Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations for his very kind words; the feeling is mutual and the respect is mutual. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful that the House is meeting today to consider H.R. 3244, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 which I introduced last year along with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and a number of other bipartisan cosponsors. Before discussing the merits of the legislation, I would like to point out that the bill now has 36 cosponsors, 18 Democrats and 18 Republicans. Among the Republican cosponsors are the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, who last year gave us a very firm commitment that this bill would be brought to the floor because of the egregious nature of the situation that we are facing; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations who just spoke; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Democratic cosponsors include not only the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, but also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), my friend and the ranking member on my subcommittee. Another index of the broad support for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is that it has both the support of Charles Colson and Gloria Steinem, of the Family Research Council and of Equality Now; of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, as well as the National Association of Evangelicals. In crafting this legislation, we have also had the assistance of impartial experts, such as Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, Gary Haugen of the International Justice Mission, which goes out and rescues trafficked women and children one-by-one. I especially want to thank Grover Joseph Rees, the chief counsel and chief of staff of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, for his remarkable skill in helping to craft this measure and, in like manner, I would like to thank David Abramowitz, the chief counsel for the Minority staff, who has done tremendous work on it as well. I would also like to thank Dr. Laura Lederer of the Protection Project whose painstaking research has been indispensable in ensuring that we have the facts about this worldwide criminal enterprise and its victims. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in testimony at a Helsinki Commission sexual trafficking hearing that I chaired on June 28, Dr. Lederer told the story of Lydia. Lydia's story, she told us, is an amalgamation of several true stories of women and girls who have been trafficked in Eastern Europe in recent years. Lydia was 16 and hanging around with friends on streets, she told us. You can fill in the name of the country here, the Ukraine, Russia, Rumania, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, when they were approached by an older, beautifully dressed woman who befriended them and told them they were so nice looking she could get them a part-time job in modeling. She took them to dinner, bought them some small gifts, and when the dinner was over she invited them back to her home for a drink. Taking the drink is the last thing that Lydia remembers. The woman drugged her and handed her and her friends over to an agent who drove them, unconscious, across the border. Here you can fill in another set of countries, be it Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, some Middle Eastern countries, even as far as Japan, Canada, and of course, the United States. When Lydia awoke she was alone in a strange room in a foreign country. Her friends were gone. A while later a man came into the room and told her that she now belonged to him. I own you, he said. You are my property. You will work for me until I say stop. Don't try to leave. You have no papers. You have no passport. You don't speak the language in this country. He told her if she tried to escape his men would come in after her and beat her and bring her back. He told her that her family back home was in danger. He told her that she owed the agency $35,000, which she would work off in a brothel by sexually servicing men, sometimes 10 to 20 men a day. Stunned, angry, rebellious, Lydia refused. The man then hit her. He beat her. He raped her. He sent friends in to gang rape her. She was left in the room alone without food or water for 3 days. Frightened and broken, she succumbed. For the next 6 months she was held in virtual confinement and forced to prostitute herself. She received no money. She had no hope of escape. She was rescued when the brothel was raided by local police. They arrested the young women and charged them with working without a visa. They arrested the brothel manager and charged him with procuration, but he was later released. They did not attempt to arrest the brothel owners or to identify the traffickers. The girls were interviewed, and those who were not citizens of the country were charged as illegal aliens and transferred to a woman's prison where they awaited deportation. A medical examiner found that Lydia had several sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, she was addicted to a potent cough syrup, and she was physically weak. She was spiritually broken. There was no one to speak for Lydia. She feared the future because she knew her keepers. They had the networks, the power, the resources to track her down, kidnap her, and bring her back again. The risk is low so the potential profits are high, and girls like Lydia are the real target. There seems to be no one who cares about Lydia's life. The authorities do not have an interest in tracking down the organizations or the individuals in this trafficking chain, from the woman who drugged Lydia to the agent who brought her across