Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her kind comments and strong support and advocacy for human rights in Vietnam. This is an issue, especially with the trade bill pending later on this afternoon, where we have to make a strong, cogent statement on behalf of those who are persecuted. We must stand with the oppressed and not the oppressor. I know some people, and I think it is naive, but some people honestly believe if we just engage in trade, somehow that will mitigate, and some day end, these egregious abuses. The evidence would suggest otherwise. Having said that, we have in this legislation some very significant milestones that we call upon the Government of Vietnam to achieve. Among these are the release of political and religious prisoners, an expansion of a provision of religious freedom which allows these Buddhist and Evangelical Christians, and so many others being repressed at this particular time, to engage freely in the exercise of their religion; and stop the repression of ethnic minorities, especially the Montagnards, who have suffered a cruelty that many of us would find absolutely appalling. Finally, on the issue of trafficking, Members may recall I was the prime sponsor last year of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. Vietnam has a trafficking problem. There is some complicity on the part of the government. This bill calls upon our own government to make a finding as to whether or not and to what extent the Government's complicity in trafficking is real or whether or not there has been progress in ending trafficking. Hopefully, for the sake of those who have been abused in modern slavery-like conditions, we will see an end to this abuse of women and children. Madam Speaker, as we come to a close of the debate on this legislation, I want to especially thank my good friend and my former staff director on the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights which I used to chair, Grover Joseph Rees, who has done an extraordinary job in helping to shape this legislation. He has done great work getting the facts for all of us. We only deal with facts, no hyperbole, no exaggeration. What is the situation on the ground right now? What is the prognosis for reform, and how do we get there? I want to thank Peter Yeo on the Democratic staff of the Committee on International Relations who not only serves the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) so well, but serves the entire committee so well, and I want to thank him for his contributions. I want to thank Uyen Dinh, in the office of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) who weighed in and helped. Also thank to Tom Mooney, the staff director of the full International Relations Committee, for all the work that he and his staff did. This has been a true team effort. This is a bipartisan effort. The government of Vietnam should be very clear that we go on record today with the support of human rights organizations, the support of the American Legion, who submitted an effective letter, which I will include as part of the Record, from Steve Robertson, the director of the National Legislative Commission of the American Legion. I just want to say again how important this legislation is and, hopefully, it will pass with a vote as close to unanimous as humanly possible. Those who vote against this are saying that human rights do not matter, because this has a waiver in it. This legislation has a provision that gives the President the ability to decide whether or not waiving a provision, a sanction, if you will, is in the national interest. So I strongly support this legislation. It is a bipartisan product. The American Legion, Washington, DC, July 24, 2001. Hon. Christopher Smith, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Smith: The American Legion thanks you for authoring H.R. 2368, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2001. The American Legion fully supports this important legislation which seeks to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam. The American Legion opposes Normal Trade Relations (NTR) with Vietnam based on what we believe is less-than-full cooperation by the Vietnamese government in regard to the accounting of the over 1,900 Americans still missing from the Vietnam War. The current state of human rights in Vietnam requires as much, if not more, attention than normalized trade relations. Currently, Vietnamese authorities are targeting many ethnic groups who were faithful allies of U.S. forces during the Vietnam War, and denying them their basic human rights. The Montagnards of the Central Highlands are just one example. We believe H.R. 2368 will help ensure compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Vietnamese government. Although trade may be increasing between both countries, The American Legion does not believe this will, in any way, guarantee Vietnam's speedy transition to democracy. Continual pressure needs to be applied to the Vietnamese government to treat their citizens in a fair and equitable manner. Once again, The American Legion fully supports H.R. 2368, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2001. The American Legion appreciates your continued leadership in addressing the issues that are important to veterans and their families. Sincerely, Steve A. Robertson, Director, National Legislative Commission. Madam Speaker, I yield any remaining time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2833.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who has been a forceful advocate for human rights worldwide, including Vietnam, and is one of the cosponsors of this legislation. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate time be extended by 10 minutes, equally divided between the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and myself.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for his outstanding statement and for pointing out the hypocrisy of the Durban conference, especially in leaving out some of these egregious violators and, as he pointed out, focusing on the state of Israel. I want to thank him for that statement and for his support for that bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, for his very, very strong statement. We both got elected back in 1981; and we have worked together on human rights issues all around the world, including in Vietnam. It was the gentleman's idea years ago to go to a gulag called Perm Camp 35, 1,000 miles outside of Moscow in the Ural Mountains. There we met with political prisoners who had been abused, who had been tortured, and that meeting and the subsequent representation that he and I and others made--but he led the way on that--helped to secure the freedom of those individuals. We did the same thing in China and in other places in Asia. He has been all over Africa. When he speaks--and he and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) speak with enormous amounts of credibility--on humanitarianism and respect for human rights and respect for life, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I think, takes a second to no one. I do hope Members are listening--and K Street and some of the lobbyists, and the government of Vietnam itself, which through its embassy has admonished this Congress not to support this legislation. Why? I went to their Web site, Madam Speaker, just the other day and looked and they had a statement about how religious freedom is respected, it is constitutionally protected. Then what do they have to worry about? This simply says there has to be ``substantial progress'' in that area; we are not even saying achievement. We are saying progress; move in the right direction. I would hope that Members would find it in their hearts to vote for this and say, we are going to give away the store and have free trade with the hope and expectation that will lead to a liberalization of human rights. I do believe that is naive, but if this is our belief, I do not know how we cannot support this legislation. This is waivable. It provides the President, who we hope will make an honest determination, to decide whether a waiver is in the best interests of the tenets that are contained within this legislation. Madam Speaker, we want to see real progress. We are tired of words. We want deeds by the government of Vietnam. They are repressing people. They are beating people. They are killing people. That is not hyperbole, that is the truth on the ground. There are religious believers such as the Unified Buddhist Church, as we mentioned earlier, and others have mentioned it, who have suffered immeasurably simply because of their faith. Again, the gentleman from Virginia was the prime sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act, legislation that the previous administration did not want and then signed. I hope this administration does not follow that course as well. Embrace human rights. Be real, transparent, up front. