims and benefits. PVA has used its expertise to become a leading advocate for quality health care not only for spinal cord injured veterans, but for all other veterans as well. They continue to press for research and education addressing spinal cord injury and dysfunction. They also assist veterans who apply to receive benefits that are available as a result of military service. Mr. Speaker, for 16 years, PVA has co-authored The Independent Budget: A Comprehensive Policy Document Created by Veterans for Veterans, in cooperation with the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), AMVETS, and The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). The Independent Budget takes a comprehensive look at the current and future needs of veterans and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and makes specific recommendations for federal funding. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have found The Independent Budget to be a very useful tool in developing our Committee's recommendations for veterans funding. I wholeheartedly recommend that all Members of the House, if they have not already done so, obtain a copy and read it. PVA created the Technology and Research Foundation in 1975, now named the Spinal Cord Research Foundation (SCRF), to support research to alleviate, and ultimately end, medical and functional consequences of paralysis. In 1980, PVA endowed $1 million for a Professorship in SCI Medicine at Stanford University. PVA also created the Spinal Cord Injury Education and Training Foundation (ETF) in 1987 to support innovative education and training programs designed to assist individuals with spinal cord injury or dysfunction, their families, and doctors who provide direct care. In 1988, the PVA-EPVA Center for Neuroscience and Regeneration Research at Yale University was founded in order to focus the energies and talents of some of the world's leading scientists in the development of new treatments, and ultimately a cure, for spinal cord injury and related disorders. It is a model of inter-institutional cooperation, that brings together the strengths of Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Yale University, all with the singular goal of restoration of function in people with spinal cord dysfunction. PVA also coordinates the activities of two coalitions of professional, payer, and consumer groups that develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) defining standards of care for people with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis. The Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine, composed of 19 organizations, has published six professional guidelines and three consumer guides to date. The Multiple Sclerosis Council, made up of 23 organizations, has likewise published CPGs. PVA's Government Relations staff is well-known here on Capitol Hill and has been especially helpful to our Committee as we have developed and moved legislation to improve the delivery of services and benefits to America's 25 million veterans. Its Advocacy Program is a leading advocate for civil rights and opportunities that maximize independence of individuals who have experienced spinal cord injury or disease, or other severe disabilities and PVA played an important role in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It continues its advocacy as an active member of the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities. Likewise, PVA's Architecture Program has played an important role in the lives of severely disabled veterans. It assists the private sector and government at all levels with quality accessible design and construction of VA facilities, affordable and accessible housing, and adoption of appropriate and uniform accessibility standards and codes. PVA's Health Analysis Program keeps a constant eye on the performance of the VA health care system as well as other health care systems in the public and private sector. PVA also runs a Sports and Recreation Program dedicated to promoting a range of activities for its members and other people with disabilities, with special emphasis on activities that enhance lifetime health and fitness. The organization sponsors the PVA National Bass Trail which is officially sanctioned by the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.). Likewise, PVA created the National Trapshoot Circuit to give individuals with disabilities a chance to participate in the recreational and competitive sport of trapshooting. Most notably, PVA co-sponsors the National Veterans Wheelchair Games and other wheelchair sports programs along with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Games encourage veterans to become aware of their abilities and potential, as well as wheelchair sports that are available, while promoting a spirit of healthy activity and fellowship. Mr. Speaker, those of us who work with PVA on a regular basis, we have come to rely on the dedication and expertise that this organization brings to Capitol Hill. I want to recognize the hard work and sacrifice that all of their officers, members and volunteers have made in order to improve the lives of their fellow veterans and fellow Americans. Mr. Speaker, as America continues our war on terrorism, like the wars of the last century against fascism, nazism and communism, the brunt of the battles will be borne by our men and women in uniform. Our nation has a sacred obligation, as President Abraham Lincoln said so eloquently, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' And we especially have an obligation to care for those who have suffered the most to protect our freedoms, such as paralyzed veterans. As Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, it is an honor to work hand-in-hand with Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the other veterans service organizations as we seek to improve the lives of paralyzed veterans and all of America's veterans and their families.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 363, as amended, at the request of the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen), congratulating the people of Utah, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and the competing athletes for an inspiring Olympic Winter Games. The Committee on International Relations, on which I serve as vice chairman, waived its consideration of this measure before the Easter recess to facilitate its consideration by the House today. I am very pleased to join with my colleagues, particularly those from the State of Utah, in congratulating for a job well done not only each and every one of the 211 members of the United States Winter Olympics team, who won a record 34 medals and competed with great tenacity, focus and sportsmanship, but also the over 7,000 members of the law enforcement and public safety agencies and over 5,400 members of the Armed Forces who ensured that the games were safe for athletes and spectators alike. That was no small feat, Mr. Speaker, in light of the 9-11 world that we live in where terrorism and threats are a daily routine. We also note with deep appreciation that the Olympic games would not have been possible without the active involvement of close to 20,000 Americans, whose volunteer efforts in Utah and around the country made a critical difference to the success of these games. Their legacy is an inspiration to all Americans and a shining example of what this country represents. My understanding is that this resolution, as amended, does have broad bipartisan support, and I do hope that every Member of this Chamber will support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 363) congratulating the people of Utah, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and the athletes of the world for a successful and inspiring 2002 Olympic Winter Games, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the sponsor of the resolution.