Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 801.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1696, as amended, a bill that would expedite construction of the world War II Memorial in the District of Columbia. This memorial for the most significant event of the twentieth century is already long overdue, but today Congress is taking action to remove the roadblocks holding up construction of the memorial. I commend our Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle for expeditiously taking up H.R. 1696 after House passage on May 15, 2001, and for the thoughtful dialogue that led to the compromise language in the Senate amendment to the bill. I believe that we now have legislation that accomplishes the objectives we sought: to establish definitely that the memorial's location will remain the Rainbow Pool between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial; that the overall design already selected will be what is built; and that any pending lawsuits will be rendered moot. Again, I salute the leadership of my distinguished colleague, Bob Stump, in introducing H.R. 1696, managing its House passage, and negotiating with the Senate on an amendment acceptable to both bodies. I associate myself with his remarks in their substance and in recognizing the contributions of many Members to this legislation. President Bush's expression of support on May 16, 2001 for moving quickly to begin construction of the memorial gave our legislation a real boost and was much appreciated. He has made it clear he will sign this bill. And with Memorial Day approaching, how could we do less than ensure that our World War II veterans will be honored on this prominent site on the Mall? Mr. Speaker, the extraordinary action Congress is taking here is not the sort of thing we should do often, but I am convinced that in this instance it is appropriate and necessary. I hope it will serve as a reminder that the patience of Congress and the American people is not endless, and that the agencies and commissions of government are constitutionally accountable to Congress as well as the courts. The bill would allow the normal and necessary administrative decisions to be made in carrying out the design as memorial construction proceeds. However, I think it is obvious that Congress will not lose its keen interest in the progress of the memorial once this legislation is enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, the Senate having approved the compromise bill by unanimous consent, I urge every Member of the House to join in supporting our World War II veterans by giving favorable consideration to H.R. 1696, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), my friend, for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, all of the arguments in favor of this extraordinarily good legislation have been stated. I just want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) for his sponsorship of the legislation, for working overtime to garner the number of cosponsors that he did from both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, when I look around at the speakers today, who really have been the movers and shakers, it reminds me of that famous statement out of Casablanca: Round up the usual suspects. And you have got the same key players, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and so many others, who are always there trying to advance the ball and advance the cause of adoption and to provide a loving option to a mother who may find herself in a very difficult situation. I want to commend all of those who have made this legislation possible. The $5,000 credit certainly has had a laudable impact on adoption and I am pleased to be an original sponsor of that. This legislation now doubles the tax credit, which I think is very generous, and hopefully not the end of our efforts to help those who would like to make an adoption plan and bring a child or children into their home. This is a great bill. I urge everyone's support for it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the 80th anniversary of the birth of the late Dr. Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, one of the truly great figures in the struggle for human rights in the 20th century. On May 21 of this year, Dr. Sakharov would have celebrated his 80th birthday. A brilliant physicist, Dr. Andrei Sakharov enjoyed the respect of his colleagues and the material privileges provided by Soviet officialdom for his work in helping to develop the Soviet atomic bomb. He could easily have continued to enjoy his elevated status in Soviet society, but his conscience would not permit it. He became deeply convinced that the arms race was pointless and a threat to mankind. When he protested privately to Soviet authorities, he was ignored. In 1968, Dr. Sakharov circulated his groundbreaking essay entitled, ``Thoughts on Progress, Peaceful Co-Existence and Intellectual Freedom,'' in which he drew the connection between human rights and international security. For this challenge to the system, he was barred from military research, and when he continued to protest, he was fired from his work. In 1975, Dr. Sakharov was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but Soviet authorities would not allow him to travel to Oslo to receive the award. In January 1980, without any legal procedure, let alone a trial, Dr. Sakharov was picked up on the streets of Moscow by KGB agents and spirited off to exile in the city of Gorky. At the same time, the Kremlin, under the leadership of former KGB chairman Yuri Andropov, launched a crackdown on Soviet dissidents. In 1984, Dr. Sakharov's wife, Dr. Elena Bonner, was convicted of ``defaming the Soviet political and social system'' and sentenced to join him in exile. Even in these dark hours, Dr. Sakharov, continued to speak out against the war being carried out by Soviet forces in Afghanistan, to defend persecuted human rights activists in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and to address vital issues of disarmament and peace. On three occasions, Dr. Sakharov went on a hunger strike to protest the mistreatment of hls friends and colleagues in the human rights movement. During his confinement, his notes and his manuscripts were stolen from him by KGB thugs. President Reagan declared his sixtieth birthday, May 21, 1980, ``Andrei Salcharov Day.'' In December 1986, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev lifted Dr. Sakharov's exile and ``invited'' him to return to Moscow. In 1989, Dr. Salcharov was elected to the Congress of People Deputies, an organization that had previously been the rubber stamp legislature for the Soviet Union. In the short time that he served, Dr. Sakharovj''olned a handful of other elected leaders to press for real reforms in the Soviet Union. On December 14, 1989, the world was sadden to learn of this great man's death. In its coverage of ``the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century,'' Time magazine noted that, ``By the time of his death in 1989, this humble physicist had influenced the spread of democratic ideals throughout the communist world. His moral challenge to tyranny, his faith in the individual and the power of reason, his courage in the face of denunciation and, finally, house arrest--made him a hero to ordinary citizens everywhere.'' Although Andrei Sakharov has passed on and the Soviet Union is no more, the issues that he and his colleagues confronted still challenge us today. ``Small wars,'' like the bloody conflict in Chechnya, have replaced the big Cold War. Human rights continue to be violated. Arms control and security issues are high on the agenda. Several years ago, Dr. Bonner bequeathed Dr. Sakharov's papers to an American university bearing the name of one of our country's greatest jurists--Justice Louis Brandeis. This is a priceless gift not only to Brandeis, but to our entire nation. A generation of young people who have grown up since the fall of the Soviet Union, will be able to study Dr. Sakharov's writings on civic responsibility, non-violence, ethnic and religious intolerance, and other aspects of human rights and what we now call the human dimension. Mr. Speaker, on this, the eightieth anniversary of the birth of Andrei Sakharov, I urge Americans young and old to acquaint themselves with Dr. Sakharov's struggle for peace and human dignity, and to support educational efforts such as the Sakharov archive at Brandeis to preserve the legacy of an intellectual and humanitarian giant of the 20th century.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the lamentable human rights situation in Kazakhstan. On April 4, in a meeting with Kanat Saudabaev, Kazakhstan's new Ambassador to Washington, I welcomed his desire for cooperation and his willingness to improve his country's image, but I emphasized that Kazakhstan's reputation has indeed been badly tarnished and that concrete actions, not implausible pledges of democratization, were necessary. Considering the recent political trends in that important Central Asian country, I would like to share with my colleagues a number of the concerns I raised with Ambassador Saudabaev. As a Washington Post editorial pointed out on May 1, President Nursultan Nazarbaev has recently been intensifying his longstanding campaign of repression against the political opposition, independent media, and civil society. Especially alarming is the escalation in the level of brutality. In the last few months, several opposition activists have been assaulted. Platon Pak of the ``Azamat'' Party was stabbed on February 7. Fortunate to survive, he said his attackers told him to ``deliver their message to the head of his political party.'' On March 1, Ms. Gulzhan Yergalieva, the Deputy Head of the opposition ``People's Congress of Kazakhstan'' and a well-known journalist, was-- along with her husband and son--attacked and robbed in her home. Prior to these incidents, both opposition parties strongly criticized the Kazakh Government's running of an electoral reform working group. In late February, Alexandr Shushannikov, the chairman of the East Kazakhstan branch of the ``Lad'' Slavic Movement, was beaten by unknown assailants in the town of Ust-Kamenogorsk. Less violent harassment of the opposition has continued unabated. Amirzhan Kosanov, the Acting Head of the Executive Committee of the opposition Republican People's Party of Kazakhstan (RNPK), found threatening graffiti in the stairwells of his apartment building, on the doors of his apartment, and on neighboring buildings on March 17. Later that night, hooligans threw rocks at the windows of the apartment of Almira Kusainova, the RNPK's Press Secretary. In one case, a large rock shattered one of the windows. To add insult to injury, Mr. Kosanov has been barred from leaving Kazakhstan. He is the former Press Secretary of Akezhan Kazhegeldin, Kazakhstan's former Prime Minister and now the exiled head of the RNPK. Claiming Mr. Kosanov had access to ``state secrets,'' the authorities have confiscated his passport--even though he had left Kazakhstan many times before. To round out the campaign against Mr. Kosanov, a series of articles and reports in pro-government media have accused him of adultery and pedophilia. In addition, Pyotr Afanasenko and Satzhan lbrayev, two RNPK members who were Mr. Kazhegeldin's bodyguards, were sentenced in April 2000 to three years in prison for a weapons offense; an appeals court upheld the convictions. The OSCE Center in Almaty has stated that it considers the charges to be political in nature. Moreover, these two individuals, as former members of the security forces, should be in special prisons instead of being incarcerated among the general prison population, where they are in danger. Along with the targeting of opposition activists, the ongoing crackdown on freedom of the press has continued. Most media outlets have long been under the direct or indirect control of Mr. Bapi, who was sentenced to one year in jail and ordered to pay $280 in court expenses, was immediately pardoned under a presidential amnesty. Still, his conviction remains on the books, which will prevent him from traveling abroad, among other restrictions. Mr. Bapi is appealing the verdict. As for Mr. Gabdullin, the prosecutor's office issued a press release on April 6 stating that it had dropped the case against him due to ``the absence of [a] crime,'' although his newspaper has not yet received formal confirmation. While both editors are currently at liberty, as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) points out, their newspapers cannot publish in Kazakhstan because local printers will not risk angering local officials. In an April 17 letter to President Nazarbaev, CPJ concluded that ``we remain deeply concerned about your government's frequent use of politically-motivated criminal charges to harass opposition journalists'' and called on him ``to create an atmosphere in which all journalists may work without fear of reprisal.'' Apart from intimidating individual journalists and publications, Kazakhstan's authorities have taken legal action to restrict freedom of speech. The country's Senate on April 17 approved a draft media law that limits the retransmission of foreign programs and will also subject Internet web pages to the same controls as print media. Moreover, media outlets can be held responsible for news not obtained from official sources. In other words, if the New York Times or CNN runs stories Kazakhstan's leadership finds distasteful, Kazakh media outlets risk legal sanction for re-running those reports. Considering the ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice into high- level corruption in Kazakhstan, it is easy to draw inferences about what kinds of stories the authorities would eagerly spike. Indeed, although Mr. Gabdullin and Bapi were formally prosecuted for articles in their newspapers, both had also previously signed an open letter, published in the January 15 edition of Roll Call, expressing their support for the investigation. Mr. Speaker, Kazakh authorities have also stepped up harassment of NGOS. The OSCE Center in Almaty, the Washington-based National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Internews-Kazakhstan