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his very, very strong advocacy. He is a champion and someone for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. I hope my colleagues hear these words and will support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and other cosponsors of this important human rights legislation for their strong support for this measure that is before the body today. Madam Speaker, to hear some of our colleagues talk, we would think that Viet Nam was well on its way to being a human rights success story. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. Just this week, a Buddhist monk in Danang committed suicide by self-immolation to protest the increasingly harsh repression of the Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam. Just yesterday, the Hanoi security cadres arrested two prominent reform advocates, retired Colonel Phan Que Duong and writer Hoang Minh Chinh. Their only crime appears to have been asking permission to start a nongovernmental organization that would expose corruption and promote transparency in government. Yet, these thoughtful and courageous men were dragged away from their homes and families on the very eve of the vote on the trade agreement whose supporters say is evidence that the Vietnamese Government is on the road to reform. It is true that there have been some improvements since the dark days of the late 1970s and early 1980s, when hundreds of thousands of people were confined to so-called ``reeducation camps;'' and as we know, many died there, simply because they had taken the side of freedom. But in recent years, there has been no such progress. Indeed, in the last few months, the government of Viet Nam has substantially increased the frequency and the severity of its human rights violations. Madam Speaker, the Government of Viet Nam systematically denies the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Although some freedom of worship is permitted, believers are forbidden to participate in religious activities except under circumstances rigidly defined and controlled by the government. In 1999, the government issued a Decree Concerning Religious Activities which declared, in pertinent part, ``All activities using religious belief in order to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to prevent the believers from carrying out civic responsibilities, to sabotage the union of all the people, to go against the healthy culture of our Nation, as well as superstitious activities, will be punished in conformity with law.'' The Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam, Madam Speaker, the largest religious denomination in Viet Nam, has been declared illegal by the government, and over the last 25 years its clergy have often been imprisoned and subjected to other forms of persecution. The Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church, 83-year-old Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, has been detained for 21 years in a ruined temple in an isolated area of central Vietnam. Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the Executive President of the Unified Baptist Church, has also been in various forms of detention for many years, and was recently rearrested and placed under house arrest after he had proposed to bring the most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang to Saigon for medical treatment. For that, he was punished. The Hoa Hao Buddhist Church was also declared to be illegal until 1999, when the government established an organization which purports to govern the Hoa Hao, but is dominated by government and Communist cadres, which is not acceptable to the believers. Several Hoa Hao have been sentenced to prison terms for protesting this denial of their religious freedom. Independent Protestants, most of whom are members of ethnic minority groups, are subjected to particularly harsh treatment by the Government of Vietnam. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, such treatment includes police raids on homes and house churches, detention, imprisonment, confiscation of religious and personal property, physical and psychological abuse, and fines for engaging in unapproved religious activities such as collective worship, public religious expression, the distribution of religious literature, and performing baptisms, marriages, and funeral services. In addition, the U.S. Commission's report goes on to say, it is reported that ethnic Hmong Protestants have been forced by local officials to agree to abandon their faith. A Catholic priest, Madam Speaker, Father Nguyen Van Ly was arrested in March of 2001, just a few months ago, and remains in detention after submitting written testimony to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. For that, this great trading partner of the United States, this man, this priest, was arrested: submitting testimony to an official organ, a function of the United States Government that investigates religious persecution. Madam Speaker, the other human rights violation in Vietnam right now is the recent intensification of the government's systematic repression of the Montagnards. Since 1975, the Montagnard people have been severely persecuted, in part because of their wartime association with the United States, and in part because of their strong commitment to their traditional way of life and to their Christian religion, and that is regarded as inconsistent with the absolute loyalty and control demanded by the Communist system. In February 2001, several thousand Montagnards participated in a series of peaceful demonstrations throughout the Central Highlands, demanding religious freedom and restoration of their confiscated lands. The government responded by closing off the Central Highlands and sending in military forces, tanks and helicopters. Credible reports by refugees who have escaped to Cambodia indicate that at least one participant in the demonstration was killed and that the government has subjected others to imprisonment and torture and other forms of physical abuse. The Government of Vietnam has also taken steps to prevent further Montagnards from escaping, and the Vietnamese security forces in Cambodia are offering bounties for the surrender of Montagnard asylum seekers. Madam Speaker, I want to also call attention to the active involvement of officials and entities of the Vietnamese Government in severe forms of trafficking in persons. There is evidence that the government's official labor export program has subjected workers, many of whom are women, to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, and other forms of abuse. In the recent case of several