the border to the agent who broke her will to the brothel managers and to the brothel owners. In addition, there are corrupt law enforcement officers involved, because the process of getting Lydia across the borders and keeping the brothels running involves payoffs to local visa officials and police in the country of origin, border patrols for both countries, and local police in the destination countries. Lydia is without protection. The traffickers have bought theirs. Now, think of Lydia's story multiplied by hundreds of thousands and you get the picture of the scope of the problem. UNICEF is estimating that 1 million children are forced into prostitution in southeast Asia alone, another 1 million worldwide. These are just children. An estimated 250,000 women and children from Russia, the newly-independent States, and Eastern Europe are trafficked into Western Europe, the Middle East, Japan, Canada, and the U.S. each and every year. An estimated 20,000 children from Central American countries, and this is a new figure from the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, are being trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation up through Central America and into the United States. Mr. Speaker, on an OSCE human rights trip to St. Petersburg last July, my wife Marie and I, joined by several other Members, met with Dr. Juliette Engel of MiraMed Institute, an NGO dedicated to helping women exploited by trafficking. We met with girls and young women who told us their heartbreaking stories of their captivity. Dr. Engel's group has supported H.R. 3244 and points out that, unfortunately for Russian girls, sexual trafficking is the most profitable of all the criminal enterprises. Estimates are as high as $4 billion last year, because unlike one-time sales of weapons and narcotics, women can be sold over and over again. Dreams are shattered, she writes, families are broken apart, lives are destroyed. Mr. Speaker, our legislation, H.R. 3244, has attracted such broad support not only because it is pro-women, pro-child, pro-human rights, pro-family values, and anticrime, but because it addresses a problem that absolutely cries out for a solution. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act focuses on the most severe forms of trafficking in human beings: on the buying and selling of children into the international sex industry, on sex trafficking of women and children alike by force, fraud, or coercion, and on trafficking into slavery, involuntary servitude, and forced labor. Each year, as many as 2 million innocent victims, of whom the overwhelming majority of are women and children, are brought by force and/or fraud into the international commercial sex industry. Efforts by the U.S. Government, international organizations, and others to stop this brutal practice have thus far proved, unfortunately, unsuccessful. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that instances of forcible and/or fraudulent sexual trafficking are far more numerous than just a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, let me just say a couple of final points. Part of the problem is that current laws and enforcement strategies in the U.S. and other countries often punish the victims more severely than they punish the perpetrators. When a sex-for hire establishment is raided, the women and sometimes children in the brothel are typically deported if they are not citizens of the country in which the establishment is located, without reference to whether their participation was voluntary or involuntary, and without reference to whether they will face retribution or other serious harm upon return. This not only inflicts further cruelty on the victims, it also leaves nobody to testify against the real criminals, and frightens other victims from coming forward. My legislation, Mr. Speaker, seeks the elimination of slavery and particularly sex slavery by a comprehensive, balanced approach of prevention, prosecution and enforcement, and victim protection. The central principle behind the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is that criminals who knowingly operate enterprises that profit from sex acts involving persons who had been brought across international boundaries for such purposes by force or fraud, or who force human beings into slavery, should receive punishments commensurate with the penalties for kidnapping and forcible rape. That means up to life imprisonment. Putting these gangsters away for life would not only be just punishment but also a powerful deterrent, and the logical corollary of this principle is that we need to treat victims of these terrible crimes as victims who desperately need protection. Let me just say, this bill needs to be passed, Mr. Speaker and it needs to be passed today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of those who have supported this bill through an incredibly arduous process, as well as for the kind and important comments that were made on the floor. Mr. Speaker, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act contains several mutually reinforcing provisions, probably two most notable of which are reforms to the United States criminal law to provide severe punishment, up to life imprisonment in the worse cases, for criminals who buy and sell human beings or who profit from the deliberate, premeditated and repeated rape of women and children. This includes people who recruit, transport, purchase, and sell these innocent victims as well as those who manage or share in the proceeds of trafficking enterprises. And of equal importance the bill establishes preventive programs, and provides real, tangible protections for the victims. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait one more day to begin saving these millions of women and children who are forced every day to submit to the most atrocious offenses against their persons and against their dignity as human beings. I urge unanimous support for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States and countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and assistance to victims of trafficking, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my good friend who has been very earnest on all human rights issues, but this one as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4365, the Child Health Act of 2000, must be passed today and sent swiftly to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus a few moments on the silent epidemic of autism, we are in the midst of a silent epidemic of autism. No State, no county, no Federal agency systematically tracks cases of autism, but even faint glimpses of the truth are terrifying to behold. According to the Federal Department of Education, autistic special education students have increased by 153 percent from 1994 to 1999. In my home State of New Jersey, the Department of Education has said the number of kids classified as autistic in our school system has increased from 241 in 1991 to an incredible, astonishing 2,354 in 1999, an 876 percent increase. Mr. Speaker, at my request, the CDC conducted a ground-breaking autism prevalence investigation in Brick Township in New Jersey. The findings of the 2-year investigation were released just last month. We are informed that Brick's rate of classic autism was a whopping 4 per 1,000 children between ages 3 and 10, and the rate of autism spectrum disorders was 6.7 cases per 1,000. That is higher than most people had thought. Normally it is about 2 per 1,000. We had an incidence of 4 per 1,000. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for including the essence of my ASSURE bill which will create 3 to 5 ``Centers of Excellence in Autism'' under the auspices of the CDC so that the Federal Government will now be able to monitor the prevalence of autism at the national level and develop, hopefully, better teaching methods and health professionals to improve the treatment. It also authorizes CDC to create a National Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disability Surveillance Program. This program would use a combination of grants, cooperative agreements, and technical assistance to improve the collection, analysis and reporting on this very serious anomaly that is afflicting so many of our children. Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) on a great bill and I hope all of my colleagues will support it. Most experts in autism research believe that while genetics are a major determinant in developing autism, something else is at work. The epidemiological research provided under H.R. 4365 will help researchers sort out how much of the problem is genetic and how much is environmental or developmental. If autism has a link to certain environmental pollutants, the surveillance programs established under ASSURE will be able to tell us more about these links. If autism is related to an immunological response to certain vaccines, the data provided by ASSURE can be used to support or dismiss this hypothesis. Regardless of one's opinion on what causes autism, the bottom line is that we will never be able to get the answers parents need without the data generated by this bill. Once the CDC has established the centers of excellence, they will serve as a model for states to copy and form their own registries and surveillance programs. The centers will also improve the standard of care for autistic persons by providing education and training for health professionals, so that the latest proven treatments and interventions can be utilized to the maximum possible extent. Also included in the Children's Health Act are provisions of H.R. 997, introduced by Congressman Jim Greenwood and myself, to improve autism research programs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This proposal, Section (B) of Title I, boosts the biomedical research needed to help solve the puzzle of autism. And that's just Title I. In addition, there are a host of vital initiatives to improve surveillance efforts of children with diabetes, promote adoption, and reduce asthma and enhance services to asthmatics. All of these other provisions deserve out full support. Today, Congress has an enormous opportunity to speak out on behalf of those whose voices have been silenced by autism. Kids like Alanna and Austin Gallagher in Brick Township, New Jersey. Today, we can help restore breath to kids afflicted with asthma. People like Tommy Farese of Spring Lake, and my own two daughters Melissa and Elyse. Today, we may save and extend the lives of children stricken by juvenile diabetes, such as young Charlie Coats of East Windsor. It is for these children, their mothers and fathers, and the countless others like them across out nation, that we enact H.R. 4365. Join with me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Cardinal O'Connor of New York, a man after God's own heart and one of the greatest and most consistent moral and spiritual leaders of the 20th century, has passed away. Cardinal O'Connor loved unconditionally and gave generously, expecting nothing in return. He proclaimed and demonstrated by his words, works, and actions the indescribable blessings of the gospel. Cardinal O'Connor was a good and holy priest who radiated Christ and the healing power of God to believers and nonbelievers alike. Over the years, there were some who mocked and rejected Cardinal O'Connor's clear Christian teaching on the sanctity of all human life and the duty of all men and women of goodwill, especially politicians, to