had jointly organized public forums in 9 regions of Kazakhstan to educate local citizens, media, and interested parties about the proposed amendments to the media law. After the law's passage, local organizers of these Forums on Mass Media were called in to the Procuracy for ``conversations.'' Other government agencies which took part in this intimidation were the Tax Police and the Financial Police. According to OSCE sources, the authorities offered local NGOs ``friendly'' advice about not working with the OSCE and NDI. In Atyrau, one NGO contacted by the Financial Police did not even participate in these forums but that did not stop the police from sending a written request for Finally, Mr. Speaker, to round out a very depressing picture, Kazakhstan's parliament is reportedly working towards the adoption of amendments to the law on religion that will severely limit freedom of conscience. The draft provisions would require at least 50 members for a religious association to be registered (the law currently requires 10). In order to engage in ``missionary activity,'' which would involve merely sharing religious beliefs with others, individuals--citizens or not--would have to be registered with the government, and religious activity would be permitted only at the site of a religious organization, which could bar meetings in rented facilities or even private homes. Violation of these provisions could lead to a sentence of one-year in prison or even two years of ``corrective labor,'' and to the closing of religious organizations. These draft amendments to the religion law were introduced in Kazakhstan's parliament in early April. According to the U.S. Embassy in Almaty, no date has been scheduled for discussion of the legislation though it is expected the measure will be considered before the current session ends in June. The U.S. Government, the OSCE, and other international agencies have expressed concern about the possible restriction of religious liberty, and there is reason to fear the worst. In recent months, the attitude underlying these draft amendments has already had a real impact on believers. American citizens who did humanitarian work in several cities in Kazakhstan have been harassed, intimidated and eventually deported. The formal cause of their expulsion was violation of administrative regulations but one official told an American the real reason was because they were Christians. In one particularly brutal, ugly case, Americans who had been told to leave the country were preparing to do so when the authorities brought them back from the airport so they could be videotaped for TV broadcasts portraying them as engaging in various sorts of subversive activities. An American family preparing to leave Ust-Kamenorgorsk was harassed by a Kazakh security official who threatened to spend the entire night in their tiny apartment to make sure they left. It took several hours before he could be persuaded to leave, despite the fact that his presence was frightening a pregnant American woman. Jehovah's Witnesses have also reported stepped-up harassment and intimidation. Over the past few months, central and local media have been attacking Jehovah's Witnesses, who are depicted as religious extremists. In one bizarre case, according to the Witnesses, a television station broadcast video footage of Islamic terrorists, who were described as Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as footage of a police raid on a meeting held in a private home. Kazakhstan's new Administrative Violation Code, which went into effect in February, allows the suspension or prohibition of religious organizations for evading registration or for violating assembly rules. This has already been used to suspend the activity of a group of Jehovah's Witnesses in Kyzyl-Orda. A similar case is pending in Taraz. Just today, May 16, Keston News Service reports that authorities have declared a Baptist church in the town of Kulsary (Atyrau region) illegal and ordered it to stop all meetings, claiming that it may not function until it is registered. In fact, Kazakh law does not ban activity by religious communities without registration, but the regional prosecutor upheld the ban. Church leaders intend to appeal the decision, but local lawyers are afraid to take such a case. Keston further reports that on April 10, the authorities in Kyzylorda fined a Baptist church 7,750 tenge (about $53) and suspended its activities until it obtains registration. In February, police had raided a Kazakh-language service at that church, demanding that participants show their identity documents and write statements about the gathering. They confiscated religious writings in Kazakh and Russian, and took five people, including the leader of the service, Erlan Sarsenbaev, to the police station. According to the Baptists, the police told them ``During the Soviet times, believers like you were shot. Now you are feeling at peace, but we will show you.'' When Sarsenbaev refused to write a statement, police officers ``began to hit him on his neck, abdomen and head with a plastic bottle filled with water.'' Finally, they forged his signature, and wrote the statement on his behalf. As President Bush recently said, ``the newly independent republics of Central Asia impose troubling limits on religious expression and missionary work.'' This trend in Kazakhstan is especially disturbing because despite the consistent consolidation of presidential power and general crackdown on opposition and dissent, relative religious freedom had been one of the bright spots. It seems this bright spot is about to disappear. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, Erlan Idrisov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, visited Washington. In his public speaking engagements, he focused on Kazakhstan's emphasis on stability and its desire for good relations with its neighbors. These are understandable priorities which the United States has every reason to support. But Minister Idrisov simply discounted charges of human rights problems, arguing on May 2 at the Carnegie Endowment that the above-mentioned Washington Post editorial is ``not the final word'' on the human rights situation in his country. Minister Idrisov may disagree with any Washington Post editorial, if he likes. But when you consider many other sources, such as the State Department's report on human rights practices, the Committee to Protect Journalists (which last year named President Nazarbaev one of the world's ten worst enemies of the media), and the OSCE Center in Almaty, the overall impression is clear and indisputable. Despite official Kazakh claims about progress, the human rights situation is poor and threatens to get worse. If President Nazarbaev wants to change that impression and convince people that he is sincere about wanting to democratize his country, he must take concrete steps to do so. The time is long past when we could take his assurances at face value.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just to respond very briefly. First of all, this is all about foreign aid grant money and whether or not we will have modest conditions that protect children. Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned a moment ago that we have never voted on this issue before. That is patently untrue. I offered the amendment supporting the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy year in and year out going back to 1985. This body has voted repeatedly, close to 15 years of voting on this very policy, identical to what we have under consideration today. So hopefully, that argument, that false statement will not be made again. Let me remind my colleagues, the Hyde, Barcia, Smith, Obestar Amendment does not reduce family planning by one penny; we condition it; we put in safeguards. Who we give our tax dollars to does matter. Pro-abortion organizations perform and promote abortions. Let us give our tax dollars to those that will divest themselves of abortion, and simply stick to family planning.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, if we subsidized an organization that used their money and our money for hunger relief, but hunger relief was only part of their mix of programs a mix that also include the promotion of racial prejudice, we would withhold U.S. funds. Take for instance, apartheid, just go back 15, 20 years in South Africa. We would fund only NGOs who did not agree with Apartheid because we found it egregious and something we could not agree with. So we would suggest to those NGO's that had Apartheid as part of their package, just part of their program, that we will find another NGO to fund. One that divested itself from Apartheid. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what has happened with the Mexico City policy. We have said we will provide enormous amounts of money for family planning, but we want some pro-life safeguards to ensure that we are not promoting abortion. Many of us and many in America and many in the world believe abortion to be the taking of human life and exploitation of women as well, we don't want to fund that. Instead, we want to make sure that that money goes for family planning, their own money as well as our own. Again, if we apply this policy to other issues where we have grave disagreements, like racial prejudice, we would pick and choose among NGOs, and only fund those who divested themselves, completely, from the egregious activity. Finally, this policy has been found to be constitutional. It has already been litigated, and has been reaffirmed through the scrutiny of the U.S. courts. The Mexico City policy is fully constitutional.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points in rebuttal to those comments made by my friends on the other side of this issue. A couple of their speakers have said that somehow the fungibility argument is analogous, to what we were doing with the faith-based initiative proposed by President Bush. I would suggest that in the faith-based initiative, there is a benign outcome, a benign consequence. If, as a matter of fact, because we give money to a religious organization, which in-turn frees up money, for example, for them to proselytize their religion, I think most of us would agree that is not a bad thing. That is why we give tax breaks to religious organizations, regardless of denomination or belief, because we do believe that religious beliefs are a positive good for society. That is not the case when we are talking about money and fungibility with regard to family planning and abortion. If the organization, a pro-abortion organization, is performing and killing and decimating, destroying, chemically poisoning and dismembering unborn children, because U.S. funding allows them to use their own money for abortion, that is not a benign consequence, that is a horrific consequence. If our U.S. funding for family planning is used to free up other money for abortion, we have a responsibility to step in and protect the child and only fund those groups that just do family planning. I believe as reasonable men and women we can make choices and say, we do not want that consequence. So here in the Mexico City policy, the fungibility argument has real teeth, it has real grip. It ensures that we do not subsidize groups that engage in abortion, the killing of unborn children. Let me also point out to my colleagues again that when the Mexico City policy was in effect, 350 nongovernmental organizations accepted the pro-life Mexico City provisions, including 57 affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London. That is 57 mostly in-country affiliates who said, we will divest ourselves of killing. Abortion is killing. Family planning is not. I would hope and I would respectfully submit, this is a modest policy. We do not reduce family planning by a dime. Last year we appropriated $425 million for family planning, and $425 million will go forward for family planning, with the pro-life safeguards.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee for yielding me this time and for his courage in offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the sole purpose of the seemingly benign title of this language that we are seeking to strike, the Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001, is to provide Federal funds to organizations that perform and/or promote abortions overseas as part of this legislation, as part of our population account. The Lee language has nothing whatsoever to do with building democracy and the rule of law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the protection of human rights, all causes to which I have devoted and many others have devoted their entire lives to. The Lee language is not about protecting people. Indeed, the absolute contrary is true. I am sure many others like myself find it highly offensive when a legislative proposal that seeks to abolish the most fundamental, the most elemental of all human rights on the face of the Earth, the right to life, is euphemistically cloaked as a democracy builder, which it is not. The Lee language is designed to repeal the pro-life, pro-child Mexico City policy which as Members know was recently reinstated by President Bush to ensure that we do not fund the killing of unborn babies, either directly or indirectly. Mr. Chairman, it is high time we came to the recognition that abortion is violence against children. Abortion methods are cruel. Abortion procedures, referred to in the language as medical services, rip and dismember the innocent child or they chemically poison the baby with some toxic substance. Today, Mr. Chairman, the pro-life laws and policies of about 100 countries around the world are under continuous siege. Regrettably, the forces, the engine behind the pro-abortion push are nongovernmental organizations, pro-abortion groups that we fund and we are the primary provider of subsidies to those groups. The Bush executive order, like the original Reagan-Bush executive order, permits funding only to those organizations that provide family planning. Abortion is not family planning, and by funding only family planning, innocent children are not put at risk. As one of my previous colleagues pointed out