hundreds of workers who were trafficked by Vietnamese-owned corporations to the Daewoosa factory in American Samoa, the reaction of government officials to worker complaints of severe mistreatment was to threaten the workers with ``punishment under the laws of Vietnam'' if they continued to complain. Madam Speaker, as most Members know, these are not the only human rights violations committed by the Vietnamese Government. The Government of Vietnam also pursues a policy of harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and other types of detention against those who peacefully express dissent from the government or the party policy. The arrests of Mr. Chinh and Colonel Duong are just the latest episode in that awful story. Madam Speaker, the Human Rights Act for Vietnam will ensure that putting an end to those egregious abuses remains central to U.S. foreign policy toward Vietnam. It will not restrict trade in any way, but it uses other forms of leverage to construct a human rights program that is comprehensive yet reasonable and flexible. First, the act tells the truth about human rights and the situation of human rights in Vietnam. It describes the violations by the Government of Vietnam of the rights to freedom of expression, association, and religion, and the rights of workers, as well as the persecution of ethnic minorities, as I said, including the Montagnards and persons associated with the United States prior to 1975. The act concludes that Congress and the American people are united in their determination that expansion of trade relations should not be construed as approval or complacency or complicity about human rights violations, and that the promotion of freedom and democracy must be central to U.S. foreign policy. Second, the act will link increases in foreign aid, other than humanitarian assistance to the Government of Vietnam, to a finding by the President that the government has made ``substantial progress'' toward meeting certain human rights benchmarks. These benchmarks are reasonable and easily attainable: substantial progress toward release of political and religious prisoners; substantial progress toward respect by the Government of Vietnam to the right of freedom of religion, including the right to participate in religious organizations not connected to the Government of Vietnam; substantial progress, Madam Speaker, toward respect for the rights of members of ethnic minority groups in the Central Highlands and elsewhere; and an end to the government complicity and severe forms of trafficking in human persons. Madam Speaker, the Vietnam Human Rights Act does not require cuts in current levels of assistance or impose any restrictions at all on assistance that goes to nongovernmental organizations or private sector enterprises. It affects only increases in nonhumanitarian aid that goes to the Government of Vietnam. It also has a waiver capability that the President can exercise in the national interest or if he feels that the purposes of the act would be better served by waiving its provisions. Madam Speaker, finally, just let me say the act also authorizes assistance to NGOs committed to promoting freedom and democracy in Vietnam. It will support efforts by the United States to overcome Hanoi's systematic jamming of the profreedom broadcasts by Radio Free Asia. It is amazing to me that right now, as we are about to approve a bilateral trade agreement, they are jamming every day the broadcast coming out of Radio Free Asia. The act would require the State Department to take steps to ensure that U.S. cultural and exchange programs are open to people who share our values not just of the Vietnamese Government and Communist Party officials and persons close to those officials. Finally, Madam Speaker, the act declares it to be the policy of the U.S. to offer refugee resettlement to pro-American combat veterans and other residents of Vietnam who meet the statutory criteria for U.S. refugee programs, who have been wrongfully denied access to these programs for reasons beyond their control, including but not limited to their inability to pay bribes that have been demanded by the Vietnamese Government officials. The act does not change existing refugee law and does not mandate the admission of any person or group. The act does insist, however, that discretion under current law should be exercised to promote fairness for people who have been persecuted for 25 years because of their wartime associations with the U.S. or simply because they share our values. Madam Speaker, I urge a positive vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the ``Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2001.'' I intend to have hearings on this measure in September and to ask the House to consider it shortly thereafter. This is a great Nation, Mr. Speaker, and Fortune smiles on us in this country in so many ways. But tragically, a few are left behind, and a large number of America's veterans are counted among them. Currently, we believe that some 225,000 veterans are homeless on a given night. For these veterans, access to VA benefits, specialized services and effective outreach are vital components to any hope of individual stability and improvement in their prospects. It is important to create and maintain programs that give veterans the opportunity to become self-sufficient, and to concentrate our resources on programs that work. We know this is not an immediate process but instead constitutes a long-term challenge and struggle for many, both for those who are homeless and those who are trying to help. Also, I believe that some of our government's homeless assistance programs ought to stress prevention as an integral part of any strategy to help homeless veterans. This bill I am introducing, the Homeless Veterans Assistance Act, incorporates a number of these goals. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to pinpoint any one cause of homelessness among veterans. Many problems and difficulties could be traceable to an individual's experience in military service, exposure to combat, or return to a seemingly uncaring civilian society. In fact, we know that a majority of homeless veterans today suffer from serious mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder, and illegal substance use often complicates their situations. Many have served time in jail. These individual conditions have far-reaching effects on veterans and their families. A veteran with an impaired mental state may lose the ability to maintain stable employment. Absent employment, it eventually becomes difficult to maintain any type of permanent housing. The vicious cycle only accelerates once employment and housing are lost. The absence of these two important anchors to society is a precursor for increased utilization of medical resources in emergency rooms, VA and other public hospitals and, unfortunately, the resources of America's courtrooms, jails and prisons. A full platter of medical services may be available to veterans through VA medical facilities, but without better coordination within and across Federal programs relief is only temporary, because veterans once released from VA health care frequently are exposed to the same challenges that created these conditions in the first place. This is why prevention and accountability are two important priorities of my bill. We need to find new ways to prevent veterans from spiraling down to homelessness, but to be responsible we should also provide for them and their caregivers a sense of accountability. And we should not expect veterans to complete this arduous journey alone. This bill will hold accountable the three federal departments most directly involved in homeless assistance for veterans: Veterans' Affairs, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development. These