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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 811, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, 180 years ago the Greek people rose against the Ottoman Empire to free themselves from oppression and to reestablish not only a free and independent state, but a country that would eventually regain her ancient status as a democracy. In congratulating the people of Greece on the anniversary of their revolution, I join in recognizing the distinction earned by Greece as the birthplace of democracy and her special relationship with the United States in our fight together against Nazism, communism and other aggression in the last century alone. Yes, democrats around the world should recognize and celebrate this day together with Greece to reaffirm our common democratic heritage. Yet, Mr. Speaker, while the ancient Greeks forged the notion of democracy, and many Greeks of the last century fought to regain democracy, careful analyses of the political and basic human freedoms climate in today's Greece paint a sobering picture of how fundamental and precious freedoms are treated. Taking a look at the issues which have been raised in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Review Meetings and will be considered over the next week at the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), a few of the most critical human dimension concerns about contemporary Greece affect the freedom of expression, the freedom of religious belief and practice, and protection from discrimination. Legal restrictions on free speech remain on the books, and those convicted have typically been allowed to pay a fine instead of going to jail. In recent years, though, Greek journalists and others have been imprisoned based on statements made in the press. This was noted in the most recent Country Report on Human Rights Practices prepared by the Department of State. The International Press Institute has also criticized the frequent criminal charges against journalists in cases of libel and defamation. Religious freedom for everyone living in Greece is not guaranteed by the Greek Constitution and is violated by other laws which are often used against adherents of minority or non-traditional faiths. Especially onerous are the provisions of Greek law which prohibit the freedom of religious These statutes have a chilling impact on religious liberty in the Hellenic Republic and are inconsistent with numerous OSCE commitments which, among other things, commit Greece to take effective measures to prevent and eliminate religious discrimination against individuals or communities; allow religious organizations to prepare and distribute religious materials; ensure the right to freedom of expression and the right to change one's religion or belief and freedom to manifest one's religion or belief. Over the last ten years, the European Court of Human Rights has issued more than a dozen judgments against Greece for violating Article 9 (pertaining to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. One positive development was the decision made last summer to remove from the state-issued national identity cards the notation of one's religious affiliation. In May 2000, Minister of Justice Professor Mihalis Stathopoulos publicly recognized that this practice violated Greece's own Law on the Protection of Personal Data passed in 1997. The decision followed a binding ruling made by the relevant Independent Authority which asked the state to remove religion as well as other personal data (fingerprints, citizenship, spouse's name, and profession) from the identity cards. This has long been a pending human rights concern and an issue raised in a hearing on religious freedom held by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (which I Co-Chair) in September 1996. I am pleased to note that Greece has acknowledged in its most recent report to the UN CERD that the problems faced by the Roma community (which has been a part of Greek society for more than 400 years), migrant workers and refugees are ``at the core of the concern of the authorities.'' The recognition that issues which need attention is always the first step necessary to addressing the problem. The Commission has received many reports regarding the Roma community in Greece, including disturbing accounts of pervasive discrimination in employment, housing, education, and access to social services, including health care. With a very high illiteracy rate, this segment of Greek society is particularly vulnerable to abuse by local officials, including reports of Roma being denied registration for voting or identity cards that in turn prevents them from gaining access to government-provided services. Particularly alarming are incidents such as the forced eviction of an estimated 100 families by order of the mayor of Ano Liossia and the bulldozing of their makeshift housing in July of 2000. Similar incidents have occurred in recent years in Agia Paraskevi, Kriti, Trikala, Nea Koi, and Evosmos. Our Founding Fathers relied heavily on the political and philosophical experience of the ancient Greeks, and Thomas Jefferson even called ancient Greece ``the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' As an ally and a fellow participating State of the OSCE, we have the right and obligation to encourage implementation of the commitments our respective governments have made with full consensus. I have appreciated very much and applaud the willingness of the Government of Greece to maintain a dialogue on human dimension matters within the OSCE. We must continue our striving together to ensure that all citizens enjoy their fundamental human rights and freedoms without distinction.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet five representatives from the independent, non- governmental organization Otpor. ``Otpor,'' in Serbian, means ``resistance,'' and the organization was founded in the mid-1990s by students from Belgrade University and elsewhere in Serbia, who had enough of Slobodan Milosevic's choke-hold on the neck of Serbian society. Their efforts have forged a strong bond between idealism and realism. Otpor members engaged in passive resistance, never advocating violence nor returning the blows they received from the police and other thugs under Milosevic's control. Instead, they had a stronger weapon-- determination and persistence. Fear would not keep them from putting up their posters, from wearing their black-and-white emblem of a clenched fist. Moreover, they kept their eye on the goal of a democratic and tolerant Serbia at peace with its neighbors and with itself. The organization appointed no specific leader, in a strategy to thwart any attempt to compromise the individual--they had learned the lesson from observing the many opposition politicians in Serbia who had been compromised. During the past two years, more than 1,500 Otpor activists, of about 50,000 based in over 10 Serbian cities, were arrested and interrogated by security forces under Milosevic's control. One of the five who visited my office had himself been arrested on 17 occasions. Prior to the September 2000 elections, Otpor worked closely with the democratic political opposition, independent trade unions, NGOs and other youth groups to mobilize voters. Otpor's activists played a crucial role in the street demonstrations that began immediately following the elections and led to Milosevic's downfall. The impressive delegation of five Otpor activists visiting Washington included Slobodan Homen, Nenad Konstantinovic, Jovan Ratkovic, Jelena Urosevic and Robertino Knjur, all in their mid- to late-20s and very good English speakers. It is amazing to realize that they all grew up in the cruel, hateful and impoverished world Slobodan Milosevic had created for them in the 1990s. In the meeting, they provided one piece of very good news. One Otpor activist, Boris Karajcic, had testified in 1998 before the Helsinki Commission which I co-chair and was beaten up on the streets of Belgrade a few weeks later. Today, Boris is a member of the Serbian parliament. He is an active part of Serbia's future. Otpor itself will also be part of Serbia's future. While Milosevic is out of power, there is much to be done to recover from the nightmare he created. First, they are investigating and compiling complaints about the police officers who brutalized them and other citizens of Serbia who opposed the regime, and they will seek to ensure that officers who seemed to take a particular delight in beating people for exercising their rights are held accountable. They want to see Milosevic himself arrested, both for his crimes in Serbia and the war crimes for which he faces an international indictment. The Otpor group also advocates the founding of a school of public administration, which does not exist in Serbia and is desperately needed as the government bureaucracies are swollen with Milosevic cronies who have no idea how to implement public policy. Along similar lines, they hope to begin an anti-corruption campaign. Finally, they pointed out that, with the fall of Milosevic, the united opposition now in power has no credible, democratic political opposition to it. Until Serbian politics develop further, they intend to serve some of that role, being a watchdog of the new leaders. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Otpor group with which I met has a track record of accomplishment, ideas for the future, and a good sense of how to bring those ideas into reality. While they have had the heart and the courage, they also have had the assistance of the United States through the National Endowment of Democracy and other organizations which promote democratic development abroad. I hope my colleagues will continue to support this kind of assistance, for Serbia and other countries where it is needed, which serves not only the interests of the United States but the cause of humanity.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, Mr. Evans of Illinois, Mr. Moran of Kansas and Mr. Filner of California, and other members of the Veteran's Affairs Committee, I am introducing a new measure, the ``Veterans Hospitals Emergency Repair Act,'' that my colleagues and I hope will begin to address what has become a troubling and lingering problem in some of our Nation's veterans hospitals: a crumbling and substandard patient-care infrastructure. The problems even include buildings that could collapse in earthquakes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, just yesterday in Tacoma, Washington, a temblor of 6.8 magnitude damaged patient care buildings 6 and 81 on the campus of the American Lake VA Medical Center. Mr. Speaker, for the past several years, we have noted that the President's annual budget for VA health care has requested little or no funding for major medical facility construction projects for America's veterans. As we indicated last year in our report to the Committee on the Budget on the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2001, VA has engaged in an effort through market-based research by independent organizations to determine whether present VA facility infrastructures are meeting needs in the most appropriate manner, and whether services to veterans can be enhanced with alternative approaches. This process, called ``Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services,'' or ``CARES,'' has commenced within the Department of Veterans Affairs, but will require several years before bearing fruit. In the interim, Mr. Speaker, some VA hospitals need additional maintenance, repair and improvements to address immediate dangers and hazards, to promote safety and to sustain a reasonable standard of care for the nation's veterans. Recent reports by outside consultants and VA have revealed that dozens of VA health care buildings are still seriously at risk from seismic damage. The buildings at American Lake damaged in yesterday's earthquake were among those identified as being at the highest levels of risk. Also, Mr. Speaker, a report by VA identified $57 million in improvements were needed to address women's health care; another report, by the Price Waterhouse firm, concluded that VA should be spending from 2 percent to 4 percent of its ``plant replacement value'' (PRV) on upkeep and replacement of its health care facilities. This PRV value in VA is about $35 billion; thus, using the Price Waterhouse index on maintenance and replacement, VA should be spending from $700 million to $1.4 billion each year. In fact, in fiscal year 2001, VA will spend only $170.2 million for these purposes. While Congress authorized a number of major medical construction projects in the past three fiscal years, these have received no funding through the appropriations process. I understand that some of the more recent deferrals of major VA construction funding were intended to permit the CARES process to proceed in an orderly fashion, avoiding unnecessary spending on VA hospital facilities that might, in the future, not be needed for veterans. I agree with this general policy, especially for those larger hospital projects, ones that ordinarily