so well, an overwhelming number of organizations, including some Planned Parenthood affiliates, accepted the Mexico City policy. For several years, there was a wall of separation between abortion and family planning. And the Bush policy ensures that as well. Who we subsidize, not just what, but who we give millions upon millions of dollars to has profound consequences. The simple fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that as far back as 1984, we recognized that the longstanding law that said no funds could be used directly to pay for abortion was very infirm, it was incomplete and it was not working. Money is fungible. The millions of dollars we gave to a family planning group to perform abortions immediately freed up millions more that were used for the performance and promotion of abortion. It should matter to us, not just what an organization does with our specific subsidy, but what else they do. It is a package deal. Many groups, regrettably, use family planning as a Trojan horse to conceal their real agenda, which is abortion on demand. Mr. Chairman, I know that Members of Congress are getting blitzed by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists who oppose the Hyde-Barcia- Oberstar-Smith amendment. I appeal to you to resist. I ask you to stand with the victims, both mother and child, and against the victimizers. When we subsidize and lavish Federal funds on abortion organizations, we empower the child abusers; and Planned Parenthood, make no mistake about it, both here and overseas, is ``Child Abuse, Incorporated.'' Here in the United States, for example, and I would say parenthetically, this is not a domestic amendment, but the example gives you an insight as to what is happening overseas, Planned Parenthood has been given $2 billion and performed 2.6 million abortions since 1977. That is 2.6 million girls and boys who will never know the joys and challenges of living or the thrill of learning or marrying or playing soccer or raising their own families some day. That is 2.6 million individual dreams and talents and creativity the world will never see. The loss of children's lives directly attributable to Planned Parenthood is staggering; 2.6 million dead babies and counting. And if that is not enough, Planned Parenthood both lobbies and litigates against virtually every child protection initiative, including parental notification, women's right to know laws, abortion funding bans, partial-birth abortion, and, again, most recently, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Sadly, they do exactly the same thing overseas; and these non- governmental organizations will be affected by this legislation we pass today. Members should be aware that the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is based in London, is leaving no stone unturned in its misguided, obsessive campaign to legalize abortion on demand. If they succeed, millions of babies will die from the violence of abortion. I urge Members, please, let us not add to the body count. Mr. Chairman, Planned Parenthood's Vision 2000 strategic plan makes it very clear that they want family planning organizations to bring pressures on governments to campaign for abortion on demand. They do not cloak it; they do not disguise it. They wanted to undermine Central and South American countries that protect their babies, as well as Ireland and many other countries. Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong vote in favor of the Hyde amendment, in favor of family planning and against abortion promotion. Mr. Chairman, Title I Subtitle C of the pending Foreign relations Act, inserted by amendment over the Prime Sponsor's objection during committee markup, is breathtakingly misleading. Subtitle C hides its sole purpose--providing federal funds to organizations that perform and/or promote abortion overseas, under the seemingly benign title of ``Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001.'' Don't be fooled, I say to my colleagues. Subtitle C has nothing whatsoever to do with building democracy and the rule of law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protection of human rights--all causes to which I have devoted my entire life. The Lee language is not about protecting people. The absolute contrary is true. As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, former Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, and today as Vice Chairman of the International Relations Committee--I not only have traveled on numerous human rights trips and chaired over 160 hearings on human rights and democracy building in the People's Republic of China, Russia, Vietnam, France, Sudan, Rwanda, Indonesia, Cuba, Peru, Turkey, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and the Ukraine (to name a few)--I am also the prime sponsor of: Public Law 106-386--the ``Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,'' Public Law 105-320--the ``Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998,'' Public Law 106-87--the ``Torture Victims Relief Authorization Act of 1999,' Public Law 104-319--the ``Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996,'' as well as Public Law 106-113, Division B--the ``Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001,'' which is filled, like the other bills I have listed, with human rights and democracy provisions. In addition to authoring human rights legislation, I have offered scores of amendments to boost the Child Survival Fund, Refugee Protection, and Freedom Broadcasting, like Radio Free Asia. I and, I'm sure, many others find it highly offensive when a legislative proposal that seeks to abolish the most fundamental human right on the face of the earth--the right to life--is euphemistically cloaked as a democracy builder. It is not. Amazingly, no specific mention is made of abortion in either the findings or operative clause of the amendment. Why the unwillingness to be candid and transparent? Abortion is referred to as ``a particular issue'' or ``medical service.'' But I guess one would have to be blind to not understand the precise nature of this section. It is designed to repeal the pro-life, pro- child Mexico City Policy--recently reinstated by President Bush to ensure that we do not fund the killing of unborn babies, either directly or indirectly. Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence against children. Abortion methods are cruel. Abortion procedures--referred to this section as ``medical services''--rip and dismember the innocent child, or chemically poison the baby with some toxic substance. This--and only this--is the ``particular issue'' referred to in the section we seek to strike. Today, Mr. Chairman, the pro-life laws and policies of approximately one hundred countries that restrict abortion are under continuous siege and the forces behind the pro-abortion push are non governmental organizations funded by the US Government. The Bush executive order--like the original Reagan-Bush executive order--permits the funding of only those organizations that provide family planning--and abortion isn't family planning. Innocent children, therefore, are not put at risk. Who we subsidize--not just what--but who, we give millions of dollars to has profound consequences. The simple fact of the matter is that as far back as 1984, the longstanding law stipulating that no U.S. funds can directly be used for abortion was found to be infirm and incomplete. Money is fungible. The millions of dollars we give to a group immeditely frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be used--and have been used--for performing and aggressively promoting abortion. It should matter greatly to each of us not just what an organization does with our specific subsidy, but the rest of its agenda as well. It is a package deal. Many groups use family planning as the Trojan horse to conceal their real agenda-- abortion on demand. I know Members of Congress have been getting blitzed by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists to oppose the Hyde-Barcia-Smith- Oberstar Amendment. I appeal to you to resist. I ask you to stand with the victims--both mother and child--and against the victimizers. Whe we subsidize and lavish federal funds on abortion organizations, we empower the child abusers. And Planned Parenthood, make no mistake about, it, both here and overseas is Child Abuse Incorporated! Here in the United States for example, and of course it's not affected by this amendment, Planned Parenthood has been paid $1.997 billion in taxpayer dollars and has performed 2,608,362 abortions since 1977. That's 2.6 million girls and boys who will never know the joys and challenges of living, or the thrill of learning, or marrying, or playing soccer, or raising their own family someday. That's 2.6 million individual dreams, talents and creativity the world will never see. The loss of children's lives directly attributed to Planned Parenthood is staggering--2.6 million dead babies and counting. And if that wasn't enough, Planned Parenthood both lobbies and litigates against virtually every child protection initiative including parental notification, women's right to know laws, abortion funding bans, partial birth abortion bans and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Sadly--they do the same overseas, and those non governmental organizations would be affected by what we do today. Members should be aware that the International Planned Parenthood Federation is leaving no stone unturned in its misguided, obsessive campaign to legalize abortion on demand around the world. If they succeed, millions of babies will die from the violence of abortion on demand. Please, let's not add to the body count. Planned Parenthood's Vision 2000 strategic plan says that family planning organizations should ``bring pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against abortion.'' Can anything be more clear? ``Pressure'' governments to nullify their pro-life policies. ``Campaign'' for abortion on demand. And Subtitle C of this bill would compel us to provide millions of dollars to these abortionists. A headline in the Philippine Daily Inquirer a few years ago succinctly underscores our concern, ``Flavier Hits U.S. Pressure on Abortion.'' The article quotes Senator Juan Flavier: We had just celebrated our 50th anniversary of independence from America, but we can still see insidious methods of imperialism trying to subvert our self-determination by using [population control] funds as subtle leverage . . . I strongly opposed abortion. It is prohibited by our laws and the Philippine Constitution. Hence, we should be prepared to lose foreign funding rather than be pressured into causing the death of unborn children. The abortion promotion by Planned Parenthood is so extreme in the Philippines, for example, that the President of IPPF's affiliate--the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP)--resigned over what he called International Planned Parenthood Federation's ``hidden agenda'' and misuse of his family planning affiliate to legalize abortion. The use of family planning to cloak its real agenda--the use of family planning as a cover for permissive abortion laws--is now commonplace, and must be stopped. The Bush executive order will help. Let me remind Members that the pro-life safeguards included in the Bush executive order are nothing new; they were in effect for almost a decade. And they worked! The pro-life safeguards--the Mexico City Policy--were in effect during the Reagan and Bush years as a principled way to fund family planning without promoting abortion. We should have no part in empowering the abortion industry to succeed in performing or promoting violence against children.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, news reports from Bosnia and Kosovo earlier this month give reason to despair. First, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, about 30 people were injured and property was damaged during riots in the ``Republika Srpska'' cities of Trebinje on May 5 and Banja Luka on May 7. Islamic leaders, Bosnian officials and representatives of the international community were attacked during ceremonies to lay the first stones of mosques being rebuilt where mosques destroyed by Serb militants in 1993 once stood. We remember well, hundreds of mosques were destroyed during the war as part of the genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing. The apparent purpose was to erase the cultural vestiges of the Bosniac population which was terrorized and forced to flee. It was not uncommon for the local ethnic Serbs subsequently to deny a mosque had ever existed, once the rubble had been cleared away. The famous Ferhadija mosque in Banja Luka built in 1583 was blown to bits on May 7, 1993. The ceremony exactly eight years later was the culmination of persistent efforts, including the Helsinki Commission which I co-chair, to get Republika Srpska leaders to permit the reconstruction of destroyed mosques, which they finally did this year. The riots last week demonstrate the continued intolerance in the region. Moreover, while Bosnian Serb officials have officially condemned the incidents, there are indications that both the Trebinje and Banja Luka events were orchestrated and perhaps linked. In Trebinje, the police force seemed simply to be not adequate. In Banja Luka, though, some believe that the police forces may have been involved in plans to disrupt the ceremonies. Radovan Karadzic, the wartime Bosnian Serb leader who has been indicted for genocide but remains at large, is alleged to have been responsible. Meanwhile, in Kosovo on May 6, local Albanians threw stones breaking windows and the doors of the Serbian Orthodox Church of St. Dimitrije in the village of Susica. Damage was done inside, and some cash offering was stolen. This was only the most recent in a wave of attack since the end of the conflict in Kosovo in 1999 in which about one hundred Orthodox churches have been damaged or destroyed. Many of these incidents have been documented by Serbian Orthodox Bishop Artemije in testimony before the Helsinki Commission. Mr. Speaker, there are signs that in Kosovo, too, these attacks are not spontaneous acts of intolerance. Unfortunately, it seems that an environment has been created in which such acts of violence are not discouraged, let alone thwarted. Mr. Speaker, attacks on places of worship are reprehensible, no matter what the faith, no matter what the ethnicity of the worshipers. These sites are sacred to believers, and important as cultural symbols even to many who are not. Orchestrated or spontaneous, these attacks must be stopped. The international presence, including peacekeeping forces, local law enforcement, political leaders, and religious figures across faiths must be part of the solution, not the problem. I was particularly disappointed with the response of Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica, who, while criticizing those who engaged in violence, sought to place some of the blame on those working to rebuild the mosques in Republika Srpska. He was quoted as saying that some churches and mosques should not be rebuilt because they might provoke such incidents. Blaming the victim, sadly, has become a norm in the minds of too many who could and should, instead, be champions of justice. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let us remember that freedom of thought, religion and belief is a fundamental human right, and attacks on religious sites are attacks on that right, attacks that must be wholeheartedly condemned and hopefully prevented from happening again.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as all federal agencies are keenly aware, the government is losing many valued employees to retirement. Among them, one stands out for her dedication and commitment--Mrs. Celia Dollarhide, Director of Education Service at the Department of Veterans Affairs, who retired on May 3. Most veterans don't know Celia Dollarhide by name. Her leadership in setting policy, working with Congress, and ensuring that education benefits are paid has been felt by the hundreds of thousands of veterans and their survivors who received an education under one of the three GI Bills during her tenure. Celia Dollarhide has devoted her working life to federal service. After taking the federal entrance exam, Celia was highly sought by many federal agencies. Fortunately for veterans, she settled on the Veterans Administration. In 1966, Celia began her career as a claims examiner at the Chicago Regional Office, and in 1972 moved to Washington, DC, to work as an Education Specialist. By 1975, Celia was the Chief of the Program Administration Division in the Education Service. After various management positions within the Veterans Benefits Administration, she became the Deputy Director of the Education Service and in 1994, then- Secretary Jesse Brown promoted her meritoriously to the Senior Executive Service. Celia has served the last six years as Director of Education Service. Throughout her career, Celia has received numerous awards and professional recognition due to her advocacy and leadership on behalf of veterans and their survivors. It is her core belief--that veterans could achieve so much more with an education--that has driven her to succeed at every turn. There is no way to count the number of people whose lives Celia has affected, and I wouldn't even begin to try. Mr. Speaker, Celia Dollarhide has met the highest standards to which civil servants can aspire. On behalf of the VA Committee and our staff, I say thank you to this remarkable professional.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1696, a bill to expedite the construction of the World War II memorial on the Washington Mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. This artist's rendition to my left shows the dignity and grace that this memorial will provide and in true memory of those men and women who served so ably and so courageously on behalf of our country. Mr. Speaker, as we know, the design and site for the memorial have been carefully studied. My good friend just a moment ago spoke to the number of hearings. This has been an exhaustive process. It has been approved over a period of some 6 years, a longer time than it took to win World War II. The Allied victory in this greatest war in world history represented the triumph of the human spirit and began the march of freedom and democracy across the world that continues even today. More than half a century has passed, Mr. Speaker, but America's World War II veterans still have no national memorial to honor them. They have been called the greatest generation; and even recently, popular movies like Saving Private Ryan and the Thin Red Line have served to remind us of their incredible bravery and sacrifices. Yet, they have no memorial, and their generation is passing away at the rate of over 1,100 people per day. How much longer can they wait? Eight years ago, Congress passed the authorization for the World War II memorial. Today we have a site selected and a design approved through an exhaustive process that ensured careful consideration of all the relevant factors before the decisions were made. Unfortunately, no process can ensure unanimity. A litigious few are now attempting to block both the site selection and design in the courts on legal technicalities. Oh, yes, they too support a memorial. They just cannot agree on when or where or in what form, and they have no concern about how long that process might take. Mr. Speaker, despite a full and fair opportunity to have their opinions heard, they argue that the process was not perfect. The truth is, they do not like the result so their strategy is endless reconsideration and delay. They apparently do not care whether World War II veterans live to see their own memorial or not. The irony is that they live in a free society, exercising rights secured by the blood of our World War II veterans and other veterans. I frankly think this situation we find ourselves in today is unconscionable. I would like to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), now chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, himself a World War II combat veteran, for leading the way on this legislation. There is nobody more able and more qualified in this Chamber to be offering this resolution than my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona. I want to associate myself with his remarks, and note that he is a former chairman, chairman emeritus, of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. Speaker, like many in this Chamber and many who may be viewing these proceedings, I regret that my own father, a combat veteran who saw horrific action in New Guinea during World War II and elsewhere in the Pacific, including the Philippines, never got to see this memorial, having passed away a few years ago. He, like those 1,100 who die every day, will never see this memorial. Again, like I said a moment ago, that is unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the cosponsors, this is a bipartisan effort to try to get this very important memorial moving. I think it shows that there will be and I hope should be broad support across the spectrum for this. Let me just finally say that delay is denial. Again, 1,100 veterans die every day, 1,100 of the greatest generation. If we delay this another day, it is denial for them to see what this country has said in gratitude. It is a small token, but nevertheless it is an important token. I hope that everyone unanimously supports this important resolution. I salute the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLay amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me just read a statement: ``As it currently stands, the Rome Treaty could expose service members and the government officials of nonparty states to criminal liability based on politically-motivated charges brought by other states that object to the nonparty state's international policies.'' Mr. Chairman, that statement was made last year by Secretary of Defense Cohen on behalf of the Clinton administration. I think Members do not fully realize that this process has gone on for years. We have held hearings in the full International Relations Committee on this. There are serious flaws. Just as we saw with the U.N. Human Rights Commission, rogue states are now in charge of and acting as the ``conscience of humanity,'' to quote the chief of that commission. We are talking about the Sudan and China, and countries like Cuba. They now will sit with the black robes on and will judge our peacekeepers. I support ad hoc tribunals, but this grant of authority in the Rome Treaty goes far beyond that. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, Tom DeLay. I was an original cosponsor of the American Servicemen's Protection Act introduced by Mr. Tom DeLay in the last Congress. This important amendment would prohibit U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court (including restrictions on U.S. military participation in UN peacekeeping operations and the transfer of U.S. classified national security information, and the provision of U.S. military assistance, to the Court). The amendment also authorizes the President to use all means necessary to bring about the release of U.S. military personnel and certain other persons held captive by or on behalf of the Court. I am reminded of the raging debate which occurred at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting last year regarding the International Criminal Court. Our European allies were lambasting the United States, among others, for not supporting the Rome Statute of the ICC. The final text of the OSCE PA resolution in fact called on ``all member States to ratify the Rome Statute of the future International Criminal Court without delay.'' Members of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE PA (which I led) expounded on the provisions which were most problematic. In the waning days of the Clinton administration, he did sign the Rome Statute. I would warn the Bush administration about the serious pitfalls of the ICC, and I would encourage the President to not seek ratification of the Treaty. At the end of World War II, many people urged the creation of a permanent and independent international war crimes tribunal as a mechanism to deter future violations and to punish those responsible for committing systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It was envisioned as a permanent court in The Hague with the authority to prosecute suspected perpetrators of war crimes. The statute that ultimately emerged from the Rome negotiations in 1998, however, includes provisions which I believe would create unacceptable risks for the United States. The subject matter jurisdiction of the Court includes crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and ``aggression.'' But during the negotiations on the treaty, negotiators were unable to agree on a definition of ``aggression.'' This is particularly significant because the Nuremberg Tribunal used the term ``war of aggression'' in its charges against Nazi Germany, not the term ``aggression.'' In fact, acts of aggression by states already fall within the mandate of the U.N. Security Council and it is completely unclear what will be considered acts of aggression by individuals. States that have already ratified this treaty have bought a pig in a poke. The jurisdiction of the ICC can extend to citizens of states which are not party to the Treaty. This is particularly troublesome when you consider the possibility of U.S. military personnel stationed in a country party to the ICC--or serving on a UN peacekeeping mission-- being subject to the investigation and prosecution of the ICC even though the U.S. has not, and hopefully will not, become a party to the Treaty. This, in fact, is the provision to which the amendment being offered by Mr. DeLay is directed. Article 120 of the Statute forbids reservations to the ICC Treaty. Thus, the United States or any other country would have to either accept or reject the treaty in its entirety. In light of the problems I have alluded to, I believe that rejecting the ICC in its entirety is the only reasonable course open to the United States at this time. During the negotiations on the ICC Treaty, the effort by the United States to limit the application of the Court's jurisdiction over non- States Parties was squelched by the successful passage of a non-action vote requested by Norway. The United States also sought to curb the broad powers of the Court to prosecute the military personnel of UN Members States which are not party to the ICC Treaty but we were rebuffed. Mr. Chairman, let's consider for a moment the potential effects of the International Criminal Court should 60 States ratify the Treaty and should the ICC have the force of international law. Some supporters of the ICC have belittled concern that the United States--or other countries, for that matter--might find itself the target of politically driven prosecutions. But consider, for a moment, the reaction in some quarters to the use of force by NATO against Serbia in 1999. Serbia is suing eight NATO countries before the International Court of Justice right now for their participation in the NATO campaign; there are also charges by Serbian citizens that have been brought against 15 NATO countries before the European Court of Justice. More troubling are the accusations that were leveled by a group of lawyers from several countries who sought to have some 60 government officials from NATO countries, including NATO's Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The accusations included ``willful killing, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity, and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering.'' Human rights organizations raised concerns about NATO's attack on TV and radio transmission facilities, dropping cluster bombs and destroying power plants inside Serbia. Others argued that NATO's rules of engagement, which called for pilots to fly high out of range of Serbian missiles, endangered civilians and were thus ``clearly prohibited under international humanitarian law.'' Ironically, many of the same groups that had urged intervention to stop and prevent further atrocities in Kosovo quickly denounced NATO for its action. While I respect human rights groups that have raised legitimate questions