agencies need to help homeless veterans make a transition to self-reliance; my bill urges them, and in some cases requires them, to cooperate more fully to address the problem of homelessness among veterans. The bill improves and expands VA's homeless grant and per diem program. Recipients of these funds are contributing substantially to the fulfillment of this bill's objective: to reduce homelessness and provide for the specialty needs of homeless veterans. The initiative I am introducing authorizes higher funding for the program. It also provides a new mechanism for setting the per diem payment so that it will be adjusted regularly. Finally, it eliminates some of the intricate accounting procedures associated with the receipt of the payment. It is important that any investment produced at taxpayers' expense to help homeless veterans must do the job for which it is intended, or those funds should be returned to the government and put to better use. The existing law requires grant recipients to submit plans, specifications, and specific timetables for implementation of their programs. If the grant recipients cannot meet these obligations, the United States should be entitled to recover the total of unused amounts provided in the grant. My bill would thus bring greater accountability to VA's program to help homeless veterans. Working is the key to helping homeless veterans rejoin American society, but this is a process that begins with quality medical care and other supportive services including counseling and transitional housing. The Department of Labor's Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program was designed to put homeless veterans back into the labor force. The Secretary of Labor has the authority to determine appropriate job training, counseling, and placement services to aid the transition of homeless veterans back into the labor force. This bill makes support services available to veterans in need. As homeless veterans begin to make a transition back into the labor force the respective departments must make available essential services to help these veterans. For example, the bill urges the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to increase contracts with community agencies for representative payee services to help some of these homeless veterans manage their own personal funds and thereby avoid poor choices some of them have made that lead to personal catastrophe. The entity acting as a representative on the veteran's behalf can work with care providers of the Veterans' Health Administration and other parties to a veteran's reintegration to ensure that government funds are used appropriately to help the veteran be reestablished in society. As I indicated, prevention of homelessness among veterans is an important objective of this bill. This should certainly include veterans transitioning from institutional settings who are at risk for homelessness. As I indicated and as we well know, many homeless veterans have been in jail or in prison. I believe we need to consider making provision for the particular services incarcerated veterans need, and begin providing them before they are released from these institutions into society. The bill includes a demonstration program to test the prevention hypothesis within the institutionalized veteran population, at 6 demonstration sites, one of which will be a Bureau of Prisons facility. The purpose of this program is to provide incarcerated veterans with information, referral and counseling with respect to job training and placement, housing, health care, and other needs determined necessary to assist the veteran in the transition from institutional living to civil life. Also, Mr. Speaker, some programs with very high success rates have been growing on their own, basically without government intervention. One such program that comes to mind is the ``Oxford House'' concept. In this model, a group of recovering alcoholics determined to stay sober band together to rent a residential property. Oxford House, Inc., provides earnest money deposits, and the rest is up to the individuals to govern their own lives and run their own homes. This program has been highly effective, and now there are over 800 Oxford Houses nationwide. The bill authorizes a small demonstration project to provide housing assistance to veterans in group houses with similar goals of self-govemance. This bill authorizes the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to make grants up to $5,000 for the purpose of subsidizing housing for veterans who present this need. Elements of the Department of Veterans' Affairs recently have helped sponsor 20 such houses. My bill will provide for 50 more in fiscal year 2003 and an additional 50 houses in fiscal year 2004. This is a model worth exploring. Mr. Speaker, these are the highlights of my bill, the ``Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2001.'' I believe the bill will accomplish very important goals. It will provide needed assistance to homeless veterans, lift them to a sustainable level that will prevent them from returning to a state of homelessness, and help them to become self- sufficient individuals who are accountable for their own actions. This bill will also hold all grant and contract recipients accountable for performing their promised services in exchange for government investments, and promote a greater opportunity to work across departments to provide the best possible service for our Nation's homeless veterans. It also sponsors innovative approaches at prevention of homelessness in high-risk groups within the veteran population. These are good purposes on which I believe we can all agree, Mr. Speaker, so I am very pleased to offer this bill to the House. On behalf of homeless veterans who need these services, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, over the July Fourth recess, I had the privilege of participating in the U.S. Delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's annual meeting held in Paris, where I introduced a resolution on the need for the OSCE participating States-- all of our States--to intensify our efforts to combat torture, police abuse, and racial profiling. This resolution, adopted and included the Assembly's final Declaration, also calls for greater protection for non-governmental organizations, medical personnel, and others who treat the victims of torture and report on their human rights violations. The resolution also condemns the insidious practice of racial profiling, which has the effect of leaving minorities more vulnerable to police abuse. Finally, my resolution calls for the OSCE participating States to adopt, in law and in practice, a complete ban on incommunicado detention. Tragically, recent news reports only underscore how urgent the problem of police abuse is. I would like to survey a few of the reports received by the Helsinki Commission in recent weeks. First, on July 7 in Slovakia, the body of Karol Sendrei, a 51-year- old Romani father, was returned to his family. The convoluted account of his death has included mutual recriminations among police officers and, so far, has led to the resignation of the mayor of Magnezitovce and indictments against three police officers. While much remains to be sorted out, this much is clear: On July 5, Mr. Sendrei was taken into police custody. The next day, he died of injuries, including shock caused by a torn liver, cranial and pericardial bleeding, and broken jaw, sternum, and ribs. According to reports, Mr. Sendrei had been chained to a radiator and beaten over for the last twelve hours of his life. The deaths in police custody of Lubomir Sarissky in 1999 and now Mr. Sendrei, persistent reports of police abuse in villages like Hermanovce, and the reluctance of