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. Res. 363, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday authorities in Kyrgyzstan released Azimbek Beknazarov, a parliamentarian who had been in jail since January 5. The decision was made after disturbances in the Ak-Su District of Jalal-Abad, Mr. Beknazarov's native region in southern Kyrgyzstan. In an unprecedented outburst of violence on March 17, six people were killed and scores wounded when police opened fire on demonstrators. Mr. Beknazarov has pledged not to leave the area and his trial has been postponed indefinitely while the authorities and the public catch their breath and reassess the situation. The incident and the events leading up to it are alarming--not only for Kyrgyzstan but for the United States, which is now basing troops in the country and expects to be in the region for the foreseeable future. Despite attempts by some Kyrgyz officials to pin the blame on a mob of demonstrators fired up by alcohol, the real cause of the bloody riot was popular discontent with an unresponsive government reaching the boiling point. Kyrgyz authorities have accused Mr. Beknazarov of improperly handling a murder case when he was an investigator in a district prosecutor's office years ago. In fact, it is widely believed that Beknazarov's real transgression was to suggest that Kyrgyzstan's parliament discuss the country's border agreement with China, which would transfer some territory from the tiny Central Asian state to its giant neighbor. This is reflective of Akaev's intensified efforts to consolidate his power while cracking down on dissent and opposition. In February 2000, President Akaev rigged the parliamentary election to keep his main rival--Felix Kulov, who had served as Vice President and in other high- level positions--from winning a seat in the legislature. The observation mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) openly questioned the results in Kulov's district, and said the election had fallen far short of international standards. Subsequently, Kulov was arrested and could not participate in the October 2000 presidential election, in which Akaev faced no serious contenders and was easily re-elected. Kulov is serving a 7-year jail term and now faces new criminal charges. Amnesty International considers him a political prisoner. Last December I chaired a hearing of the Helsinki Commission which focused on the deterioration of human rights in Kyrgyzstan. Mr. Kulov's wife was able to attend the hearing and offered her perspective on the current political climate in her country. The independent and opposition media in Kyrgyzstan have also been under severe pressure, usually in the form of libel cases which official authorities use to fine newspapers out of existence so they cannot report on corruption. In January 2002, the authorities issued Decree No. 20, which would introduce mandatory official inventory and government registration of all typographical and printing equipment, while imposing stricter controls on its imports. Decree No. 20 would also threaten U.S. Government plans to establish an independent printing press in Kyrgyzstan. Furthermore, the decree will be used against religious groups, both Muslim and Christian, by blocking their ability to produce religious material and by calling for an ``auditing'' of all religious communities that create publications. While the pretext of the decree is to combat ``religious extremists,'' the decree has clear implications for religious communities out of favor with the government, as well as with opposition groups. The State Department has urged Kyrgyzstan to repeal Decree No. 20 but so far, Bishkek has stubbornly refused. So when legislator Azimbek Beknazarov was arrested on January 5, his colleagues in parliament, members of opposition parties and human rights activists reacted strongly to the latest step in an ongoing campaign to clamp down on civil society. Since January, hundreds of people, including parliamentarians, have gone on hunger strikes to demand his release. Protests and demonstrations have continued throughout, which the police have either ignored or roughly dispersed. The U.S. Government, the OSCE and international human rights groups have called for Beknazarov's release, but President Akaev, hiding behind the fig leaf of ``executive non-interference in judicial deliberations,'' contends that the case must be decided by the courts. His position is an absurd pretense in a country where the courts are under state influence, especially in sensitive political cases. More to the point, this stance is simply no longer credible, considering the widespread belief that Beknazarov's imprisonment was politically motivated and the public's lack of confidence in the government's good faith. Finally, pent-up tensions exploded two days ago, when demonstrators and police clashed, with tragic consequences. Kyrgyz officials have accused organizers of unauthorized pickets and rallies of responsibility for the violence. In an address to the nation, President Akaev described the events as ``an apparent plot [in which] a group of people, including prominent politicians, staged unauthorized mass rallies simultaneously.'' He said the events were ``another move in the targeted activities of opposition forces to destabilize the situation in the country. They have been engaged in these activities for the last few years.'' Mr. Speaker, I would contend that the riots in Jalal-Abad Region were the predictable outcome of frustration and desperation. Askar Akaev, by falsifying elections and repressing freedom of expression, has made normal politics impossible in Kyrgyzstan. A long-suffering populace, which has seen its living standard plummet while corrupt officials grow rich, has signaled that enough is enough. The authorities have heard the message and now have to make a critical decision: either to try to find a common language with society or to crack down. If they choose the former, Kyrgyzstan may yet realize its promise of the early 1990s; if they choose the latter, more confrontations are likely, with unpredictable ramifications for Kyrgyzstan and its neighbors. The