about the conduct of the campaign, some NATO critics have clearly revealed a knee-jerk anti-American sentiment in their accusations. For the record, the Chief Prosecutor of the Yugoslav Tribunal considered the materials submitted to her regarding NATO actions and declined to pursue charges against any NATO officials. Inevitably, if the U.S. assumes a leadership role in maintaining peace and security and promoting human rights around the globe, the enemies of peace, security and human rights will continue to seek ways to undermine our efforts. Unfortunately, the current ICC statute does not provide sufficient safe-guards against the initiation of politically motivated prosecutions. The concerns raised by the United States regarding the Rome Statute are well-founded and I urge my colleagues to support fully the amendment offered by Mr. DeLay. This will help provide a modicum of protection for our men and women in uniform who may be serving on the territory of a country which has ratified the Treaty. The International Criminal Court hearings before the committee on international relations, house of representatives, one hundred sixth congress, second session, july 25 and 26, 2000 Selected Excerpts--Page 37 Mr. Smith of New Jersey. The concept of a permanent International Criminal Court charged with prosecuting the gravest of crimes against humanity is not a new one. The idea was proposed and dismissed after the conclusion of the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crime Tribunals that followed World War II. In recent years the idea has gained new momentum, driven largely by memories of the horrific crimes committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. I share the ideals of many ICC supporters. If we could construct an entity that would impartially prosecute only genocidal tyrants and war criminals I would support it without hesitation, but we do not inhabit an ideal world. The difficulty is in devising a system that will prosecute Pol Pot, but not President Clinton, that will indict Ratko Mladic but not Norman Schwartzkopf. I am concerned that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court fails to accomplish that goal and that it is susceptible to serious abuse and manipulation. As it took form, the draft statute ballooned from an instrument focused on well-established war crimes into an encyclopedia of still-emerging human rights law. The resulting statute is a 30,000 word document that covers 77 pages. It contains sweeping language that leaves many elements of vaguely defined crimes up to the imagination of international lawyers. For example, according to article VI the crime of genocide includes, ``causing serious mental harm'' to members of a, ``national, ethnic, racial or religious group.'' It is true that similar language is contained in the Convention against Genocide, but the United States took a reservation to the jurisdiction of the World Court over the definition of genocide. This is not because we intend to commit genocide, but because the United States was unwilling to surrender its sovereignty to a body that might be manipulated by hostile parties using the vague language of the convention as an ideological hobbyhorse. Similarly, article V asserts ICC jurisdiction over the, ``crime of aggression''--an offense that is not defined in international law or even in the Rome Statute itself, a point that I made repeatedly at the OSCE parliamentary assembly in Bucharest earlier this month. In the context of domestic law, such vagueness would be problematic. In the more combative context of international law it is dangerous. In addition to the problems posed by its vague definitions, the statute also claims a jurisdictional reach that is without precedent. Once 60 countries have ratified it, the statute claims ICC jurisdiction over any defendant who may have committed a crime in a signatory state regardless of whether the defendant's own state had ratified the treaty. By claiming to bind the subjects of non-signatory states, this self-executing, potentially universal jurisdiction directly challenges traditional concepts of national sovereignty. Finally, the Rome Statute gives the ICC prosecutor a vast amount of personal power with a minimum amount of oversight. The statute drafters rejected a U.S. proposal that the prosecutor only be allowed to proceed on cases referred either by a sovereign state or by the U.N. Security Council. Instead, the ICC prosecutor may initiate investigations and prosecutions on his own authority without control or oversight by any national or international party. Under article 44, the prosecutor may also accept any offer of, ``gratis personnel offered by nongovernmental organizations to assist with the work of any of the organs of the Court.'' I have long been a supporter of the important work undertaken by International NGO's, particularly relating to the protection of human rights and the provision of humanitarian relief, but it is also true that there exist hundreds of highly ideological NGO's who look to international bodies to promote agendas that go far beyond the domestic political consensus in their home countries. The combination of the independent prosecutor's extreme discretion with staff provided by well-funded extremist NGO's could lead to serious problems and partisanship by the ICC. These are but a few of the problems that I have with the present form of the Rome Statute. I readily acknowledge that many, probably most, ICC supporters do not intend for the Court to be used as a club for U.S.-bashing or as an engine or radical social engineering, but once the ICC is established it will take on a life of its own. Its activities will be restricted by the language of the Rome Statute itself rather than by the best intentions of its most responsible supporters, and I just would say finally, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I take a back seat to no one in promoting--in the past and present--both the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal and the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Balkans. When we were holding early hearings in our subcommittee as well as on the Helsinki Commission I offered language and amendments to boost the U.S. donation to those important tribunals and so I take a back seat to no one, but this I think has some very real problems that need to be addressed. I yield back. Page 52 Mr. Smith [presiding]. Let me ask a few questions and then I will yield to my friend, Mr. Berman, if he has any further questions. You mentioned checks and balances that exist within the Yugoslavian War Crimes Tribunal. Do those same checks and balances also exist in the Rome Statute? Ambassador Scheffer. Congressman, there are many more checks and balances in the ICC statute, and I can go into some of those. But the power of the prosecutor is much more qualified within the ICC statute. The principle of complementarity, which is nowhere found in the Yugoslav or Rwanda Tribunal statutes is a central feature of this particular Court. And, furthermore, this Court, the ICC, depends upon the states parties to the Court to actually make very important decisions relating to the Court, whereas, the Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals look to no governments whatsoever for their decisionmaking. Mr. Smith. Let me ask you what kind of checks and balances there are. In terms of elected officials, our Founding Fathers, I Page 53 think, were right in vesting only limited power in each of the three branches, being so distrustful, as they were, of any single entity being given so much power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What happens if a prosecutor and/or judges were to run amok and to engage in an ideological crusade against certain individuals? I think we already have a shot across the bow when lawyers brought action against NATO for alleged war crimes, that our planes were flying too high, putting additional civilians at risk, the choice of targets, which they seem to disagree with. A war crime then potentially could be in the eye of the beholder. Because, again, I do think there is some true elasticity to these terms. Yes, Mrs. Del Ponte did not accept and did not proceed on those charges, but some other prosecutor may not be so favorably inclined. You might want to comment on that. Looking back, if the Rome Statute were in effect during World War II, for example, and we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we did the firebombing of Dresden and the other German cities with a huge number of civilian casualties, would that be construed as a war crime under the plain meaning of the Rome Statute? Ambassador Scheffer. Well, Congressman, it is far too speculative to try to get into that. Remember that during World War II, the question is, were those actions violations of codified or customary international law at that time? Mr. Smith. That is not the question I am asking. Ambassador Scheffer. No, I know. Mr. Smith. Fast-forward those military actions that this country undertook with our Alliance. Ambassador Scheffer. It is entirely speculative to say we would use exactly the same military tactics today as we did during World War II. I would not speculate in that direction, not at all. We are far more precise---- Mr. Smith. But there is no doubt a reasonable man or woman could use the Rome Statute in cases analogous to matters of historical fact, where military decisions were made which resulted in huge casualties. Thankfully, at least, the consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the ending of the war. But there is an argument that has been made ever since as to the advisability of those actions. I think it is fair question. Past is prologue. We may be faced with this in the future. We all know that NATO, in terms of its war doctrine, would rely on superiority, at least during the Soviet days, rather than quantity. Quality was what we would rely on. There is the potential that a United States President, or a French President, or a British Prime Minister may have to make a decision some day to use nuclear weapons. It is not beyond the realm of possibility and it is not highly speculative. Those things have to be thought through. Since we have the historical record, I think it needs to be plugged in to see whether or not this would have triggered a war crimes prosecution. Ambassador Scheffer. Well, we were careful in the drafting of the statute, as well as the elements of crimes, to establish very high barriers to actually launching investigations and prosecuting the crimes. Not isolated incidents, there has to be systematic widespread events. There have to be plans and policies to directly assault civilian populations. If military necessity dominates the reasoning behind the use of any particular military force, then that is in conformity with international law and it is in conformity with the statute. But if you are asking me, speculate as to whether or not it can conceivably be drawn that the United States takes a particular type of military action without describing what the intent was behind it, the plan or the policy behind it, I can't answer questions like that because you have to go through every step of the analysis before you can answer whether or not this statute would actually apply to that particular use of military force. Mr. Smith. Well, one of the more perverse outcomes would be that our military strategists would be faced with factoring in not just what is in the best interests of the United States and our allies, and how are we more likely to achieve a military end to a conflict. they would also have to factor in whether or not such an action would violate the Rome Statute. Let me also say, our nuclear doctrine rests on deterrence, and if the Russians were to attack us or to launch, we would destroy Russian cities. How would that fit into a Rome Statute world? Ambassador Schheffer. Congressman, this statute, as I said, specifically provides very high barriers that have to be met. Mr. Smith. But crimes of aggression aren't even defined yet. Ambassador Scheffer. And it is contrary to U.S. Federal law as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice to violate the laws of war. So I would assume the plan or policy of the United States would not be to violate the laws of war. If it were the plan or policy to violate the laws of war, then we have a lot to answer for. But if it is not the policy to violate the laws of war, there should be symmetry between our actions and what has been set forth in the statute, which we agree with. We agree that the crimes set forth in the statute are crimes under customary international law which we must adhere to. We are not disagreeing with what is in the statute in terms of the list of crimes, we agree with them They must be complied with. Mr. Smith. And again, signing a document that still has not defined crimes of aggression---- Ambassador Schiffer. And by the way, I noticed that in your opening statement. I did want to get back to you on that. The whole process in the Preparatory Commission now is to try to determine, can there be a definition for aggression? The crime of aggression is not actionable under the statute unless there has been an agreement among the states parties to the statute at the 7-year review conference as to what is the definition of that crime. So you can't--there is no way to prosecute that crime until such a definition has been arrived at. And we have a very significant coalition of governments in total agreement with us as to how to proceed in those talks to define the crime of aggression. Interestingly enough, under the statute, if one is a state party to the statute, you have every right, if a new crime is added to the statute, to completely exclude yourself from the coverage of that crime. Page 55 Mr. Smith. Mr. Slocombe, Secretary Slocombe, if you could respond to the hypothetical posed earlier about not just our deterrence strategy, which is based on the obliteration of cities, unless something has changed there that I don't know about, but also the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the firebombing that took place in Germany. If the Rome Statute were in effect, would that have precluded those actions? Mr. Slocombe. Mr. Smith, I think the way I would answer that would be to say that, in our view, if the Rome Statute were properly applied, American military personnel or the political officers, the President and, I guess in those cases, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy who ordered operations could not properly be prosecuted under them because they were legitimate. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, indeed, in general, with respect to the strategic bombing campaign against both Japan and Germany with conventional weapons, I would maintain that, judged by the context in which they occurred, they were not violations of the law of war under any circumstances. So that, as a lawyer, the way I would answer the question would be that the United States would have a good defense if such cases were, in your case, hypothetically tried. What I am concerned about, what the United States is concerned about, is that there could be a politically motivated prosecution based on what would, in our view, be a misinterpretation of the law of war, and, therefore, a misinterpretation of the Rome Statute. And once one is in a court, once you concede the principle of jurisdiction, there are no guarantees as to the result. Mr. Smith. So it would be possible that a Hiroshima, Nagasaki type action or the firebombing in Japan and in Germany could be prosecuted in the future if such a thing were---- Mr. Slocombe. As we have said repeatedly, our concern in respect of this statute, in respect of the Court, is precisely the concern about politically motivated, in effect, bad faith prosecutions. Exactly. Mr. Smith. But what about a good faith prosecution, by someone who honestly believed that Hiroshima was a war crime? I mean it is possible that it could happen? Mr. Slocombe. Well, there is no question that on its face, the Court has jurisdiction over actual ``war crimes''. That is what the statute says, that is what is intended. Our concern, the United States military, through the United States military justice system, prosecutes and prosecutes vigorously well-founded allegations that American military personnel have violated the law of war. We do not need the International Criminal Court to deal with that problem. So that is a non-problem. Our concern is not that there would be valid prosecutions of American military personnel. Our concern, rather, is as I said, and as we had said repeatedly, our concern is with politically motivated prosecutions based not really on serious allegations of war crimes, but on disagreement with U.S. or other alliance policies, of which I think the rejected allegations with respect to Kosovo are a good example. Mr. Smith. Could I ask, and ask you to provide it for the record, that the Pentagon undertake an analysis as to whether or not Rome would apply to World War II actions like I mentioned before? Ambassador Scheffer, I think if these other issues were ironed out, you probably would like to see us sign this. But we have got to know what we are heading toward, and we need to look back before we look forward. Such an analysis, if it hasn't been done, really should be done. Mr. Slocombe. It has been done, that is the reason we opposed the treaty. Mr. Smith. What has been done, a look back at past conflicts? Mr. Slocombe. Well, I don't know that anyone did it in the mind of saying Dresden could have been prosecuted, I think they did it in the mind of saying you don't have to go back to World War II or to the Vietnam War to say that there is a very real danger that there could be politically motivated prosecutions through the International Criminal Court, and that is precisely the reason that not just the Department of Defense, but the Administration voted against the text and have refused to sign the treaty. Mr. Smith. And Ambassador Scheffer, you agree with that, there could be politically motivated prosecutions? Ambassador Scheffer. Precisely. Mr. Smith. I'm sorry? Ambassador Scheffer. Yes. Yes. Mr. Smith. Do you, Ambassador Scheffer, personally think that President Clinton made a mistake when he decided against signing the treaty in 1998? Your mike is not on. Ambassador Scheffer. I'm sorry, Congressman. My answer to your other questions was yes. Mr. Smith. OK. Thank you. Ambassador Scheffer. No, there was no mistake whatsoever. In fact, the issue of signing was simply not the issue. In Rome it was, do we agree with other governments to release the text of the statute out of the Rome Conference in the form that existed at the end of the conference? That was the only issue there. It truly is a more responsible course to take not to consider even the issue of signing until one sees the totality of this treaty regime. Mr. Slocombe. If I could, Mr. Chairman, could I read a sentence from a letter which Secretary Cohen, with the concurrence of his colleagues in the senior levels of the Administration, sent in support of Ambassador Scheffer's effort, which responds exactly to your point? It reads, ``As it currently stands, the Rome Treaty could expose servicemembers and Government officials of nonparty states to criminal liability based on politically motivated charges brought by other states that object to the nonparty states' international policies.'' That is our position and that, in a sentence, is the reason for our concerns. Mr. Smith. Let me ask a final question or two. Ambassador Scheffer, how likely do you really think it is that you will succeed in your efforts to get the ICC to forego criminal jurisdiction over Americans and persons from other countries that are not a party to the Rome Statute? And what happens if you fail? Obviously there are a different set of diplomats and parliamentarians that I was meeting with, but at the Bucharest Conference we were all alone in our opposition. I was amazed in speaking one-on-one during the course of the week in Bucharest at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at how Pollyanna-ish some of the views were of members who did not have a clue what was contained in the statute but just said ``We want an ICC and that is it.'' The British were probably more emphatic than anyone, although they seem to have been informed and knew the contents of the statute They were vigorously pushing for rapid ratification, which is what the operative language was that they were offering. The Germans offered it. We tried to weaken it with an amendment and it was not acceptable, regrettably. It seems as if, as Mr. Bereuter pointed out earlier, in terms of a willingness to just cede sovereignty, the Europeans have no problem with that, it seems. But obviously we do. What is the next step if they do not include us--or exclude us, I should say--from jurisdiction? What would be the next step? Ambassador Scheffer. Well, I think there will be some--let met just describe it as serious results if we cannot prevail with a provision or a document that is satisfactory to us in the Preparatory Commission talks. I think as Under Secretary Slocombe said earlier we are going to have to take a very serious reassessment of this. I think there is going to be a clearer assessment as to what we can consider in terms of military contingencies for this Government, but at the same time I would hope that that assessment could, the fact that there would be such an assessment would encourage a good number of governments, particularly our allies, that they have far more to gain from this process from the United States being a cooperative partner in this Treaty, even as a nonparty, than they do to isolate us by not taking into consideration the very specific requirements that we have in the international community, so all I can say is I hope I can succeed. I don't want to pretend to say that I have got an easy job ahead of me. Right now the deck is stacked against me, but we have to try. This is a step-by-step process. We have had to exercise some patience in getting there, but every time we have pursued our objectives since Rome to actually accomplish what we need to accomplish, we have accomplished it, so I want to go that final mile and see if we can accomplish this objective. Mr. Smith. Again, what is the likelihood of doing it? I mean Secretary Bolton and-- Ambassador Scheffer. It could be 50-50 at this stage. Mr. Smith. Secretary Bolton and Eagleburger, former Secretary of State, have made it clear that they thought we lost the fight 2 years ago. Ambassador Scheffer. Well, as I said, we simply do not share their vision of either having lost or waging this campaign. I think you have to be in the trenches of it to recognize that other governments truly do not want, at least many other governments, truly do not want to see the United States walk out of this process. They know how valuable we can be in the long-run for this Court and therefore I would hope that we could persuade them that a reasonable accommodation within the Treaty regime of U.S. interests is going to be to the betterment of the entire process and to the Court itself. Mr. Smith. I would respectfully suggest that we did lose it 2 years ago. We are trying to fix it now, and I obviously wish you success. We all would wish you success on that, but, you know, you mentioned serious repercussions or serious consequences. I think we are more likely to avoid that if we are very specific in saying this or that happens. Predictability I think is your friend now. Can you elaborate on some of the consequences if we lose? Ambassador Scheffer. Well, as we have already stated to our colleagues in other governments in letters that the Secretary of Defense has sent to his counterparts, we would have to re- evaluate our ability to participate in military contingencies if we cannot prevail on that, and I think that is a fairly powerful consequence. In addition to that, I think governments truly are having to gauge what is the consequence if the United States cannot be a good neighbor to this treaty. It will severely cripple the operation of this Court if we cannot be a player in it. Mr. Smith. How would it affect peacekeeping in your view, and Mr. Slocombe, you might want to add your views on peacemaking as well? Ambassador Scheffer. I think it could have a very severe impact on that. Walt? Mr. Slocombe. What the Secretary of Defense said in his letter was unfortunately a negative result--that is, a negative result with respect to the article 98 effort--could have a major impact on our decision whether to participate in certain types of military contingencies. That is what he said. I would not see that as an absolute judgment that we will never send American troops overseas in any situation, but it would have to be a factor we would have to take into account. Mr. Smith. Just getting back to the legislation, and I know in its current form you have made it clear you don't support it, but can you not at least admit there is some value in again broadcasting to the world that we are very serious and that the Congress is very serious about there being very negative consequences if this thing proceeds and we are included, having not been made a party to it, having not ceded or signed it? Ambassador Scheffer. Well, I think there is some value to it and the mere existence of the legislation I think has sent that signal very loudly and clearly. What I am saying is that actual adoption of this legislation would then have the reverse effect on our ability to actually negotiate our common objective. Mr. Smith. Let me just take that one step further. I mean the President obviously would have the capability of vetoing the bill if he thought it was not the right vehicle. But let me point out that the Congress also has prerogatives, and we do fund peacekeeping. We obviously provide the necessary and requisite moneys for our military. It seems to me that we need to be very much a part of this because the outcome could be a disaster going forward for the world and for U.S. men and women in uniform who may be deployed overseas. As I have read this, and I have read just about everything I can get my hands on, I have grave concerns. I said at the outset that no one has been more favorably inclined toward ad hoc tribunals than I am. When we had the first hearings in the Helsinki Commission on what became the Yugoslavian Tribunal we were being told by its leader, the man that was charged by the United Nations to take on the responsibility, that it was designed to fail, that he had been given insufficient resources, that it was nothing but fluff in order to placate certain individuals in countries, but it really was not a serious effort. Now if we go in the other extreme and all of a sudden pass or enact something that potentially could prosecute the President or our Secretary of State or Defense or Supreme NATO Allied Commander, I think we have erred significantly as well, and I don't think there has been enough vetting of this issue. I think a very small group of people have decided this. As I mentioned earlier, you know, I really want to take a look at who the actual participants were. We have heard that NGO's were filling the seats and taking on the responsibility of negotiating rather than the respective governments, who were kind of like brushed aside and the designated hitters were making decisions. That is serious if that indeed turns out to be the case. So I think there has been far less scrutiny brought to this, and hopefully these hearings are the beginning of even more focus by the Congress, but I thank you for your testimony. Mr. Tancredo is here. Do you have any comments? Mr. Tancredo. No. Mr. Smith. I do thank you for your comments. We look forward to working with you in the future. Ambassador Scheffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Slocombe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the pending Foreign Relations Authorization Act crafted so ably by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his extraordinary leadership as chairman of the committee. I think we are off to a good start, and I commend him and thank him for his great leadership. H.R. 1646, Mr. Chairman, authorizes a myriad of critical State Department functions, funding for international organizations, freedom broadcasting, democracy initiatives, public