the police and judicial system to respond seriously to racially motivated crimes have all eroded trust in law enforcement in Slovakia. As Americans know from first-hand experience, when the public loses that trust, society as a whole pays dearly. I welcome the concern for the Sendrei case reflected in the statements of Prime Minister Dzurinda, whom I had the chance to meet at the end of May, and others in his cabinet. But statements alone will not restore confidence in the police among Slovakia's Romani community. Those who are responsible for this death must be held fully accountable before the law. I will continue to follow this case, along with the trials of the three men still being prosecuted for the murder of Anastazia Balazova last year. Although it has received far less press attention, in Hungary, a Romani man was also shot and killed on June 30 by an off-duty police officer in Budapest; one other person was injured in that shooting. While the police officer in that case has been arrested, too often reports of police misconduct in Hungary are ignored or have been countered with a slap on the wrist. I remain particularly alarmed by the persistent reports of police brutality in Hajduhadhaz and police reprisals against those who have reported their abuse to the Helsinki Commission. In one case, a teenager in Hajduhadhaz who had reported being abused by the police was detained by the police again--after his case had been brought to the attention of the Helsinki Commission, and after Helsinki Commission staff had raised it with the Hungarian Ambassador. In an apparent attempt to intimidate this boy, the police claimed to have a ``John Doe'' criminal indictment for ``unknown persons'' for damaging the reputation of Hungary abroad. These are outrageous tactics from the communist-era that should be ended. I urge Hungarian Government officials to look more closely at this problem and take greater efforts to combat police abuse. I understand an investigation has begun into possible torture by a riverbank patrol in Tiszabura, following reports that police in that unit had forced a 14-year-old Romani boy into the ice-cold waters of the Tisza river. There are now reports that this unit may have victimized other people as well. I am hopeful this investigation will be transparent and credible and that those who have committed abuses will be held fully accountable. In the Czech Republic, lack of confidence in law enforcement agents has recently led some Roma to seek to form their own self-defense units. Frankly, this is not surprising. Roma in the Czech Republic continue to be the target of violent, racially motived crime: On April 25, a group of Roma were attacked by German and Czech skinheads in Novy Bor. On June 30, 4 skinheads attacked a group of Roma in Ostrava; one of the victims of that attack was repeatedly stabbed, leaving his life in jeopardy. On July 16, three men shouting Nazi slogans attacked a Romani family in their home in As in western Bohemia. On July 21, a Romani man was murdered in Svitavy by a man who had previously committed attacks against Roma, only to face a slap on the wrist in the courts. These cases follow a decade in which racially motivated attacks against Roma in the Czech Republic have largely been tolerated by the police. Indeed, in the case of the murder of Milan Lacko, a police officer was involved. More to the point, he ran over Milan Lacko's body with his police car, after skinheads beat him and left him in the road. In another case, involving a 1999 racially motivated attack on another Romani man, the Czech Supreme Court issued a ruling that the attack was premeditated and organized, and then remanded the case back to the district court in Jesenik for sentencing in accordance with that finding. But the district court simply ignored the Supreme Court's finding and ordered four of the defendants released. Under circumstances such as these, is it any wonder that Roma so lack confidence in the police and judiciary that they feel compelled to defend themselves? I am not, however, without hope for the Czech Republic. Jan Jarab, the Czech Government's Human Rights Commissioner, has spoken openly and courageously of the human rights problems in his country. For example, the Czech News Agency recently reported that Jarob had said that ``the Czech legal system deals `benevolently' with attacks committed by right-wing extremists, `[f]rom police investigators, who do not want to investigate such cases as racial crimes, to state attorneys and judges, who pass the lowest possible sentences.' '' I hope Czech political leaders--from every party and every walk of life--will support Jan Jarab's efforts to address the problems he so rightly identified. Clearly, problems of police abuse rarely if ever go away on their own. On the contrary, I believe that, unattended, those who engage in abusive practices only become more brazen and shameless. When two police officers in Romania were accused of beating to death a suspect in Cugir in early July, was it really a shock? In that case, the two officers had a history of using violent methods to interrogate detainees--but there appears to have been no real effort to hold them accountable for their practices. I am especially concerned by reports from Amnesty International that children are among the possible victims of police abuse and torture in Romania. On March 14, 14-year-old Vasile Danut was detained by police in Vladesti and beaten severely by police. On April 5, 15-year-old loana Silaghi was reportedly attacked by a police officer in Oradea. Witnesses in the case have reportedly also been intimidated by the police. In both cases, the injuries of the children were documented by medical authorities. I urge the Romanian authorities to conduct impartial investigations into each of these cases and to hold fully accountable those who may be found guilty of violating the law. Mr. Speaker, as is well-known to many Members, torture and police abuse is a particularly widespread problem in the Republic of Turkey. I have been encouraged by the willingness of some public leaders, such as parliamentarian Emre Kocaoglu, to acknowledge the breadth and depth of the problem. Acknowledging the existence of torture must surely be part of any effort to eradicate this abuse in Turkey. I was therefore deeply disappointed by reports that 18 women, who at a conference last year publicly described the rape and other forms of torture meted out by police, are now facing charges of ``insulting and raising suspicions about Turkish security forces.'' This is, of course, more than just a question of the right to free speech--a right clearly violated by these criminal charges. As one conference participant said, ``I am being victimized a second time.'' Turkey cannot make the problem of torture go away by bringing charges against the victims of torture, by persecuting the doctors who treat torture victims, or by trying to silence the journalists, human rights activists, and even members of Turkey's own parliament who seek to shed light on this dark comer. The charges against these 18 women undermine the credibility of the Turkish Government's assertion that it is truly seeking to end the practice of torture and hope these charges will be dropped. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the case of Abner Louima in New York, whose case has come to light again in recent weeks. In 1997, Abner Louima was brutally, and horrifically tortured by police officials; he will suffer permanent injuries for the rest of his life because of the damage inflicted in a single evening. Eventually, New York City police officer Justin Volpe pleaded guilty and is serving a 30-year sentence for his crimes. Another officer was also found guilty of participating in the assault and four other officers were convicted of lying to authorities about what happened. On July 12, Abner Louima settled the civil suit he had brought against New York City and its police union. There has been no shortage of ink to describe the $7.125 million that New York City will pay to Mr. Louima and the unprecedented settlement by the police union, which agreed to pay an additional $1.625 million. What is perhaps most remarkable in this case is that Mr. Louima had reached agreement on the financial terms of this settlement months ago. He spent the last 8 months of his settlement negotiations seeking changes in the procedures followed when allegations of police abuse are made. As the Louima case illustrated, there is no OSCE participating State, even one with long democratic traditions and many safeguards in place, that is completely free from police abuse. Of course, I certainly don't want to leave the impression that the problems of all OSCE countries are more or less alike--they are not. The magnitude of the use of torture in Turkey and the use of torture as a means of political repression in Uzbekistan unfortunately distinguish those countries from others. But every OSCE participating State has an obligation to prevent and punish torture and other forms of police abuse and I believe every OSCE country should do more.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as we head into our August recess, we should recall that almost ten years have passed since a group of conspirators attempted to topple Soviet President Gorbachev. The failure of that putsch precipitated declarations of independence by numerous Soviet republics, including those in Central Asia, and led several months later to the formal dissolution of the USSR. Today, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan remain independent, a definite plus. But in other respects, we have witnessed regression from levels reached at the end of the Soviet era, when Gorbachev's programs of glasnost and perestroika mandated a certain level of tolerance for opposing viewpoints and organized opposition activity. Specifically, with respect to democratization, human rights and the rule of law, overall trends in the region are extremely discouraging. In 1992, these countries unreservedly accepted the commitments of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). But despite the carefully crafted claims of Central Asian leaders and their spokesmen, in the region and in Washington, the trend is toward consolidation of authoritarian control and increased repression, not gradual democratization. The Helsinki Commission, which I have chaired and now co-chair, has held three hearings on Central Asia since 1999. Partly on the basis of testimony during those hearings, I introduced H. Con. Res. 397, which expressed the Congress' concern about the lack of democratization and violations of fundamental human rights throughout Central Asia. The measure was passed last November by an overwhelming majority (362-3) of the House. In floor statements introducing the resolution, I argued that the main cause of authoritarian government and repression in Central Asia was the determination of the region's leaders to perpetuate themselves in power by any means necessary. This desire, in turn, is fueled by their corruption, which they strive to conceal from their impoverished publics. The pattern is infuriating: rulers enrich themselves, their families and favored few, while the rest of the population struggles to eke out a miserable existence. In turn, the authoritarian leaders suppress freedom of the press and the right to engage in political activity. Dissidents are harassed and jailed. Human rights defenders Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is the emergence in Central Asia of an entire region where basic OSCE principles and commitments are ignored--in fact, flouted, with increasing brazenness. Turkmenistan's President Niyazov made himself virtual president for life in December 1999. Kazakhstan's President Nazarbaev--who has extended his tenure in office through referenda, canceling elections, and staging deeply flawed elections--last summer arranged to receive lifelong privileges and perks. In Kyrgyzstan, President Akaev, who was once considered democracy's best hope, has already rigged two elections in order to keep serious contenders from running against him. He is now reportedly planning to stage a referendum on extending his tenure in office from five years to seven. Welcome to the club, President Akaev. I continue to suspect that some of these leaders who already head what are, for all intents and purposes, royal families are planning to establish family dynasties. The latest developments in the region provide even more cause for alarm. Kyrgyz authorities have just brought new charges against opposition leader Felix Kulov, who is already serving a seven-year jail sentence. Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Imanaliev told me on a recent visit to Washington he thought Kulov would be freed--the Minister must have misread President Akaev's intentions. Truly appalling is the situation in Uzbekistan, where literally thousands of people have been arrested, allegedly for belonging to radical Islamic groups or for involvement in terrorist activity. According to international human rights organizations, police planting of evidence is routine, as is torture in detention and in prison. I was horrified to learn of the death--or should I say the murder--of human rights activist Shovrug Ruzimuradov. After being detained on June 15, he was held incommunicado by the Ministry of Internal Affairs until July 7, when his severely bruised, lifeless body was delivered to his family, including seven children. Some internal organs had been removed, probably to conceal internal lesions from the torture. But that did not stop the Uzbek authorities from claiming he had committed suicide. The ensuing international uproar surrounding this case has apparently forced even the Uzbek authorities to take heed and change tactics. Former Ambassador to Washington, Sadyk Safaev, now Uzbekistan's First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, said last week that those who killed Mr. Ruzimuradov would be held legally accountable. Maybe in this case, some policemen will actually be charged. But even more important, this pattern of brutality must stop. At the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Paris earlier this month, I introduced an anti-torture resolution which calls on participating States to exclude in courts of law or legal proceedings evidence obtained through the use of torture, or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It also calls for a complete ban, in law and in practice, on incommunicado detention. In Kazakhstan, the nexus between corruption and control of the media has come to the fore with particular force, considering the recent publication in the New Yorker of an article about alleged high-level malfeasance. Independent and opposition media in that country have been intimidated practically out of existence, with editors of opposition publications risking charges of ``insulting the honor and dignity of the president.'' Kazakhstan's authorities prevented two oppositionists from traveling to Washington to testify July 18 at congressional hearings on Central Asia, a violation of the right to freedom of movement that further damaged the government's already tarnished reputation. To make matters even worse, at the July 18 hearing, Kazakhstani officials attempted to serve papers to former Prime Minister and opposition leader in exile, Akezhan Kazhegeldin, who had come to Washington for the hearing. The Deputy Chief of Mission at Kazakhstan's Embassy had to come to the Hill to explain this public relations blunder to offended