would be considered under our regular annual construction authorization authority. We need to resist wasteful spending, especially when overall funds are so precious. But I believe that I have a better plan. Mr. Speaker, when I assumed the Chairmanship of the Veterans Committee earlier this year, I asked what steps my colleagues and I might take immediately that could help our veterans. The legislation that I am introducing today is part of the answer. This bill, which I am pleased is cosponsored by my friend and the Ranking Member of theJerry Moran of Kansas, our new Chairman of the Health Subcommittee, as well as the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Mr. Bob Filner of Califomia, as well as other members of the Veteran's Affairs Committee, sets up a temporary, 2-year program of delegated authorizations of smaller construction projects (each limited to a cost of less than $25 million) that would update, improve and restore VA health care facilities in a defined number of sites each of these years. The Secretary would be given this power to approve individual facility projects, generally based on recommendations of an independent capital investments board and on criteria detailed in our bill that place a premium on projects to protect patient safety and privacy, improve seismic protection, provide barrier-free accommodation, and improve VA patient care facilities in several specialized areas of concern, such as privacy needs for women veterans, in order to meet the contemporary standard of care for our veterans. The bill would require the Secretary, at the end of the process, to report his actions to the VA Committee and to the Appropriations Committee as well. The bill also would mandate a review of this delegated-project approach by the General Accounting Office, to ensure this is an effective mechanism to advance some VA medical construction during the pendency of CARES. Mr. Speaker, our bill would authorize appropriations of $250 million in fiscal year 2002, and $300 million in fiscal year 2003, to accomplish these projects under the authority provided. Thus, I believe we can make the case for this interim approach and gain support for moving a specific list of relatively small but critical projects forward with independent review. I believe we soon can be doing something urgently needed for veterans, in the best traditions of our continuing commitment to them. Then we can await the development and conclusion of the CARES process, more comfortable in the knowledge that at least for many VA hospitals, their emergency maintenance needs for small-scale construction projects will not go unnoticed, unauthorized-- and unfunded. It should be noted that nothing in this bill prevents the Committee or the Congress from still considering the merits of large-scale, VA major medical facility construction project authorizations in these two fiscal years, should we decide to take such decisions, now or in the future. By its nature, the bill is intended as a stopgap measure to give the VA Secretary limited authority to keep its health care system viable while the CARES process proceeds. Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I hope that my colleagues will agree with me, that this is a worthy bill. On very short notice, when VA was informally advised about the prospect of this kind of bill being introduced and considered by this House, 25 projects that would be appropriate under its terms were immediately identified. I am certain that there are many more, in all sectors of the VA health care system, that the Secretary will have an opportunity to consider and approve under this authority. Many VA facilities need funds right now for small projects on an emergency basis. In good conscience, we cannot continue to ignore them. In my judgment, we cannot afford to wait several years before deciding to provide ftinds when these projects confront the VA system, the veterans, and us today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and help enact it as a high priority early this year.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, today I am introducing on behalf of Mr. Evans, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Reyes and myself the Veterans' Opportunities Act of 2001. This measure would make a number of needed improvements to VA benefits and services including memorial affairs, life insurance, the means- tested pension program, automobile and adaptive equipment and specially adapted housing for seriously disabled veterans. Five different transition and outreach services to servicemembers, veterans, and disabled veterans and their dependents are included in the bill, as well as provisions affecting various veterans' educational assistance programs. My colleagues and I have also consulted with Armed Services Committee Chairman Bob Stump and Ranking Democratic Member Ike Skelton to make certain time-sensitive technical amendments to certain servicemembers' and veterans' education provisions in current law. Mr. Speaker, veterans' benefits and services indeed are ``earned opportunities.'' They are earned through selfless and often hazardous service to our nation, during war and peace alike. Doing right by America's sons and daughters who have worn the military uniform is firmly ingrained in our national values, our national pride, and our sense of moral responsibility. On behalf of my fellow original cosponsors, I would like to highlight just a few of the 17 provisions in the bill. Sadly, our nation loses about 1,500 World War II veterans each week. The Department of Veterans Affairs projects that the current death rate for our veterans will continue to increase, peaking in 2008. Our bill would increase the burial and funeral expenses for veterans whose death is service-connected from $1,500 to $2,000; increase burial and funeral expenses for veterans with nonservice-connected disabilities from $300 to $500; and increase the burial plot allowance from $150 to $300. The amount payable for these benefits has remained constant for many years in spite of inflation. The purchasing power associated with these provisions still is limited and I consider these provisions as a starting point for further improvements. I note that VA continues to maintain some 119 veterans cemeteries and 26 States participate in VA's State Cemetery Grants program. Both of these programs provide a final resting place for our veterans, and are separate and independent from the burial benefits in this bill. Mr. Speaker, VA provides certain severely disabled veterans with grants for the purchase of automobiles or other conveyances. The grant also provides for adaptive equipment necessary for safe operation of these vehicles. Our bill would increase the amount of assistance for automobile and adaptive equipment for severely disabled veterans from $8,000, which Congress established in October 1998, to $9,000. Veterans eligible for the automobile allowance are among the most seriously disabled. I have a deep respect for them. Prior to the 1998 increase, Congress had not adjusted the grant since 1988. We need to ensure that seriously disabled veterans have the opportunity to participate in the everyday freedoms sustained by their service. We owe them nothing less and they ask for nothing more. VA provides a one-time specially adapted housing grant of up to $43,000 to veterans with service-connected disabilities consisting of certain combinations of loss or loss of use of extremities and blindness or other organic diseases or injuries. Veterans with service- connected blindness alone or with loss or loss of use of both upper extremities may receive a home adaption grant of up to $8,250. Our bill would increase the amount of assistance for specially adapted housing grants for severely disabled veterans from $43,000 to $48,000 and the amount for additional adaptations that may be necessary later in the life of the dwelling from $8,250 to $9,250. I urge my colleagues to support these increases because, unless the amounts of the grants are periodically adjusted, inflation erodes their value and effectiveness. Whenever we have the opportunity to make our policies family-friendly for Americans who wear the military uniform, I think we should do so. Our bill would extend coverage under the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program to dependent spouses and children. The amount of coverage for a spouse would not exceed $100,000 and the amount of coverage for each child would be $10,000. The servicemember would not pay premiums on the child's coverage. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues Lane Evans and Jerry Moran for their efforts on our provision that would revise the rules with respect to the net worth limitation for VA's means-tested pension program. Under our bill, the value of real property owned by the veteran and the veteran's spouse and children would be excluded if such property is used for farming, ranching, or similar agricultural purposes. I believe this provision is a fairer approach to the family farmer who becomes disabled from nonservice connected causes. Further, it would simplify administration of this program. I appreciate Representatives Pascrell and Doyle's work on our next provisions, which would expand the definition of ``eligible dependent'' for purposes of VA outreach services to mean a spouse, surviving spouse, child, or dependent parent. The bill would require VA to make known through a variety of means such as the Internet, media outlets, and veterans' publications the VA services available, and require VA to provide to the veteran or dependent information concerning benefits and health care services whenever the veteran or dependent first applies for any benefit. My colleagues and I appreciate VA Under Secretary for Benefits Joe Thompson making Ms. Diane Fuller and Mr. Dennis Rhodes available to assist us in drafting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental marker of a successful transition for our servicemembers is timely and suitable employment. The Departments of Labor, Veterans Affairs and Defense operate a Transition Assistance Program, known as ``TAP'' for this and other transition purposes. In its 1999 report to the Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services Committees of the House and the Senate, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on Service members and Transition Assistance made a number of recommendations to improve servicemembers' transition programs and services. The Commission reported that the Department of Defense expects to separate about 238,000 servicemembers annually for the foreseeable future and that during the 10-year period from 1987 to 1997, total unemployment compensation to former servicemembers surpassed $2.9 billion. The Commission also reported that compared with other veterans, Department of Labor Transition Assistance Program participants collected Unemployment Insurance for Ex-Service Members benefits for shorter periods because they found jobs more quickly. About 65 percent of servicemembers are married at the time of transition and many have children. The issue our bill addresses is one of the timing of the Transition Assistance Program. Although section 1142 of title 10, United States Code, requires the Services to furnish transition assistance no later than 90 days before an individual's separation or retirement, the law does not specify the earliest point at which this service should begin. Transition Assistance Program statistics reveal that the majority of servicemembers are within this three-month window when they first visit a transition office. The Commission reported that during its visit with servicemembers at military installations in the Continental United States and around the world, servicemembers repeatedly voiced their desire to begin the transition process earlier than 90 days prior to separation--ideally one-year prior for regular separatees and two years prior for retirees. The Commission agreed that this approach gives servicemembers more adequate time to prepare. The Commission's Vice Chairman, G. Kim Wincup, former staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, an Assistant Secretary of the Army during the Persian Gulf War, was the Commission's chief advisor on transition matters. We note the Commission's observation in its report that: ``additionally, it provides commanders flexibility since many servicemembers are deployed during the last six months of their active duty. With additional time, servicemembers could learn the fundamentals of transition and the job search process before deployment and relieve the pressure to compress transition and out processing into the last few weeks.'' This provision in our bill would expand the availability of pre- separation counseling (and Transition Assistance Program assistance for servicemembers) as furnished by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs and Labor to as early as nine months for separatees and 18 months for retirees, but in no event less than 90 days. TAP is so important because often it is the last thing servicemembers remember about their military service and it is what they share with the next generation. Mr. Speaker, dramatic changes have occurred in both the methods for providing education and in the institutions offering courses over the past several years. As the Transition Commission pointed out, ``postsecondary education is now available on the Internet, through broadcast media and videotape on satellite campuses, and through non- campus programs.'' Our bill would permit veterans to use VA educational assistance benefits for an independent study certificate program offered by an institution of higher learning. I thank the University of Phoenix, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, DeAnza Community College, Washington State University and George Washington University for bringing this issue to the Committee's attention. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Rule XI of the rules of the House, I submit for printing in the Record the Rules of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs as adopted by the committee on February 14, 2001. Committee Rules of Procedure for the 107th Congress (Adopted February 14, 2001) Rule 1--Applicability of House Rules The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and its subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day is a privileged motion in Committees and Subcommittees. Each subcommittee of the Committee is a part of the Committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the committee and to its rules so far as applicable. Rule 2--Committee Meetings and Hearings Regular and Additional Meetings (a)(1) The regular meeting day for the Committee shall be at 10 a.m. on the second Wednesday of each month in such place as the Chairman may designate. However, the Chairman may dispense with a regular Wednesday meeting of the Committee. (2)(A) The Chairman of the Committee may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to the call of the Chairman. (B) The Chairman shall notify each member of the Committee of the agenda of each regular and additional meeting of the Committee at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting, except under circumstances the Chairman determines to be of an emergency nature. Under such circumstances, the Chairman shall make an effort to consult the ranking minority member, or in such member's absence, the next ranking minority party member of the Committee. Public Announcement (b)(1) The Chairman, in the case of a hearing to be conducted by the Committee, and the subcommittee Chairman, in the case of a hearing to be conducted by a subcommittee, shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing unless the Committee or the subcommittee determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing at an earlier date. In the latter event, the Chairman or the Subcommittee Chairman, as the case may be, shall consult with the ranking minority member and make such public announcement at the earliest possible date. The clerk of the Committee shall promptly notify the Daily Clerk of the Congressional Record and the Committee scheduling service of the House Information Resources as soon as possible after such public announcement is made. (2) Meetings and hearings of the Committee and each of its subcommittees shall be open to the public unless closed in accordance with clause 2(g) of House rule XI. Quorum and Rollcalls (c)(1) A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for business and a majority of the members of any subcommittee shall constitute a quorum thereof for business, except that two members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence. (2) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee was actually present. (3) There shall be kept in writing a record of the proceedings of the Committee and each of its subcommittees, including a record of the votes on any question on which a recorded vote is demanded. The result of each such record vote shall be made available by the Committee for inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of the Committee. Information so available for public inspection shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order or other proposition and the name of each member voting for and each member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members present but not voting. (4) A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one member. With respect to any record vote on any motion to amend or report, the total number of votes cast for and against, and the names of those members voting for and against, shall be included in the report of the Committee on the bill or resolution. (5) No vote by any member of the Committee or a subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter may be cast by proxy. Calling and Interrogating Witnesses (d)(1) Committee and subcommittee members may question witnesses only when they have been recognized by the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee for that purpose, and only for a 5-minute period until all members present have had an opportunity to question a witness. The 5-minute period for questioning a witness by any one member may be extended only with the unanimous consent of ally members present. The questioning of witnesses in both Committee and subcommittee hearings shall be initiated by the Chairman, followed by the ranking minority party member and all other members alternating between the majority and minority. Except as otherwise announced by the Chairman at the beginning of a hearing, members who are present at the start of the hearing will be recognized before other members who arrive after the hearing has begin. In recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the majority to minority members present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the members of the majority. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) regarding the 5-minute rule, the Chairman after consultation with the ranking minority member may designate an equal number of members of the Committee or subcommittee majority and minority party to question a witness for a period not longer than 30 minutes. In no event shall the Chairman allow a member to question a witness for an extended period under this rule until all members present have had the opportunity to ask questions under the 5-minute rule. The Chairman after consultation with the ranking minority member may permit Committee staff for its majority and minority party members to question a witness for equal specified periods of time. (3) So far as practicable: (A) each witness who is to appear before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with the clerk of the Committee, at least 48 hours in advance of the appearance of the witness, a written statement of the testimony of the witness and shall limit any oral presentation to a summary of the written statement; and (B) each witness appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include with the written statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years. (4) When a hearing is conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee on any measure or matter, the minority party members on the Committee shall be entitled, upon request to the Chairman of a majority of those minority members before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of the hearing thereon. Media Coverage of Proceedings (e) Any meeting of the Committee or its subcommittees that is open to the public shall be open to coverage by radio, television, and still photography in accordance with the provisions of clause 4 of House rule XI. Subpoenas (f) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of House rule XI, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or a subcommittee in the conduct of an investigation or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority being present. rule 3--general oversight responsibility (a) In order to assist the House in: (1) Its analysis, appraisal, evaluation of (A) the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of the laws enacted by the Congress, or (B) conditions and circumstances which may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation, and (2) its formulation, consideration and enactment of such modifications or changes in those laws, and of such additional legislation, as may be necessary or appropriate, the Committee and its various subcommittees, consistent with their jurisdiction as set forth in Rule 4, shall have oversight responsibilities as provided in subsection (b). (b)(1) The Committee and its subcommittees shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the applications, administration, execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee, and the organization and operation of the Federal agencies and entities having responsibilities in or for the administration and execution thereof, in order to determine whether such laws and the programs thereunder are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of the Congress and whether such programs should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated. (2) In addition, the Committee and its subcommittees shall review and study any conditions or circumstances which may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee (whether or not any bill or resolution has been introduced with respect thereto), and shall on a continuing basis undertake future research and forecasting on matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee. (3) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a Congress, the Committee shall meet in open session, with a quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans for that Congress for submission to the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Government Reform, in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(d) of House rule

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I joined with Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and over 60 other Members of the House to introduce a new congressional caucus concerning autism called C.A.R.E., which stands for the Coalition for Autism Research and Education. As I have said many times before, the parents of children with autism are truly the voices of the voiceless. They are the protectors of those who cannot fend for themselves. For some years now, we have been working to provide help to the parents. But today we have reinforcements. Today we launch a new vehicle through which we can all work towards our common goals. The Coalition for Autism Research and Education (C.A.R.E.) is a bipartisan Congressional Member Organization (CMO) dedicated to improving research, education, and support services for persons with autism spectrun disorders. I am very proud to be a Co-Chairman of this new organization, and pleased to be working alongside my good friend, and Democrat colleague, Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania (PA-18). At today's press conference we were also honored to have a special guest, Mr. B.J. Surhoff, a professional baseball player who plays left field for the Atlanta Braves. Many of us know B.J. for his skill and grace on the baseball field. But few of us know that of all the challenges and accomplishments he has faced in his life, probably none are more near and dear to his heart than his son, Mason, who is autistic. I have always believed that the true value of any society can be seen in how it treats its most vulnerable members. And few are as vulnerable and dependent on others as the autistic child. A key mission of C.A.R.E. is to expand federal research for autism. The caucus will be working hard to build upon a proven record of accomplishments in the area of autism research during the previous 106th Congress. During the 106th Congress, we passed landmark legislation which established ``Centers of Excellence'' to track cases of autism, increased funding at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) from $1.1 million in Fiscal Year 2000 to $6.7 million in FY 2001 and boosted funding at the National Institute of Health (NIH) from $40 million in FY 1999 to $45 million in 2000. Another significant increase in autism funding is expected at NIH for FY 2001. Congress also held hearings on autism, which have led to a better understanding of the disorder. Many of my colleagues who I worked with last year on these issues are enthusiastic members of C.A.R.E., including, Dr. Dave Weldon of Florida, Chairman Dan Burton of Indiana, and Congressman Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania. I am extremely proud of the work we did last Congress. The enactment of Title I of the Children's Health Act (P.L 106-310) on October 17, which incorporated provisions of two bills Jim Greenwood and I introduced--HR 274 and HR 997--were a major feat for autism research. Title I of this legislation, among other things, authorized the creation of 3 ``Centers of Excellence'' in autism epidemiology to conduct prevalence and incidence data on autism. In this way, scientists can get a better understanding of the scope of CDC and would specialize in a specific aspect of autism research. In addition, the centers would provide education on the best