diplomacy, cultural and educational exchanges, refugee protection, and funding and conditions on such funding for the United Nations. This legislation builds on our achievements in the last Congress regarding these issues and is especially important in strengthening security for our missions abroad. In light of the significant increase in threats to our personnel and embassies overseas, Congress has a sacred duty to ensure that every imaginable step be taken to make posting abroad as risk-free as humanly possible. This bill is a faithful attempt to achieve that goal. Finally, the bill contains several disparate provisions from authorizing the transfer of naval vessels to Taiwan, Poland, Brazil, and Turkey; to the establishment of special envoys within the State Department to Tibet and Sudan; to promoting police reform & peace in Northern Ireland. After general debate, Mr. Chairman, the House will consider several amendments; and today it is my understanding we will only be getting to the U.N. amendments, so I would like to address some of those briefly. First, let me urge my colleagues to strongly support a modest compromise amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to condition the release of the third and final arrearage payment of $244 million, which would be released next year, on the U.S. reclaiming its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Tragically, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, created to be a watchdog for human rights, has become seriously flawed and compromised. The membership includes some of the most egregious violators of human rights, including countries like China, Cuba, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, and Sudan. This rogue's gallery of torturers, persecutors, and bullies exploit the commission process to avoid scrutiny and to deflect criticism of their barbarism. In Geneva, the home of the Commission, and in foreign capitals, they aggressively lobby and intimidate nations to effectively silence and paralyze any actions against them; and it works. The U.S. resolution, for example, condemning China for its pervasive violations of human rights, lost from a no action vote just a few weeks ago. It is no coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that Jiang Zemin made a blitzkrieg tour of Latin American nations who just happened to be on the commission immediately prior to the vote to shore up his vote count. In the end, money, contracts, and fear prevailed; and China again got off scot-free from scrutiny and exposure for its abusing its own citizens. Mr. Chairman, permitting dictatorships on the commission, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner, has called the conscience of humanity, is an outrage. Dictators like China and Cuba, they are not the conscience of humanity. That is an oxymoron, and they do not belong there. It is time we demanded sweeping reform of the commission itself. At the absolute minimum, and this is reflected in section 603 of the bill, human rights monitors should have unfettered access to any country, including its prisons, who serve on the commission. Next, I would like to urge Members to support the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) because of the profoundly serious detrimental consequences the international criminal court would have on U.S. service men and women, especially our peacekeepers, and on elected and public officials. Known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 120 delegations voted to establish the tribunal in July of 1998. The Rome Statute, is comprised of 128 articles. Those who oppose it included the Clinton administration and six other nations, and there was some 21 countries that abstained. Core crimes with expansive definitions include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The problem is, Mr. Chairman, there are serious questions as to how the definitions of these crimes will play out. For example, the definition of war crimes includes extensive destruction and appropriation of property. What is that? The term aggression, Mr. Chairman, is still in the process of being defined. Then there is the issue of the independence of the prosecutor. Our delegation in Rome had sought a check and a balance that would have vested final authority in the U.N. Security Council. They lost. A more nuanced and problematic two-tier approach was adopted that confers considerable powers to the prosecutor to self-initiate prosecution. There are problems of constitutionality. As Members know, both Federal laws and treaties entered into and ratified are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. While the accused enjoy some U.S.-style rights, there are no protections from unreasonable searches, and there are no requirements for a trial by jury. As we have seen at the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, there is considerable chance that rogue nations will have influence, and I would submit undue influence, in both prosecutions and convictions and in the meting out of sentences, thus subjecting U.S. military personnel and public officials to criminal prosecution that a reasonable person might not think to be a war crime or aggression. Last July, I asked Ambassador Scheffer, who was our lead negotiator at Rome, and Undersecretary Slocombe if past U.S. military actions from the bombing in Tokyo to Dresden to Hiroshima to Nagasaki or any action in Korea or Vietnam might be construed as an actionable offense. He pointed out that the United States, looking back, would have a good defense if such cases, in my hypothetical case had been tried. Then he underscored that our concern is with politically motivated prosecutions. I do not want to put our military men and women, our peacekeepers in harm's way. While this may be a well-intentioned court, it certainly has some very serious flaws. I think the amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) helps to rectify that, at least in terms of our participation. Let me say that I take a back seat to no one for pushing for ad hoc tribunals. When the Rwandan as well as the Yugoslavia tribunal were in their infant stages, I offered the amendments in the committee to boost the funding; but it needs to be done on an ad hoc basis. And I do believe it needs to be done in a way that is more likely to lead to prosecution of serious war criminals and not these kinds of prosecutions that would be frivolous and unjust. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that H.R. 1646 includes the Smith/ King amendment regarding human rights and the peace process in Northern Ireland. As adopted by the Committee, our amendment, now Section 203, updates and modifies a provision Mr. King and I authored two years ago to ban Federal funds from being used to support training or exchange programs conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC, Northern Ireland's police force). Specifically, we are intent on ensuring that RUC members who are believed to have committed or condoned human rights violations, including any role in the murder of human rights attorneys Patrick Finucane or Rosemary Nelson, are ``vetted out'' or prohibited from any program sponsored or subsidized by the U.S. government. We hope that by example, those working on police reform in Northern Ireland will similarly isolate and ``vet out'' RUC members who condone human rights abuses. Section 203 of this new bill reinforces the ban on the funding--until the President certifies that human rights standards and vetting procedures are integrated into the program--and requires a report, within 60 days of enactment, on the scope of previous training programs. Section 203 also requires a second report that outlines the extent to which the British government has implemented the 175 recommendations listed in the Patten Commission report on policing reforms in Northern Ireland including those recommendations that emphasize the integration of respect for human rights and emphasize efforts to recruit Catholics for the new police force. As you know, the RUC has proportionally far fewer Catholics than the population of Northern Ireland and the imbalance has underscored the RUC's inability to achieve confidence in all communities who are signatories to the peace process. The required report will also provide information on the integration of members of the Garda Siochana (the national police force of the Republic of Ireland) or other experienced police force applicants into the senior ranks of the RUC by both the British and Irish governments, as envisioned by the Patten report. As part of the Good Friday Agreement, the implementation of the full Patten report is critical to a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Section 203 requires that the report also include information on the status of the murder investigations of defense attorneys Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane and the murder of Robert Hamill. In April 1999, the House of Representatives passed by resolution (H. Res. 128) condemning the murder of Rosemary Nelson, who had testified before the International Relations Subcommittee on Human Rights on the status of police reform in Northern Ireland. The House is also on record calling for independent, RUC-free judicial inquiries into the Finucane and Nelson murders. To date, the British government has rebuffed the call, that has also been supported by numerous human rights organizations around the globe. The mandated report is designed to provide Congress with up-to-date information on these matters so that we can continue to effectively promote accountability and justice for these victims and their families.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me just respond very briefly. I thought we would be having this debate next week, but the Hyde-Barcia-Smith- Oberstar amendment has been mentioned several times and a response is warranted. Unfortunately, the underlying language that was adopted in committee would reverse the Bush-Mexico City policy. As a matter of historical record, I have been offering the pro-life language since 1984. We have never won, not once, in the Committee on International Relations; but this House in every instance has overturned what the committee had done in every instance as well. So I think that is important to point out, that at the end of the process, the House votes to uphold the Mexico City Policy. It is simply inaccurate, to say we do not pay for abortions, when we fund abortion organizations overseas. It is a bookkeeping ploy to fund organizations that fund abortions. We are not fooled. The issue comes down to this: how important are the unborn children? Are they important or are they not? If we are talking about discrimination or some other issue, we would say that we want to have conditions that would not give money to the organization if it discriminates, even if the nongovernmental organization did something that was laudable, like feeding the hungry. If they practiced discrimination as well, we would simply say thanks, but no thanks; we will find another nongovernmental organization. The Mexico City policy works this way, and has worked well. During the Reagan and Bush years, when we had this policy in effect for about 9 years, 350 nongovernmental organizations that provide family planning, including 57 international Planned Parenthood affiliates, accepted the pro-life safeguards and provided family planning. We established a wall of separation between family planning and abortion. Abortion, the killing of an unborn child, is not family planning. We have $425 million currently being used for family planning. That would not be reduced by even one penny, as a result of the Mexico City policy. Every dime will go to NGOs and programs that provide family planning, but not abortion. That is what this is all about. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members next week would vote for the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, section 104 would provide an enormous amount of money, $130 million over 2 years. That is more than half a billion dollars over 10 years, $60 million a year thereafter for the U.S. to become a part of UNESCO. The amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to strike this new commitment of funds is prudent, and I believe it deserves support of this body. It seems to me that, before we make this enormous financial commitment, should not we know the cost benefit of this open- ended commitment? How vital is UNESCO vis-a-vis other commitments that we might make otherwise? We left, Mr. Chairman, in 1984, because of mismanagement, because of highly questionable policies especially in the realm of state control of the press. I would point out to my colleagues no recent hearings have been held on rejoining. What is it that we are buying into? We need, it seems to me, a generous amount of due diligence before any decision is made on this. I would just note parenthetically that, if we have a half a billion dollars over the next 10 years and it is in excess of that lying around, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have some very, very worthy projects in the area of health care that I would like to dedicate that money to before we start throwing money at UNESCO. So I would hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) would get the support of this body.