United States has a real stake in the outcome. We are in Central Asia to make sure terrorists cannot use the region to plan attacks on us or recruit new members. But all the region's states are led by men determined to stay in power indefinitely. This means they cannot allow society to challenge the state, which, in turn, insures that discontented, impoverished people with no other outlets could well be attracted by radical ideologies. We must make it plain to President Akaev that we are serious when we declare that our war on terrorism has not put democracy and human rights on the back burner. And we must insist that he implement his OSCE commitments, as well as the pledge he made in last month's bilateral Memorandum of Understanding with the United States. That document obligates Kyrgyzstan to ``confirm its commitment to continue to take demonstrable measures to strengthen the development of democratic institutions and to respect basic human and civil rights, among which are freedom of speech and of the media, freedom of association and public assembly, and freedom of religion.'' The events earlier this week have given us a wake-up call. We had better understand properly all its implications.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the ongoing re-registration campaign for religious organizations conducted by the State Committee for Relations with Religious Organizations, headed by Chairman Rafik Aliev potentially violates Azerbaijan's commitments to religious freedom as a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Azerbaijan must take steps commensurate with its commitments under the Helsinki Final Act and subsequent OSCE documents to ensure the freedom of the individual to profess and practice their religion or belief, alone or in community with others. The State Committee, created last year to replace the Religious Affairs Directorate, has broad administrative powers, which Chairman Aliev seems willing to utilize in an attempt to ban minority religious communities through denial of legal registration. Recent reports indicate that of the 407 religious groups previously registered, only approximately 150 are currently under consideration for re-registration by the State Committee. An additional 200 organizations were unsuccessful in their initial application due to technical errors and were asked to resubmit these requests. While I am pleased that 80 groups have been approved, reportedly most are Muslim, I hope that the State Committee is not specifically discriminating against minority faiths or religious groups. Despite the extension of the re-registration deadline to the end of March, there is legitimate concern that groups will be arbitrarily denied registration, and thereby legal status, despite fulfilling all requirements. In addition, although this is the third registration campaign since 1991, reportedly about 2,000 more religious groups remain unregistered. Recently, a senior official at the State Committee declared unregistered groups will be closed down. The fear that the State Committee will refuse to register religious groups for arbitrary reasons is supported by several statements from Chairman Aliev himself. For instance, he declared the State Committee hoped to introduce more stringent regulations to govern both religious organizations and individuals. He also said the State Committee can request a court to suspend activities of any religious organization conducting activities deemed illegal or found to undermine national security. The State Committee has also limited the ability for religious communities to import religious material. Reportedly, Chairman Aliev also stated ``religious organizations must be controlled'' and that ``religion is dangerous.'' This flies in the face of President Heydar Aliyev's November 1999 public statements supporting religious freedom in Azerbaijan. Also of concern are the heavy-handed actions against religious groups by Azeri Government officials and police officers. For example, on January 18, 2002, National Security Ministry officers raided an unregistered Protestant church, Living Stones, which was meeting in a private apartment. The police and security officers searched the residence and seized religious literature. Ten individuals who were attending the meeting were taken into custody, transferred to a police station and interrogated. While eight individuals were released, two church leaders, Yusuf Farkhadov and Kasym Kasymov, were given two-week prison sentences for violating Article 310 of the Administrative Code, which addresses ``petty hooliganism.'' The reported justifications for the raid was that the church is not registered. However, Living Stones had attempted to register with the government, but only after 1\1/2\ years of waiting did the government decide their application contained errors and must be resubmitted. In addition, the church is listed as a branch of the Nehemiah Protestant Church, which is registered. Many other religious communities are also concerned. It is feared the Ashkenzai Jewish community will not be successful in registering, because the State Committee is favoring a separate Jewish group. The liquidation suit brought by Chairman Aliev against the Love Baptist Church in the Narimanov district court continues to drag on. Liquidating the church due to alleged statements by its pastor is a disproportionate penalty and contravenes OSCE commitments. Illegal closures of churches by local officials, as in the case of the Gyanja Adventist Church on February 24, 2002, have not been halted by the State Committee. The closure of mosques under the pretext of state security is also a concern, as the government could ban unpopular groups, despite no proof of illegal activity. The Helsinki Final Act commits that ``the participating States will recognize and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge President Aliyev to ensure that the re-registration process is accomplished in accordance with Azerbaijan's OSCE commitments. In light of statements by Chairman Aliev, it is apparent the State Committee is perverting the re-registration process to arbitrarily deny legal registration to selected religious communities. The government must take the necessary steps to protect the right of individuals to profess and practice their faith by registering religious organizations, in keeping with Azerbaijan's commitments as a participating OSCE State. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am greatly alarmed by the re-registration campaign in Azerbaijan. This being the third time in a decade the government has required registration, it would seem Azerbaijan will continually ``sift'' minority religious groups until all are made illegal. Therefore, it is my hope that the Azeri Government will choose to honor its OSCE commitments and allow religious communities to register without harassment or bureaucratic roadblocks. Members of Congress will be watching to see if groups highlighted in this statement are harassed because of their mention.