methods of diagnosis and treatment of autism to educators and physicians. In December, we worked hard to win appropriations of $3 million for Fiscal Year 2001 to fund the Centers of Excellence for CDC and begin larger-scale autism prevalence and incidence studies. CDC expects to issue program announcements and requests for proposals in the early summer of 2001 to implement P.L. 106-310. Grants would be awarded to successfully completed applications to CDC for the ``Centers of Excellence'' sometime in the early fall of 2001. Another provision in the Children's Health Act directs the Director of the NIH to establish not less than 5 Centers of Excellence to conduct basic and clinical research including developmental neurobiology, genetics and psychopharmacology. The Members of C.A.R.E. will work to further advance the process of establishing these Centers of Excellence, which will lead to a better understanding of autism and related disorders. The 106th Congress also significantly boosted total federal funding for autism. We want to take a page out of that playbook and repeat that success this year as well. CDC funding for autism increased from $1.1 million in FY 2000 to $6.7 million in FY 2001. Since FY 1998, when autism finding at CDC was a mere $287,000, funding has increased by a net total of 2,246 precent! That's 23.5 times what CDC spent just four years ago. At NIH, Congress won increases in funding for autism from $40 million in FY 1999 to $45 million in 2000. Funding for 2001 is also expected to increase. Since FY 1998, autism research has been increased by 66 percent at NIH. Maybe this year we can make yet another installment on our plan to double autism research at NIH. Finally, at the request of interested Members of Congress and with grass roots support, the House has held two separate hearings on the problem of autism--one by the Commerce Committee and another by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Additional hearings are likely if Member interest stays strong. I know Chairman Dan Burton at the Government Reform and Oversight Committee remains deeply interested in further hearings. And Chairman Mike Bilirakis is another strong supporter of autism research and oversight.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe lost one of its most noble, most gifted, dedicated, effective, and kind members of our staff, Karen Lord, to the ravages of cancer on January 29 of this year. Karen was only 33--a heartwrenching tragedy for her family, and all of us who knew and loved her. Since 1995, Karen has faithfully served as counsel for Freedom of Religion on the staff of the commission of which I serve as the cochairman. In this capacity, she diligently defended the principle of ``religious liberty for all'' and became one of the commission's most trusted advisors on the subject. We will miss her wise counsel, her demonstrable passion, her wealth of knowledge, and her energetic advocacy on behalf of the persecuted church. As counsel for Freedom of Religion, Karen meticulously monitored the fundamental ``freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief'' and always would take the initiative when violations arose. She was recognized and respected in this city, within the U.S. Government, in Europe and in Central Asia as a knowledgeable, passionate, and hard- working expert on the right to freely profess and practice one's faith. She was intolerant of religious intolerance and was a champion to all those who were disenfranchised and dispossessed. She lived the gospel, especially our Lord's admonition in Matthew, 25, when our Lord said, ``When I was in prison, did you visit me.'' ``Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren you do to me.'' Time and time again Karen interceded on behalf of those who were unjustly imprisoned by dictators and despotic governments. Karen always took the time and had the energy to pursue the truth, and to chronicle in a meticulous way the information about someone who was persecuted or harassed by their government, in some way put at risk because of their faith. Karen played an active role as a member of numerous U.S. delegations to meetings of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and she was selected and served on a panel of religious liberty experts for the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Whether the interaction was with nongovernmental organizations, religious believers and clergy, academics or government authorities, Karen was an active listener, an informed interlocutor, and a vigorous and respectful advocate. She was a force with whom others had to reckon, because she was so strong and she would always stand up, on behalf of those who were persecuted for their faith. Karen surely distinguished herself as the expert on laws affecting religious communities in various countries of the OSCE region, whether the issues were in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Western Europe, or Eastern Europe. Just 3 months ago, even while she was suffering the devastation and the terrible pain of cancer, she participated in conferences in Sofia, Bulgaria and Baku and Azerbaijan, which were focused on religious liberty, rule of law and international standards for protection of the freedom of conscience. She often served as an expert at various venues in other countries with the U.S. Department of State and for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Members of the commission knew that they could depend on her and her thorough knowledge and vigorous advocacy of this precious freedom of religion. Time and again as I sat in the chair holding hearings on religious freedom, I would turn to Karen, get her advice and her informed expert opinion. Karen was a great woman, Mr. Speaker. She was smart, she was articulate, she was a quick study, she was tenacious, and she was breathtakingly courageous. She never uttered a word of complaint. While she was suffering, while she was going through her frightening ordeal, knowing full well what that cancer was doing to her body, she would have a quiet smile on her face and a very, very deep faith in Jesus Christ. She spent much time in prayer. She suffered her agonies of cancer with courage, working on behalf of religious freedom of all people: Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Christians, Pentecostals. Believers of every stripe will miss her. Karen possessed within herself an abiding tranquility--the peace that surpasses all understanding that our Lord spoke of in the Gospel. Mr. Speaker, we will greatly miss Karen Lord. She was a dear friend, and I ask all of the Members of the House to keep her in your prayers. Because hers was a life so faithfully lived, she is no doubt looking down from heaven. She was a wonderful person, she will be missed dearly. Our loss is surely Heaven's gain.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, a great man of God, a brilliant writer of homilies and incisive commentary, an extraordinary humanitarian, a courageous defender of human life, Bishop James T. McHugh--will be buried. After a long battle with cancer, Bishop McHugh passed away on December 10th. Consistent with how he lived his life, Bishop McHugh faced death like he faced life--with courage, dignity and an unwavering faith that inspires us all. Prior to his assignment at Rockville Center, Bishop McHugh served with dedication and effectiveness as Bishop of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, and area which borders my district. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of knowing this holy man of God and calling him ``friend'' for over 25 years. By his words and extraordinary example, Bishop McHugh lived the Gospel of Jesus with unpretentious passion and humility. Bishop McHugh radiated Christ. He recognized evil and deceit in the world for what it was--yet he never ceased to proclaim reconciliation and renewal through Christ, the Sacraments and the Church. Clearly among the best, brightest and most wise, Bishop McHugh nevertheless was humble and soft spoken. His courage to press on against any and all odds was without peer. He was a spiritual giant, and we will miss him dearly. A graduate of Seton Hall University and the Immaculate Conception Seminary in Darlington, New Jersey, Bishop McHugh began his service to the church early in life. Ordained in 1957, Bishop McHugh's impact has been felt in countless ways. His constant and unyielding defense of the unborn will serve as a pillar of strength to all of us who carry on the fight for life. At the time of his death, Bishop McHugh was a member of the US Bishop's Committee on Pro-Life Activities as well as a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family. His dedication to the pro-life movement knew no bounds, and his representation of the Vatican at international meetings and at the United Nations on population control and pro-life matters served as not only an inspiration for myself, but upheld the convictions and beliefs of the Church and believers worldwide. Bishop McHugh's courage and convictions could not have been more evident than just recently, when he ordered that no public officials or candidates who supported abortion be permitted to appear at Catholic parishes. Although Bishop McHugh was criticized by the media, he was upheld in high esteem among those of us who hold that all human life is precious. Bishop McHugh held strong to clear Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life and the duty of all men and women of goodwill, especially politicians, to protect the vulnerable from the violence of abortion. Early in his career, Bishop McHugh worked on staff of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and was named director of the Division for Family Life in 1967 and director of the bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life activities in 1972. Bishop McHugh did advanced theological studies at the Angelicum in Rome and earned his doctorate in sacred theology in 1981. Bishop McHugh must be commended for this outstanding work as Vatican delegate to numerous international conferences, including the 1974 International Conference on Population in Bucharest, Romania, the 1980 UN World Conference on Women in Copenhagen, Denmark; the 1984 UN World Population Conference in Mexico City; the 1990 World Summit for Children in New York; the 1992 International Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, and the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today a great man of God, a brilliant writer of homilies and incisive commentary, an extraordinary humanitarian, a courageous defender of human life, Bishop James T. McHugh, was buried. After a long battle with cancer, Bishop McHugh passed away on December 10. Consistent with how he lived his life, Bishop McHugh faced death like he faced life, with courage, dignity, and an unwavering faith that inspires us all. Prior to his assignment at Rockville Center, New York, Bishop McHugh served with dedication and effectiveness as Bishop of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, an area just south of my district. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of knowing this holy man of God and calling him friend for over 25 years. By his words and extraordinary example, Bishop McHugh lived the gospel of Christ with unpretentious passion and humility. Bishop McHugh radiated Christ. He recognized evil and deceit in the world for what it was, yet he never ceased to proclaim reconciliation and renewal through Christ, the sacraments, and the church. Clearly among the best and brightest and clearly among the most wise, Bishop McHugh nevertheless was humble and soft-spoken. His courage to press on against any and all odds was without peer. He was a spiritual giant, and we will miss him dearly. A graduate of Seton Hall University and the Immaculate Conception Seminary in Darlington, New Jersey, Bishop McHugh began his service to the church early in his life. Ordained in 1957, Bishop McHugh's impact has been felt in countless ways. His constant and unyielding defense of the unborn will serve as a pillar of strength to all of us who carry on the fight for life. At the time of his death, Bishop McHugh was a member of the U.S. Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities, as well as a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family. His dedication to the family and the pro-life movement knew no bounds, and his representation of the Vatican at international meetings at the United Nations on population control and pro-life matters served not only as an inspiration for myself and many others, but he upheld the convictions and beliefs of the church and believers worldwide, and did it with great distinction. Bishop McHugh's courage and convictions could not have been more evident, again, as he entered his final days in life. He spoke up on behalf of all of those who are disenfranchised and dispossessed. Again, he preached reconciliation and love. I ask that we all remember him. Mr. Speaker, today, a great man of God, a brilliant writer of homilies and incisive commentary, an extraordinary humanitarian, a courageous defender of human life, Bishop James T. McHugh--was buried. After a long battle with cancer, Bishop McHugh passed away on December 10th. Consistent with how he lived his life, Bishop McHugh faced death like he faced life--with courage, dignity and an unwavering faith that inspires us all. Prior to his assignment at Rockville Center, Bishop McHugh served with dedication and effectiveness as Bishop of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, and area which borders my district. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of knowing this holy man of God and calling him ``friend'' for over 25 years. By his words and extraordinary example, Bishop McHugh lived the Gospel of Jesus with unpretentious passion and humility. Bishop McHugh radiated Christ. He recognized evil and deceit in the world for what it was--yet he never ceased to proclaim reconciliation and renewal through Christ, the Sacraments and the Church. Clearly among the best, brightest and most wise, Bishop McHugh nevertheless was humble and soft spoken. His courage to press on against any and all odds was without peer. He was a spiritual giant, and well will miss him dearly. A graduate of Seton Hall University and the Immaculate Conception Seminary in Darlington, New Jersey, Bishop McHugh began his service to the church early in life. Ordained in 1957, Bishop McHugh's impact has been felt in countless ways. His constant and unyielding defense of the unborn will serve as a pillar of strength to all of us who carry on the fight for life. At the time of his death, Bishop McHugh was a member of the US Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities as well as a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family. His dedication to the pro-life movement knew no bounds, and his representation of the Vatican at international meetings and at the United Nations on population control and pro-life matters served as not only an inspiration for myself, but upheld the convictions and beliefs of the Church and believers worldwide. Bishop McHugh's courage and courage and convictions could not have been more evident than just recently, when he ordered that no public officials or candidates who supported abortion be permitted to appear at Catholic perishes. Although Bishop McHugh was critized by the media, he was upheld in high esteem among those of us who hold that all human life is precious. Bishop McHugh held strong to clear Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life and the duty of all men and women of goodwill, especially politicians, to protect the vulnerable from the violence of abortion. Early in his career, Bishop McHugh worked on staff of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and was named director of the Division for Family Life in 1967 and director of the bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life activities in 1972. Bishop McHugh did advanced theological studies at the Angelicum in Rome and earned his doctorate in sacred theology in 1981. Bishop McHugh must be commended for this outstanding work as Vatican delegate to numerous international conferences, including the 1974 International Conference on Population in Bucharest, Romania, the 1980 UN World Conference on Women in Copehagen, Denmark; the 1984 UN World Population Conference in Mexico City; the 1990 World Summit for Children in New York; the 1992 International Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, and the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cario, Egypt.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on November 5, parliamentary elections were held in Azerbaijan. In anticipation of those elections, the Helsinki Commission--which I chair--held hearings in May, at which representatives of the government and opposition leaders testified. While the former pledged that Baku would conduct a democratic contest, in accordance with OSCE standards, the latter warned that Azerbaijan's past record of holding seriously flawed elections required the strictest vigilance from the international community and pressure from Western capitals and the Council of Europe--to which Azerbaijan has applied for membership. Subsequently, I introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res. 382, which called on the Government of Azerbaijan to hold free and fair elections and to accept the recommended amendments by the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to the law on elections. From the start, there was pressure to withdraw the resolution from the Azerbaijani government and others. They argued that President Aliev had made, or would make, the necessary changes to ensure that the election met international standards, claiming to render the resolution either irrelevant or out of date. That pressure intensified as the election drew near; in fact, the resolution never came to a vote before Congress went out of session in early November. It is worth recalling this brief history in light of what actually happened during Azerbaijan's pre-election period and on November 5. With respect to the election law, one of ODIHR's concerns was ultimately addressed by a decision of Azerbaijan's constitutional court, but on other important issues, Baku rejected any concessions and refused to incorporate ODIHR's suggested changes. From the beginning, therefore, the election could not have met OSCE standards, as ODIHR made plain in several statements. During the registration period, the Central Election Commission (CEC) rejected several leading opposition parties. Claiming that government experts could tell which signatures were forged, fraudulent or otherwise invalid merely on the basis of a visual examination, the CEC maintained the Musavat and the Azerbaijan Democratic Party had failed to get 50,000 valid signatures. The same thing happened to Musavat in the 1995 parliamentary election. At that time, the OSCE/UN observation mission emphasized the need to amend or get rid of this obviously flawed method of determining the validity of signatures, but Azerbaijan's authorities did not heed that advice. The exclusion of leading opposition parties drew strong criticism, both inside and outside the country, including the OSCE and the U.S. Government. In early October, in apparent reaction to international concern, President Aliev ``appealed'' to the CEC to find some way of registering excluded opposition parties. Some CEC members objected, arguing there was no constitutional basis for such a presidential appeal or a changed CEC ruling, but the Commission moved to include opposition parties. Though their participation certainly broadened the choice available to voters, the manner of their inclusion demonstrated conclusively that President Aliev controlled the entire election process. ODIHR welcomed the decision by the CEC and urged a reconsideration of the exclusion of over 400 individual candidates--about half of those who tried to run in single-mandate districts. But the CEC did not do so, and only in very few cases were previously excluded candidates allowed to run. As 100 of parliament's 125 seats were determined in single mandate districts, where local authorities exercise considerable power, the rejection of over 400 candidates signaled the government's determination to decide the outcome of the vote. Though coverage of the campaign on state media favored the ruling party, opposition leaders were able to address voters on television. They used the opportunity--which they had not enjoyed for years--to criticize President Aliev and offer an alternative vision of governing the country. Their equal access to the media marked progress with respect to previous elections, as noted in the ODIHR's election report. However, the voting and vote count on election day itself, according to the ODIHR's election This would be bad enough, considering that the election was the fourth since 1995 that failed to meet OSCE standards, even if some progress was registered in opposition participation and representation in the CEC. Much more interesting and disturbing, however, were the words used in a post-election press conference by two key international observers: Gerard Stoudman, the Director of ODIHR, who generally employs measured, diplomatic language, said he had not expected to witness ``a crash course in various types of manipulation,'' and actually used the phrase ``primitive falsification'' to describe what he had seen. Andreas Gross, the head of the observer delegation of the Council of Europe--an organization to which Azerbaijan has applied for membership and which is not particularly known for hard-hitting assessments of election shenanigans--amplified: ``Despite the positive changes observed in Azerbaijan in recent years, the scale of the infringements doesn't fit into any framework. We've never seen anything like it.'' Mr. Speaker, in the context of international election observation, such a brutally candid assessment is simply stunning. As far as I know, representatives of ODIHR or the Council of Europe have never expressed themselves in such terms about an election that they decided to monitor. One senses that the harshness of their judgment is related to their disappointment: Azerbaijan's authorities had promised to conduct free and fair elections and had long negotiated with the ODIHR and the Council of Europe about the legal framework and administrative modalities but, in the end, held an election that can only be described as an embarrassment to all concerned. According to Azerbaijan's CEC, in the party list voting, only four parties passed the six-percent threshold for parliamentary representation: President Aliev's governing party, the New Azerbaijan Party; the Communist Party; and two opposition parties, the Popular Front [Reformers] and Civil Solidarity. Other important opposition parties allegedly failed to break the barrier and apart from a few single mandate seats won no representation in parliament. In the aftermath of the election and the assessments of the OSCE/ ODIHR and the Council of Europe, the international legitimacy of Azerbaijan's legislature is severely undermined. Within Azerbaijan, the ramifications are no better. All the leading opposition parties have accused the authorities of massive vote fraud, denounced the election results, and have refused to take the few seats in parliament they were given. Though some governing party representatives have claimed that opposition representation is not necessary for the parliament to function normally, others--perhaps including President Aliev-- understand that a parliament without opposition members is ruinous for Azerbaijan's image. New elections are slated in 11 districts, and perhaps President Aliev is hoping to tempt some opposition parties to abandon their boycott by offering a few more seats. Whether opposition parties, which are bitterly divided, will participate or eventually agree to take up their deputies' mandates remains to be seen. What is clearer from the conduct of the election and its outcome is that President Aliev, who is preparing the succession of his son as Azerbaijan's next president, was determined to keep opposition leaders out of parliament and ensure that the body as a whole is supportive of his heir. If the only way to guarantee the desired outcome was wholesale vote fraud, so be it. Prognoses of possible accommodation with the opposition, or possibly even some power sharing arrangements, to facilitate a smooth and peaceful transfer of power, have proved unfounded. Indeed, President Aliev reportedly has told the new UK Ambassador to Baku that Azerbaijan does not need to join the Council of Europe, indicating that he is not prepared to make any concessions when it comes to maintaining his grip on power and passing it on to his chosen heir, whatever the international community thinks. Even more worrisome is that by depriving the opposition of the possibility to contend for power through parliamentary means, Aliev has seriously reduced the chances of a ``soft landing'' in Azerbaijan. When he eventually leaves the scene, anything could happen. This is not only a frightening prospect for the citizens of Azerbaijan, its neighbors and hopes for resolving regional disputes, especially the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict--it is a scenario that should alarm policymakers in Washington as well. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to say ``I told you so'' to those colleagues who argued against my resolution. I would much have preferred to make a statement congratulating Azerbaijan on having held exemplary elections and making substantial steps towards democratization. Alas, I cannot do so, which should sadden and concern all of us. But I fear the consequences will be far more serious for the citizens of Azerbaijan.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the United States has a longstanding dynamic relationship with our NATO ally, the Republic of Turkey, and I believe that the strength of that relationship relies on forthright candor. I have willingly recognized positive developments in Turkey, and I have sought to present fairly the various human rights concerns as they have arisen. Today, I must bring to my colleagues' attention pending actions involving the Government of Turkey which seem incongruous with the record in violation of human rights. I fear the planned sale of additional military aircraft to Turkey could potentially have further long-term, negative effects on human rights in that country. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I presided over a hearing in March of 1999 that addressed many human rights concerns. The State Department had just released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices covering 1998. Commissioner and Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Harold Hongju Koh noted in testimony before the Commission that ``serious human rights abuses continued in Turkey in 1998, but we had hoped that the 1998 report would reflect significant progress on Turkey's human rights record. Prime Minister Yilmaz had publicly committed himself to making the protection of human rights his government's highest priority in 1998. We had welcomed those assurances and respected the sincerity of his intentions. We were disappointed that Turkey had not fully translated those assurances into actions.'' I noted in my opening statement, ``One year after a commission delegation visited Turkey, our conclusion is that there has been no demonstrable improvement in Ankara's human rights practices and that the prospects for much needed systemic reforms are bleak given the unstable political scene which is likely to continue throughout 1999.'' Thankfully, eighteen months later I can say that the picture has improved--somewhat. A little over a year ago the president of Turkey's highest court made an extraordinary speech asserting that Turkish citizens should be granted the right to speak freely, urging that the legal system and constitution be ``cleansed,'' and that existing ``limits on language'' seriously compromised the freedom of expression. The man who gave that speech, His Excellency Ahmet Necdet Sezer, is the new President of the Republic of Turkey. Last summer several of us on the Commission congratulated President Sezer on his accession to the presidency, saying, in part: We look forward to working with you and members of your administration, especially as you endeavor to fulfill your commitments to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and commitments contained in other Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) documents. These human rights fundamentals are the bedrock upon which European human rights rest, the solid foundation upon which Europe's human rights structures are built. It is worth remembering, twenty-five years after the signing of the Final Act, that your predecessor, President Demerel, signed the commitments at Helsinki on behalf of Turkey. Your country's engagement in the Helsinki process was highlighted during last year's OSCE summit in Istanbul, a meeting which emphasized the importance of freedom of expression, the role of NGOs in civil society, and the eradication of torture. Your Presidency comes at a very critical time in modern Turkey's history. Adoption and implementation of the reforms you have advocated would certainly strengthen the ties between our countries and facilitate fuller integration of Turkey into Europe. Full respect for the rights of Turkey's significant Kurdish population would go a long way in reducing tensions that have festered for more than a decade, and resulted in the lengthy conflict in the southeast. Your proposals to consolidate and strengthen democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Turkey will be instrumental in ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity in the Republic. The Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents can serve as important guides in your endeavor. We all recall the pending $4 billion sale of advanced attack helicopters to the Turkish army. I have objected to this sale as leading human rights organizations, Turkish and western press, and even the State Department documented the use of such helicopters to attack Kurdish villages in Turkey and to transport troops to regions where civilians were killed. Despite repeated promises, the Turkish Government has been slow to take action which would hold accountable and punish those who have committed such atrocities. And we recently learned of the pending sale of eight even larger helicopters, S-80E heavy lift helicopters for Turkey's Land Forces Command. With a flight radius of over three hundred miles and the ability to carry over fifty armed troops, the S-80E has the potential to greatly expand the ability of Turkey's army to undertake actions such as I just recounted. Since 1998, there has been recognition in high-level U.S.-Turkish exchanges that Turkey has a number of longstanding issues which must be addressed with demonstrable progress: decriminalization of freedom of expression; the release of imprisoned parliamentarians and journalists; prosecution of police officers who commit torture; an end of harassment of human rights defenders and re-opening of non-governmental organizations; the return of internally displaced people to their villages; cessation of harassment and banning of certain political parties; and, an end to the state of emergency in the southeast. The human rights picture in Turkey has improved somewhat in the last several years, yet journalists continue to be arrested and jailed, human rights organizations continue to feel pressure from the police, and elected officials who are affiliated with certain political parties, in particular, continue to be harassed. Anywhere from half a million to 2 million Kurds have been displaced by the Turkish counter insurgency campaigns against the Kurdistan Workers Party, also known as the PKK. The Turkish military has reportedly emptied more than three thousand villages and hamlets in the southeast since 1992, burned homes and fields, and committed other human rights abuses against Kurdish civilians, often using types of helicopters similar to those the Administration is seeking to transfer. Despite repeated promises, the Government of Turkey has taken few steps to facilitate the return of these peoples to their homes, assist them to resettle, or compensate them for the loss of their property. Nor does it allow others to help. Even the ICRC has been unable to operate in Turkey. And, finally, four parliamentarians--Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan, and Selim Sadak--continue to serve time in prison. We can not proceed with this sale, or other sales or transfers, when Turkey's Government fails to live up to the most basic expectations mentioned above. Mr. Speaker, I think it is also time that the United States establishes an understanding with Turkey and a credible method of consistent monitoring and reporting on the end-use of U.S. weapons, aircraft and service. An August 2000 report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) entitled ``Foreign Military Sales: Changes Needed to Correct Weaknesses in End-Use Monitoring Program'' was a cause for concern on my part regarding the effectiveness of current end-use monitoring and reporting efforts. While we had been assured that end- use monitoring was taking place and that the United States was holding recipient governments accountable to the export license criteria, the GAO report reveals the failure of the Executive Branch to effectively implement monitoring requirements enacted by Congress. For example, the report points out on page 12: While field personnel may be aware of adverse conditions in their countries, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency has not established guidance or procedures for field personnel to use in determining when such conditions require an end-use check. For example, significant upheaval occurred in both Indonesia and Pakistan within the last several years. As a result, the State Department determined that both countries are no longer eligible to purchase U.S. defense articles and services. However, end-use checks of U.S. defense items already provided were not performed in either country in response to the standard. DSCA officials believed that the State Department was responsible for notifying field personnel that the criteria had been met for an end-use check to be conducted. However, DSCA and State have never established a procedure for providing notification to field personnel. Currently, the end-use monitoring training that DSCA provides to field personnel consists of a 30-minute presentation during the security assistance management course at the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management. This training is intended to familiarize students with en-use monitoring requirements. However, this training does not provide any guidance or procedures on how to execute an end- use monitoring program at overseas posts or when to initiate end-use checks in response to one of the five standards. In the past there have been largely ad hoc attempts to report on the end-use of U.S. equipment. Therefore, I was pleased to support the passage of H.R. 4919, the Security Assistant Act of 2000 that was signed by the President on October 6. Section 703 of this Act mandates that no later than 180 days after its enactment, the President shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report summarizing the status of efforts by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to implement the End-Use Monitoring Enhancement Plan relating to government-to- government transfers of defense articles, services, and related technologies. I want to commend House International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman for his efforts in trying to make our end-use monitoring and reporting programs effective and accurate. I look forward to working with him and others to ensure that an effective and credible monitoring program is put in place without further delay. We must be consistent in our defense of human rights, and our relations, including our military relations, must reflect that commitment. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to support the sale of additional weaponry and aircraft to Turkey at this time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him for his work in shepherding this resolution through his Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and for all of those Members who have co-signed and cosponsored this resolution. Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the state of democratization and human rights in the countries of Central Asia, Kazahkstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, is a source of very, very serious concern. In 1992, these States freely pledged to observe the provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and subsequent OSCE documents. The provisions contained in the 1990 Copenhagen Document commit the participating states to foster democratization through, among other things, the holding of free and fair elections, to promote freedom of the media, and to observe the human rights of their citizens. Mr. Speaker, 8 years have passed since then, but in much of Central Asia the commitments they promised to observe remain a dead letter. In fact, in some countries the situation has deteriorated substantially. For instance, opposition political activity was permitted in Uzbekistan in the late 1980s. An opposition leader even ran for president in the December 1991 election. In mid-1992, however, President Karimov decided to ban any manifestation of dissidence. Since then, no opposition movements have been allowed to function openly and the state controls the society as tightly as during the Soviet era. An even more disappointing example is Kyrgyzstan. Once one of the most democratic Central Asian states, Kyrgyzstan has gone the way of neighboring dictatorships. President Akaev has followed his regional counterparts in manipulating the legal, judicial, and law enforcement apparatus in a way to stay in office, despite domestic protest and international censure. On October 29, he will run for a third term; and he will win it, in a pseudo-election from which all serious candidates have been excluded. Throughout the region, authoritarian leaders have contrived to remain in office by whatever means necessary and give every sign of intending to remain in office as long as they live. Indeed, Turkmenistan's President Niyazov has made himself President for Life last December, and Kazakhstan's President Nazarbaev, who has extended his tenure in office through referenda, canceling elections, and staging deeply flawed elections, this summer arranged to have lifelong privileges and perks go his way. It may sound bizarre, but it may not be out of the realm of possibility that some of these leaders who already head what are, for all intents and purposes, royal families, are planning to establish what can only be described as family dynasties. Certainly the worst offender is Turkmenistan. Under the tyrannical misrule of Niyazov, President Niyazov, his country is the only one- party state in the entire OSCE region. Niyazov's cult of personality has reached such proportions that state media refer to him as a sort of divine being, while anyone who whispers a word of opposition or protest is dragged off to jail and tortured. Corruption is also rampant in Central Asia. Rulers enrich themselves and their families and a favored few, while the rest of the population struggles to eke out a miserable existence and drifts towards desperation. We are, indeed, already witnessing the consequences. For the second consecutive year, armed insurgents of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan invaded Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. While they have been less successful than last year in seizing territory, they will not go away. Impoverishment of the populace fills their ranks with people, threatening to create a chronic problem. While the most radical groups in Central Asia might have sought to create theocracies regardless of the domestic policies pursued by Central Asian leaders, the latter's marriage of corruption and repression has created an explosive brew. Mr. Speaker, finally let me say the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan seem to believe that U.S. strategic interest in the region, and the fear of Islamic fundamentalism, will keep the West and Washington from pressing them too hard on human rights while they consolidate power. Let us show them that they are wrong. America's long-term and short-term interests lie with democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. So I hope that my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join in backing this important resolution.