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the United Nations Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, took an action again that raises grave doubts about what kind of organization it is. During the last 6 days, editorial writers all across this country been working overtime to try and explain away the outrageous vote to deprive the U.S. of its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission. As always, they are saying that it was the Kyoto treatment or the criminal court or somehow if we just paid our arrearages a little faster the problem would be solved. These are bogus, false pretenses, Mr. Chairman. The real reason why we have been thrown off the U.N. Human Rights Commission is because they want to silence what is clearly the strongest voice on the Commission in favor of human rights. The U.S. has insisted that the Commission tell the honest and unvarnished truth about human rights violations the world over. Some of the other nations on the commission, such as China, Cuba, Vietnam, Malaysia, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and now Sudan, have problems with the truth-- especially at it pertains to human rights. Mr. Chairman, instead of excluding countries from the U.N. Human Rights Commission because they are too strong on human rights, the U.N. should be concerned about excluding governments that routinely engage in torture, extrajudicial killings, rape as an instrument of terror, forced abortions, sterilization, and other kinds of discriminations. I urge a yes vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress voted to resolve the dispute over so-called ``United Nations arrearages''. The agreement was simple: we would pay almost all of the disputed amount, provided the United Nations would agree to treat the United States more fairly when it came to dues, peacekeeping assessments, and other issues--and provided the UN would also take concrete steps to put its own house in order. Then the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) took an action that again raises grave doubts about what kind of an organization it is. During the last six days, Mr. Chairman, editorial writers have been working overtime trying to explain away the outrageous vote to deprive the United States of the seat it has held since 1947 on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. As always, the central theme of these editorials is to blame America first. If only we had ratified the Kyoto Convention, or the CEDAW agreement, or the International Criminal Court. Or if only we had paid those disputed arrearages a little quicker. If only we had not been so ``unilateral'' which is the most bogus of all. Then perhaps we would have stayed in the good graces of ECOSOC and kept our seat on the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Chairman, the editorial writers are even more wrong this time than they usually are. The vote to exclude the United States from the Commission was primarily a vote to silence the strongest voice on the Commission in favor of human rights. The United States has insisted that the commission tell the honest and unvarnished truth about human rights violations the world over. And some of the other nations on the Commission, such as China, Cuba, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and now Sudan, have problems with the truth. Mr. Chairman, not only did this year's Human Rights Commission members vote for a ``no-action motion'' that prevented the Commission from even debating the human rights record of the People's Republic of China. It also voted for a resolution on Sudan that did not even mention the word ``slavery,'' and for a resolution on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict that did not mention human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority. I was there in Geneva with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart--we are resented for sadly raising true issues. Mr. Chairman, instead of excluding countries from the Human Rights Commission because they are too strong on human rights, the U.N. should be concerned about excluding governments that routinely engage in torture, extrajudicial killing, rape as an instrument of terror, forced abortion, forced sterilization, and other forms of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion. If being in arrears can result in the loss of a vote in the General Assembly--which is the rule--surely barbaric behavior should disqualify a nation from the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Without these important reforms, the Commission will be in grave danger of becoming, as our colleague Mr. Diaz-Balart has observed, no more than a ``club of tyrannies.'' For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania threw off the yoke of Soviet domination and regained their independence. Between World War I and World War II, they had been sovereign nations and respected members of the international community. In 1939, however, they were illegally partitioned between Hitler and Stalin as part of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Based on this agreement, Hitler gave Stalin the green light to seize the Baltic states. I am proud to state that the illegal incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the Soviet Union was never recognized by the United States Government. Stalin's NKVD killed or exiled thousands of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians who resisted the takeover and subjugation. If not murdered outright, tens of thousands of Baltic citizens were rounded up and loaded into railroad cars to be shipped to distant regions of the Soviet Union. The current president of Estonia, for instance, grew up in Siberia. The President of Latvia, whom I recently had the pleasure of meeting, grew up in a refugee camp in Germany where her family had fled from the Soviet incursion. Almost 300,000 Lithuanians were deported to Siberia in the 1940s and 1950s. Those Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians who remained in their homelands saw their native languages and cultures denigrated in favor of Soviet ``culture'' and linguistic ``Russification.'' Among the political prisoners in the post-Stalin GULAG, the Balts were well represented. We still remember the names of Baltic political prisoners such as Mart Niklus, Gunars Astra, and Nijole Sadunaite, and many others willing to sacrifice their freedom and, in some cases, give their lives to resist Soviet oppression of their homelands. But the Soviet system was doomed and the people of the Baltic nations knew it. ``Glasnost'' and ``perestroika'' gave them the opportunity to resolutely, but peacefully, work to regain their independence. In August 1989, on the 50th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, about one million Balts created a human chain the ``Baltic Way,'' stretching about 400 miles from Estonia, through Latvia, to Lithuania to protest Soviet rule over their nations. Two years later, after a bloody but ultimately fruitless attempt by Moscow to regain armed control over its unruly subjects, the people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania had regained the independence they had dreamed of for so long. And now, ten years after that momentous event, the Baltic nations are again sovereign nations, respected members of the international community. Their David-and-Goliath struggle is an inspiration to enslaved peoples everywhere. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Hastings of Florida, in submitting a resolution which congratulates the people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the tenth anniversary of the restoration of their full independence. This resolution also calls upon the United States Government to continue the close and mutually beneficial relations with these countries that have existed since the restoration of full independence. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just ask, it is my further understanding that the conferees agree to an overall level of discretionary spending that would allow veterans' discretionary spending to go as high as $26.2 billion in budget authority for fiscal years 2002, a level consistent with the Senate approved level. This level would accommodate major increases in spending for VA health care and for claims processing and could be as much as $3.6 billion above 2001. In any event, the increase would be no lower than the House-passed $1.7 billion. Is that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget's understanding?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the chairman for those clarifications. I congratulate the chairman on an outstanding budget.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chair. I would like to commend the chairman and commend him for his determined advocacy on behalf of our Nation's veterans. As the chairman knows, the House-passed budget resolution included a significant increase compared to 2001 levels in total spending for veterans' benefits and services. The total increase for this function was $5.6 billion over the fiscal year 2001 budget authority level, providing a total of $52.3 billion for fiscal 2002. It is my understanding that the conferees accepted the House-passed mandatory spending level for function 700, a total of $28 billion, which assumes a phased-in increase in the Montgomery GI Bill and other benefit improvements contained in H.R. 801. Is that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget's understanding as well?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution congratulating the Kalmyk people in the United States on the fiftieth anniversary of their settlement in this country. The resolution also encourages continuing scholarly and educational exchanges between the Russian Federation and the United States to encourage better understanding and appreciation of the Kalmyk people and their contributions to the history and culture of both countries. The Kalmyks were originally an ethnic Mongolian nomadic people who have inhabited the Russian steppes for around 400 years. The present Kalmyk Republic of the Russian Federation is located north of the Caspian sea in southern Russia. During World War II, the Kalmyk people were one of the seven ``punished peoples'' exiled en masse by Stalin to ``special settlements'' in Siberia and Central Asia for allegedly collaborating with the Nazis. There were about 170,000 deportees. After World War II, several hundred Kalmyks who managed to escape the Soviet Union were held in Displaced Persons camps in Germany. For several years, they were not allowed to emigrate to the United States because of prejudice against their Mongolian ethnicity. However, on July 28, 1951, the Attorney General of the United States issued a ruling which cleared the way for the Kalmyk people in the Displaced Persons camps in Germany to enter the United States. In the fifty years since their arrival, the Kalmyk emigres and their descendants have survived and prospered. Moreover, they are the first community of Tibetan Buddhists to settle in the United States. While adapting to much of America's diverse and modern culture, the Kalmyk have also sought to preserve their own unique traditions. Many continue to practice the Tibetan Buddhist religion. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kalmyk community of the United States has been able to re-establish contact with the Kalmyk people in the Russian Federation. For the past ten years, a wide exchange has been developed between relatives, students and professionals. Mr. Speaker, our country is so much richer for the presence of our Kalmyk-American citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Hastings, in congratulating the Kalmyk-American community on the fiftieth anniversary of their settlement in the United States by cosponsoring and supporting this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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 rise to express my strong support for the United Nations' International Labor Organization (ILO) Worldwide Workers' Rights public awareness poster campaign. The goal of this initiative is not only to make people aware of the shameful atrocities workers suffer around the world, but to say that all workers have basic, fundamental rights. The right to form a union, bargain collectively, work free of discrimination, refuse forced labor, and to reject child labor. These moral and humane worker rights should and must be honored both in the job field and during international trade and other agreements. We cannot look the other way when these issues come before us. I would like to ask my colleagues how they would feel if their family, loved ones, and children were forced to work under conditions where basic labor and human rights were eroded by the lack of enforceable labor protections. Unfortunately, the ILO estimates that about 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are in the workforce, half of which are employed full-time, often in dangerous industries. During hearings I held as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights in previous sessions of Congress it became obvious that children often labor under unsafe conditions. These young people frequently go to work in dangerous factories or mines, not to mention the despicable business of child pornography and prostitution. Legislation I introduced, which was passed by the full House, would have authorized $30 million per year from fiscal years 1999 to 2001 for the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC). This organization has identified the need for specific programs in dangerous industries where child labor is prevalent. While well intentioned efforts have been made on behalf of these children, not enough has been done. Child labor continues to grow in many countries around the world. Regrettably, some of the trade agreements approved by Congress, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status for China, have compounded the worldwide child labor problem. Unfortunately, the idea of linking worker rights and child labor laws with trade policy is still in the early stage of development. Nations should not be recognized and rewarded with profitable trade agreements for their systematic violation of internationally recognized workers' rights. These rights must be considered when we discuss plans to expand NAFTA or address our current trade relation agreements with The Peoples Republic of China. Although on paper, virtually every country in the world has outlawed child labor in its cruelest forms, in reality, hundreds of millions of children are still being robbed of childhood for the profit of others. We can no longer look the other way when basic fundamental labor and children rights are denied or broken. These rights must be addressed head-on and in the most straightforward way. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pledge their active support for the basic labor rights brought to the forefront by the ILO's declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work.