Members. One can only conclude that Kazakhstan's leaders are either getting poor counsel from their expensive imagemakers or they're not clever enough to take good advice. Words fail us when speaking about Turkmenistan, a nightmare kingdom run by a world-class megalomaniac, Saparmurat Niyazov. He has carefully isolated his country from the outside world and proceeded to violate every human right imaginable, including freedom of conscience. Along with fellow Helsinki Commissioners Congressman Pitts and Congressman Aderholt, I have twice met with Turkmenistan's Ambassador, seeking to facilitate the release from prison of Shageldy Atakov, a Baptist pastor who has been in jail since 1999 on trumped-up charges. We also sent Turkmen President Niyazov a letter about this case but we have never received any response. Even the international financial institutions have had enough: the head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)--which has a mandate to promote both economic reform and multiparty democracy--recently warned Niyazov that he faces a possible cutoff of business with In fact, only in Tajikistan have the authorities and opposition parties come to an arrangement of sorts--but only after a military stalemate ended an armed conflict that left scores of thousands dead. Though a coalition government has been established, clashes continue and the government does not control all of the country's territory. Mr. Speaker, the last ten years have stripped Western optimists of their illusions about the nature of Central Asian regimes. Almost nobody today will speak out on behalf of Turkmenistan's regime, despite that country's vast energy resources. Mercurial, bombastic President- for-life Niyazov has irritated Western capitals and companies too deeply, and made doing business too difficult. True, some analysts defend Uzbekistan's iron fist, claiming to see a genuine threat of Islamic fundamentalism. But even the U.S. Government and the OSCE maintain President Karimov's domestic policies have greatly exacerbated the danger posed by radicals who fill their ranks with embittered relatives of the unjustly arrested or tortured. Most often, we hear arguments defending Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan-- especially the former, which boasts huge oil supplies. Backers claim, first, that they are more democratic than their neighbors. True enough: it would be difficult to be less democratic than Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, which literally do not allow opposition or dissent in any form. But more insidious is the contention that things in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are slowly getting better. This is simply not true, as anyone familiar with those countries ten and five years ago knows. In the past, political activity was far freer and a wide range of viewpoints were represented in the press, before Kazakhstan's parliament was dismissed and both presidents made clear their resolve to remain in power indefinitely, while silencing critical voices. One need only read the reports of the OSCE's Missions to these countries today, or the reports of OSCE's Representative on Freedom of the Media, to see how the possibilities for freedom of expression have narrowed, almost to the point of disappearance in Kazakhstan. That is clearly the trend in Kyrgyzstan, where the Ministry of Justice intends to require re-registration of the media--an old, obvious ploy, with equally obvious intent. Throughout the region, this intensified repression has evoked growing desperation and we are already witnessing the consequences: armed insurgents of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan invaded Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in 1999 and 2000. Though they have not yet launched any major assault this year, there were reports of clashes last week and in any case, we should not expect them to go away. Impoverishment of the populace will provide new recruits, threatening to create a chronic problem. The Central Asian leaders' marriage of corruption and repression has created an explosive brew. Indeed, in Uzbekistan, in late June and early July, there were political protests remarkable events for such a tightly run police state--with important implications for future stability in that country and in the region. Should we infer from Tajikistan's unhappy experience that only violence can bring governments and opposition in Central Asia to the bargaining table? I hope not. But ten years after independence, I see precious little evidence anywhere in the region of leaders' desire for a peaceful accommodation of interests or a willingness to allow normal politics. And as leaders become even more entrenched and wealthier, why should anyone expect matters to improve? As delineated in H. Con. Res. 397, passed by the House last year, I urge the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and other United States officials to raise consistently with the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, our concern about serious violations of human rights and the rule of law. Central Asian leaders, like the heads of every other OSCE State, are accountable to their citizens to establish conditions for independent and opposition media to function without constraint, limitation, or fear of harassment, and to repeal criminal laws which impose prison sentences for alleged defamation of the state or public officials. The United States must continue to call upon political leaders to condemn and take effective steps to cease the systematic use of torture and other inhuman treatment by authorities against political opponents and others, and to allow the registration of independent human rights monitoring organizations. Those governments of Central Asia which are engaged in military campaigns against violent insurgents must observe international law regulating such actions, keep civilians and other noncombatants from harm, and should not to use such campaigns to justify further crackdowns on political opposition or violations of human rights commitments. Mr. Speaker, all OSCE countries agreed, as part of the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Charter, to be accountable to our citizens and responsible to each other for our implementation of OSCE commitments, which are matters of immediate and legitimate concern to all participating States. The OSCE Council of Ministers meeting in Prague, in fact, agreed by consensus that appropriate actions--including political declarations and other political steps--should be undertaken in cases of ``clear, gross and uncorrected violations of relevant [OSCE] commitments.'' Nine years have passed since the Prague document was signed by the OSCE countries. With the trend of clear, gross and uncorrected violations which have been described above, all participating States are obliged to respond.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for their participation in this debate in helping to craft what I think is a very worthwhile bill. 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, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, because of great interest and the number of speakers on H.R. 2540, I ask unanimous consent that we have an additional 10 minutes equally divided between the majority and minority.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am very pleased to bring before the House H.R. 2540, as amended, Veterans Benefits Act of 2001. This is the fourth major piece of legislation that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has brought to the floor this year. Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 801, the Veterans' Survivor Benefits Improvements Act of 2001, which was signed into law on June 5. This legislation, Public Law 107-14, expands health and life insurance coverage for dependents and survivors of veterans. The House also approved H.R. 811, the Veterans' Hospitals Emergency Repair Act, which provides $550 million over 2 years to repair and renovate VA medical facilities. While this legislation is still awaiting action in the Senate, having passed the House, funding was included in the VA-HUD appropriations bill approved last night to begin these needed repairs. In addition, the House has approved H.R. 1291, the 21st Century Montgomery G.I. Bill Enhancement Act, which also is awaiting Senate action. It provides a 70 percent increase in G.I. educational benefits to qualifying service members. Mr. Speaker, today we bring yet another vitally important piece of legislation to the floor that will provide increases in VA compensation payments to disabled veterans and their survivors. Mr. Speaker, there are more than 2.3 million disabled veterans or survivors of disabled veterans today receiving compensation who will receive a boost with passage of H.R. 2540, including more than 170,000 veterans rated 100 percent disabled who will get an additional $767 each year added to their existing benefit. I would note parenthetically in the State of New Jersey there are 3,246 disabled veterans with a rating of 100%, and they, too, will get an additional $767 in benefits. Upon enactment of this legislation, all veterans or qualified survivors will get the 2.7 percent COLA. The cost for this will be over $400 million in the first year and $543 million over the next 4 years. In all, the compensation package for the COLA will be $2.5 billion over 5 years. Another very important component of this bill addresses the lingering effects of service to Persian Gulf War veterans. Many veterans who applied for disability compensation for poorly-defined illnesses found that a beneficial law we adopted in 1994, the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act, had a ``Catch-22.'' If a doctor could diagnose the illness, and the symptoms had not arisen in service or within 1 year, the claim was denied. Mr. Speaker, there is an evolution occurring in medicine today with respect to so-called chronic multi- symptom illnesses. Some of these illnesses, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, have case definitions that are generally accepted in the medical profession, although their cause and effect and treatment are unknown. Concerned physicians who study and treat many patients with one or more symptoms may not agree that a given set of symptoms fit one case definition or another. At other times, physicians may decide to treat discrete symptoms without reaching a definitive diagnosis. This bill provides the expansion authority; and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, will explain this momentarily in greater detail. Let me also say that this legislation is the work of a tremendous amount of bipartisanship as well as a great deal of work by our respective staffs, and I would like to single out a number of Members. First of all, beginning with my good friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), who was instrumental in working on section 2 of this important piece of legislation. He has contributed very constructively to the shaping of this bill. I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), as I mentioned before, chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). I would just note that while the gentleman from Idaho is only in his second term and is already a subcommittee chairman, he is not new to policy making. Chairman Simpson is an accomplished lawmaker. As I think many of my colleagues know, he served in his State legislature for 14 years. His positions included majority caucus chairman, assistant majority leader in the Idaho House of Representatives; and he served as speaker, for 6 years in the Idaho House of Representatives. He is also a member of the Idaho Republican Party Hall of Fame. We are very fortunate to have him serving as chairman. Let me also thank some of the other Members who worked on this. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who helped shape the final outcome of this bill. After markup, some issues remained that were hammered out in a constructive dialogue. There were some lingering issues that needed to be resolved, and he was instrumental in crafting that compromise. Let me also thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a Persian Gulf War vet himself, who worked on this legislation very mightily; the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who intended on offering an extension on the bill--a compromise--extends the period by 2 years. I also want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows); and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the latter who had a major bill on Gulf War vets with multiple cosponsors, in excess of 200, who was also very instrumental in shaping this legislation. Finally, I want to thank our staff: Jeannie McNally, Darryl Kehrer, Paige McManus, Devon Seibert, Kingston Smith, Summer Larson, and my good friend and chief counsel, Patrick Ryan. Also the minority staff: Beth Kilker, Debbie Smith, Mary Ellen McCarthy, and Michael Durishin, who worked hard on this bill. I urge support for this important veterans legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2540) to amend title 38, United States Code, to make various improvements to veterans benefits programs under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), who carries on the tradition of our former chairman, Mr. Montgomery.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me note that I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has injected what I really believe to be a straw man argument when he suggests the issue of insoulment is part of this debate. It is not relevant. We are not talking about insoulment. The real issue before us is the simple but highly profound issue of whether or not it will be legally permissible to create human life for research purposes. Mr. Speaker, human cloning, if it is not already here, it is certainly on the fast track. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. It seems to me we have to make sure that just because science possesses the capability to create cloned human beings that it not be permitted to carry out such plans, especially when the newly created humans would be used for the purpose of exploitation, abuse, and destructive experimentation. Once created human life, Mr. Speaker, can survive a few seconds, a few minutes, a few days, a few weeks, a few months, a few years, perhaps many years to old age. We need to understand the profound truth that life is a continuum. Earlier in the debate, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) stated that research scientists would simply ``stop the process,'' so the newly created human life couldn't mature. Think about those words--stop the process. What does that mean, stop the process? It's a euphemistic way of saying stop the life process--kill it. Mr. Speaker, finally I remember the debate we had in 1996 when some of our colleagues who routinely vote against the wellbeing of unborn children assured us that they would never support creating human embryos for experimentation. One colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), said ``We should not be involved in the creation of embryos for research. I completely agree with my colleagues on that score.'' Well, not anymore. Now the ever expendable human embryo is to be cloned and abused for the benefit of mankind. And that vigorous opposition to embryo research by colleagues like Mrs. Pelosi exists no more, Such a pity. In like manner, members who say they oppose human cloning and then vote for Greenwood are either kidding themselves--or us--or both. Reject Greenwood.