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 am pleased to cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 433, a resolution introduced on Monday by my colleague on the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gejdensen, concerning the recent parliamentary elections in Belarus. The Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other European institutions, as well as the State Department, all concluded that these elections were not free, fair and transparent and that they failed to meet the international norms for democratic elections. Unfortunately, the Lukashenka regime did not meet the four conditions that the OSCE set back last spring--namely, a democratic election law, an end to human rights abuses, access by the opposition to the state media, and genuine powers be granted to the parliament. Instead, in the run-up to the elections, we witnessed the denial of registration to many opposition candidates; detentions and fines of individuals advocating a boycott of the elections; confiscation of 100,000 copies of an independent newspaper among other examples of harassment of the opposition; rampant governmental interference in the election process and extensive irregularities on election day itself. These elections represent a continuing pattern of violations of human rights and the erosion of democracy which has haunted Belarus throughout the last six years of Alexander Lukashenka's rule. The Helsinki Commission, which I chair, has monitored and chronicles developments in Belarus, holding hearings which have included Belarusian democratic opposition leaders and leaders of the 13th Supreme Soviet, the legitimate parliament which Lukashenka disbanded in 1996. In July, I led the US delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Bucharest where the deteriorating situation in Belarus was high on our agenda. Importantly, this resolution includes language reaffirming Congress' recognition of the 13th Supreme Soviet as the sole democratically elected and constitutionally legitimate legislative body in Belarus, which is also important, especially as the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly continues to recognize that to seat the 13th Supreme Soviet as well. In the last few years, I have made numerous direct and indirect intercessions, including through various OSCE institutions, to draw attention to the deplorable situation in Belarus and to encourage the establishment of democracy in Belarus and I assure you that the Helsinki Commission will continue its efforts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, and am eager for the House to go on record in support of the restoration of democracy in Belarus. I am especially pleased that the resolution urges the Lukashenka regime to provide a full accounting of the disappearances of several prominent opposition members and urges the release of those imprisoned in Belarus for their political views. I look forward to working with my colleagues to keep the spotlight on Belarus and to encourage the Belarusian government to comply with its freely undertaken OSCE and other international commitments.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1453, the Sudan Peace Act. At the outset, I would like to commend the principal Senate sponsor, Senator Frist, as well as our colleague J.C. Watts who introduced the companion measure, H.R. 2906. The Government of Sudan's genocidal religious war against the non- Muslim peoples of southern Sudan have turned the south into--in the words of one Sudanese priest--``the hell of the earth.'' Enslavement, calculated starvation, forced conversion, and the aerial bombardment of civilian targets such as schools, churches, and hospitals, are still methods of terror favored by the National Islamic Front government. Unfortunately, Khartoum has also begun generating the revenue it needs to extend its self-described jihad by developing Sudanese oil resources. S. 1453 is an important first step toward addressing the crisis in that war-torn region. Among other things, the bill: Condemns slavery and the other human rights violations perpetrated by the Khartoum regime; Expresses support for the ongoing peace process in that region; Expresses the sense of the Congress relating to the improvement of relief services in the south of Sudan; Authorizes an additional $16 million for rehabilitation assistance to areas of Sudan not controlled by the government in the north; and Requires the President to report to Congress on several aspects of the conflict, as well as on options available to the United States for providing non-lethal assistance to members of the National Democratic Alliance. These are all good things. But the horrors of Sudan--which have already claimed more than 2 million lives--demand more than expressions of concern and new reporting requirements. They require concrete action. For this reason, I offered an amendment at Subcommittee markup that reinstated certain sanctions language that was present in both the House- and Senate-introduced versions of the bill. Unless the President can certify that Khartoum has made significant progress toward peace and respect for human rights, the language prohibits U.S. corporations and individuals from brokering goods, technology, or services to or from Sudan. It also prohibits U.S. corporations and individuals from performing contracts or using financial instruments in support of the Government of Sudan's industrial or commercial projects. It expresses the sense of Congress that these provisions should apply to the sale of stocks and other financial instruments in the United States or to U.S. persons. In sum, these provisions are meant to keep the Khartoum regime from using U.S. capital markets to underwrite its genocide. We have already expressed the sense of the House this Congress, when we voted 416 to 1 to condemn the Khartoum regime's genocide against the south. it's time to act on those convictions and pass S. 1453.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, October 15th, Belarus will hold parliamentary elections. Based on the run-up to the elections, the possibility of free and fair elections simply does not exist. Belarusian strongman Alyaksandr Lukashenka--who illegally extended his own term in office--is once again attempting to dupe the international community into believing that there are viable electoral processes in today's Belarus. The reality is different. The Lukashenka regime has not met any of the four conditions that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe set back last spring--namely, a democratic election law, an end to human rights abuses, access by the opposition to the state media, and genuine powers granted to the parliament. As a result, on August 30, the OSCE and other institutions decided not to send a full-fledged international observation team to Belarus. This decision could have been revisited if the situation in Belarus had improved. However, since August 30, the Lukashenka regime has denied registration to many opposition candidates on highly questionable grounds; detained, fined, or beaten over 100 individuals advocating a boycott of the elections; burglarized the headquarters of an opposition party; and confiscated 100,000 copies of an independent newspaper. My friend, opposition leader Anatoly Lebedka was physically assaulted during a commemoration of the one-year anniversary of the disappearance of opposition leader Viktor Gonchar and his associate Anatoly Krasovsky. I might add that another leader of the opposition, former Interior Minister Yuri Zakharenka, remains missing after having disappeared 17 months ago, and two leading opposition members, Andrei Klimov and Vladimir Koudinov, remain imprisoned on politically motivated charges. Mr. Speaker, governmental interference in the election process appears to be rampant. There are reports that regional and local government executive committees have been threatened to ensure that government supported candidates will be elected. The registration process also showed strong signs of arbitrariness, with the rejection of a large percentage of candidates, especially opposition candidates. According to today's Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty East-Central Europe Report, Belarusian authorities--in an attempt to counter the opposition's call for an election boycott--have begun urging early voting and even threatening reprisals if voters fail to go to the polls. Furthermore, in Brest, the government-controlled local press is publishing election materials devoted solely to one candidate. All of these and other incidents, Mr. Speaker, have contributed to an atmosphere highly obtrusive to free and fair elections. Given the pre-election atmosphere, the international community will be hard-pressed to recognize the new parliament, which succeeds the old, Lukashenka hand-picked parliament that was not recognized by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and much of the international community. Moreover, the current election environment does not in any way inspire confidence that the presidential elections scheduled for next year will be democratic. Mr. Lukashenka would do well to keep in mind that, with the fall of Slobodan Milosevic, he becomes increasingly isolated as Europe's sole remaining dictator.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I want to thank the gentleman for his great work on this, and also commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for her sponsorship of H.R. 4386, the Breast Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act. Passage of H.R. 4386 would guarantee low-income uninsured women in this country treatment if they are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer in the Federal screening program. Currently, as we know, many low-income and uninsured women are not receiving the treatment and medication they urgently need because they simply cannot afford it. It is crucial that we pass this legislation and that we pass it today so that women across the country receive the lifesaving treatment that they so desperately deserve and need. Mr. Speaker, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, other than skin cancer. It is the second leading cause of cancer death in women after lung cancer. I would point out to my colleagues that my own cousin Sue, who was very, very close to me, fell victim to this disease several years ago. She was misdiagnosed. She went to her own doctor, who missed the signs. It was a matter of providential help that she walked into one of those mobile screening clinics and found out that that lump that she was so concerned about turned out to be cancer. Because of that, she got several years because she was able to at least get it treated. Had she known about it sooner, I do believe that my cousin Sue would be here today. In like manner, my wife's mother died of breast cancer. That was more than 25 years ago. But she, too, went to a doctor, and had it missed because he missed the signs of what was taking place in her body. She passed prematurely while my wife was still in high school. We all have cases. Every single one of us have a loved one who has been lost to this devastating disease. Hopefully, this kind of initiative will at least spare some the agony of this terrible cancer. As my colleagues know, the American Cancer Society reports that there will be approximately 182,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer in the year 2000 among women in this country, resulting in about 40,800 deaths from this horrible disease. It is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that Congress continues to expand research opportunities focusing on finding a cure, increasing early detection, and speeding access to treatment for breast cancer.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership in bringing this very important resolution to the floor today and to my good friends on the minority side and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for his leadership and the gentleman form Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). This is the time for us to make this statement, and I think we are doing it collectively as a Congress. Hopefully our voices will be heard in Serbia. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of H. Res. 451 and I strongly support its passage here today. In a series of hearings that we held on the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, the atrocities committed in Kosovo by Yugoslav and Serbian forces have been very amply documented and the continued incarceration of Kosovar Albanians in Serbian prisons were detailed in very numbing detail. The culpability of Milosevic for war crimes and crimes against humanity for which he has been indicted have also been made clear. It is also obvious that there is an unacceptable lack of security in Kosovo, evident in the frequent instances of violence and destruction in the period since the conflict ended. Last week, Mr. Speaker, major change finally came to Yugoslavia. The people voted to throw Slobodan Milosevic out of office. And when he would not leave, they took to the streets to make clear that they had had enough. While President Kostunica takes a nationalist point of view, he nevertheless appears willing to work towards democracy and the rule of law rather than create more problems. I was pleased to hear that he has already indicated his willingness to look into the cases of Kosovar Albanians who right now, today, are languishing in Serbian prisons. I believe he will, and every friend of democracy fully expects him to do the right thing. At one of our Helsinki Commission hearings, we heard terrible testimony, horrible conditions about these people who have been held in these terrible prisons, Kosovar Albanians who have committed no crimes. We ask, we demand that they be released now, immediately. Let the Albanians go. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think it is critical that we strongly condemn all of the violence which is occurring in Kosovo today regardless of the ethnicity of the victim, regardless of the ethnicity of the culprit. I have been a strong critic of Serbian repression in Kosovo in the past. As a matter of fact, when I met Milosevic the first time in Belgrade in the early 1990s, I raised the issue of his police, his thugs who are committing egregious abuses against the Kosovar Albanians and called on him and his thugs to stop it. But let me also say that none of us want to accept any wanton acts of violence whether it be revenge against Serbs or other members of minorities in Kosovo. Therefore, and I think this is important in the resolution, the Campaign Against Violence mentioned in this resolution is absolutely critical for all sides to accept and to implement. I would hope that the Albanians will criticize Albanians and Serbs will criticize Serbs when that Campaign Against Violence is transgressed. We need peaceful nonviolence in Kosovo and in Serbia. This resolution calls on all parties to stand down.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, I rise in very strong support of the Peterson resolution, H. Con. Res. 404, calling for the immediate release of Edmund Pope from prison in the Russian Federation based on humanitarian reasons. I think it is very important that the chairman of the House Committee on International Relations and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), have moved very quickly on this resolution to bring it to the floor and before our colleagues because this is a very, very important resolution of humanitarian concern. This resolution calls for the immediate release of Mr. Pope, an American citizen arrested for allegedly spying in Russia and, as we know, in prison now in Moscow since early April of this year. Mr. Pope has been arrested for trying to purchase so-called secret technology that had already been advertised for commercial sale. Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to agree that countries are entitled to protect sensitive information or state secrets; but the case against Mr. Pope is without merit. When we consider that the Russian Government has already released the alleged co-conspirator in this case, it is difficult to understand why Mr. Pope is considered such a danger. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) so passionately and eloquently pointed out, Mr. Pope is seriously ill and the Russian Government has not permitted an American physician to even visit him, which one might expect on simple humanitarian grounds. Mr. Speaker, the Russian Government recently announced that the Pope case has been turned over to the court. This may look like progress, but experience tells us otherwise. When we look at the long drawn out case of Alexandr Nikitin, for whom it took 4\1/2\ years to prove his innocence on trumped-up charges of espionage, I believe it is unlikely Mr. Pope would survive a lengthy judicial process. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government has repeatedly raised this case with the Russian Government. Why are they not listening? At a recent hearing of our Committee on International Relations, our Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, reiterated her conviction this case should be resolved quickly in Mr. Pope's favor. Finally, I would note that in connection with this case, a Moscow radio station stated that the Russian security service often considers principles of humanity in deciding whom to release. It seems no other person in Russia today fits that definition. This man is sick, he is innocent, and he needs to be released. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for his great leadership on this case.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), for yielding me the time; and I thank him for his work on behalf of Burmese people, for the fine remarks of the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for the work on this resolution and, above all, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the prime sponsor of it. Mr. Speaker, just over 10 years ago, in the spring of 1990, the people of Burma courageously embraced democracy. In the face of intimidation by the Burmese military, they turned out in record numbers to participate in freedom and fair elections. In those elections, the National League for Democracy, led so aptly by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, won more than 60 percent of the popular vote; and as my friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), reminded us 80 percent, 80 percent of the seats in parliament went to the National League for Democracy. The Burmese military responded by rejecting the election results, imprisoning hundreds of NLD Members, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and severely curtailing the civil liberties of the Burmese people. Since that time, the ruling military thugs, who currently call themselves the State Peace and Development Council, have inflicted massive human rights violations and economic privations on the people in Burma. More than 1,300 political prisoners, including the woman elected to lead Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, still suffer at the hands of their government captors. Just last month, as we all know, she was forcibly detained when Aung San Suu Kyi attempted to travel outside the Burmese capital to Mandalay. The Burmese regime routinely uses forced labor, and it continues to wage a brutal war against ethnic minorities within its borders. Mr. Speaker, in August of 1998, I traveled to that region in an effort to secure the release of one of my constituents, Michele Keegan, who had been seized by the Burmese authorities for passing out cards the size of our voting cards that said ``We have not forgotten you. We support your hopes for human rights and democracy.'' The SLORC repeatedly refused my requests for a visa to enter Burma, so I had to help negotiate her release from Bangkok, Thailand. After 5 days of detention, Michele and 17 other foreign activists were expelled from Burma, but not until they had been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for sedition. Let me remind Members, they handed out a card that said we have not forgotten you, we support your hopes for human rights and democracy, a little card just handed out on the streets in Rangoon; and for that, a 5-year sentence. That is just an indication of what they do to their own people. Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to note that the State Department reauthorization bill, H.R. 3472, the Embassy Security Act, which I introduced last year that, thankfully, became law, retained a provision that helps ensure that the United Nations Development Program, UNDP, does not enrich the Burmese military regime. It reduces U.S. contributions to UNDP by the amount that that program spends in Burma unless UNDP's activities in Burma: One, are focused on eliminating human suffering; two, are carried out only through private voluntary organizations that are independent of the regime; three, do not benefit the regime; and four, are carried out only after consultation with the leadership of the National League for Democracy and the leadership of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. The resolution before us today, Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 328, properly commemorates the 1990 elections, describes adequately and accurately the situation in Burma and expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should strongly support the restoration of democracy in that country. It urges the military regime in Burma to guarantee basic freedoms for Burmese citizens, to undertake a political dialogue with the National League for Democracy and ethnic leaders, and to immediately release all political prisoners, and to fulfill the conditions of international human rights instruments. It also recognizes the current sanctions in place against the government of Burma as appropriate means of pursuing democracy and civil liberties for the people of Burma. Again, I want to thank all those involved, but especially the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for offering this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), whose commitment to human rights and humanitarian principles is well known. The resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UNHCR. It commends the UNHCR on its good work over the years and congratulates the present High Commissioner, Dr. Ogata, who will be retiring in December. The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights made minor technical changes to the legislation and reported it favorably to the full committee which reported it out last week. As the resolution rightly points out, it is important that the UNHCR never forget that the heart of its mandate is protection. Donor countries including a major donor, the United States, often forget this. Our own contribution to refugee protection around the world is about 20 percent lower than it was just 5 years ago and most other countries have done even worse. Moreover, countries of first asylum, to which refugees have fled from persecution or the fear of persecution, often wish they would go away. And sometimes the brutal regimes from which they fled are only all too happy to get them back. So there is always pressure on the UNHCR to pretend that mass repatriation would be safe when, in fact, it is dangerous or to pretend that repatriation is voluntary when, in fact, the refugees and asylum seekers are given no choice. Mr. Speaker, we are the subcommittee of jurisdiction on refugee protection. We have had numerous hearings on many parts of the world, including Africa, the Great Lakes region, Rwanda, and I take a back seat to no one and my very good friend the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), has likewise been there and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) who was the ranker 2 years ago in raising concerns about people being forced back when they had a real fear of persecution and many of those people when forced back have come to a very untimely and unfortunate fate. Occasionally, as in the so-called comprehensive plan of action, for example, asylum seekers from Indochina, the UNHCR in that case yielded to pressure. On these occasions, I and other Members as I have pointed out were among UNHCR's strongest critics. However, on many, many other occasions, the UNHCR has stood for the principle of protection, even at great risk to its own institutional interests. This resolution celebrates those instances of courage, those instances of compassion over the last 50 years and particularly during the stewardship of Dr. Ogata. I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it.