protect the vulnerable from the violence of abortion. Yet he always treated the opponents of his message with respect and dignity. Mr. Speaker, in the 25th chapter of Matthew's Gospel Jesus spoke of the last judgment and those, like Cardinal O'Connor, who would be blessed in eternity. Jesus said, `` `For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was in prison and you came to me.' And then the righteous will answer him, saying, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and take you in, or naked and clothe you? Or when did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?' And the Lord will answer and say to them, `Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to the least of my brethren, you did it to Me.' '' Mr. Speaker, Cardinal O'Connor devoted his life and inspired countless others to do the same to help the ``least,'' the disenfranchised, and the unwanted seeing Christ himself in the lives that nobody else cared about or wanted. Earth's loss of Cardinal O'Connor is heaven's gain.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for their leadership in constructing this resolution condemning violations of human rights and the erosion of democracy in Belarus in calling upon the Lukashenka regime to restore the constitutional rights of the Belarusian people and on the Russian Federation to respect the sovereignty of Belarus. In March, Mr. Speaker, I chaired a second Helsinki Commission hearing on Belarus which addressed many of the issues that are very importantly highlighted in this resolution. The hearing featured key leaders of Belarus's opposition, including Semyon Sharetsky and two leading State Department officials as well as the person in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Adrian Severin, who was attempting to forge dialogue between the Belarusian authorities and the opposition. This hearing was a follow-up to our April 1999 hearing on Belarus. In the last year our commission has made repeated and consistent intercessions, including through the OSCE, to draw attention to the deplorable situation in Belarus and to encourage the establishment of a democracy there. As my friend and colleague from Connecticut just pointed out, there are the allegations, and they would seem to be real, that have been in some of the newspapers, including the London Sunday Telegraph about the Russians brokering an arms deal to rebuild the Iraqi air defenses using the Belarusians as the conduit. The Telegraph reported that Beltechexport, the State-owned Belarusian military hardware company, has agreed to upgrade Iraqi's air defense systems to reequip the Iraqi Air Force and to provide air defense training for Iraqi troops. The deal is estimated to be worth about $90 million. It was signed in the middle of April, or last February, I should say, during a visit to Baghdad by high-ranking Belarusians. It also points out, the article, that Belarusian officials have agreed to undertake a detailed overhaul of 17 Soviet-made Iraqi war planes which had been in Belarus since the late 1980s. Again, Mr. Speaker, this directly puts our pilots at risk who are trying to enforce the no-fly zone, and I think this resolution again gets this Congress focused on the egregious human rights situation and also the military implications of the Belarusian regime.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his excellent piece of legislation, which tells the truth about the ongoing repression in Vietnam. Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to share some observations from a human rights fact-finding mission I made in December to Saigon. The principal purpose of the trip was to inspect the new refugee processing program, which, as most of my colleagues know, has recently moved from Bangkok to our new U.S. Consulate in Saigon. As I think many of my colleagues know as well, I am very pleased to have been the sponsor, the prime author, of comprehensive foreign policy legislation, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001, which became law last November. That bill provided for an extension of the McCain amendment on Vietnamese refugee children through fiscal year 2001, along with an expansion of the amendment to cover the so-called co-residency cases. The new law also included very important language making clear that our refugee programs in Vietnam should be far more than a token effort. We made that clear in all kinds of cases. For example, with the Montagnards who were turned down because they kept fighting the Communists after 1975, with reeducation camp survivors whose refugee applications were denied because they were afraid to talk in front of government-hired interpreters, with former U.S. Government employees who were turned down for no good reason at all, and with people who have suffered recent persecution for their political or religious beliefs, we need to be far more generous than we have been in the past. It is too early, Mr. Speaker, to know whether or not our Saigon refugee program will live up to those expectations, which is the clear meaning and intent of the law. But I promise, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, to keep my eye on the ball and to keep pushing hard for it. In addition to focusing on the refugee programs, Mr. Speaker, we also focused heavily on the human rights issues, democracy, and transparency in Vietnam, which we have also done in our subcommittee over the last several years. I met with Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, who--like the great Professor Hoat, who is now in this country--is a courageous and brilliant former prisoner of conscience. He is now under virtual house arrest, however, in Saigon. His phone is tapped. His Internet connections have been cut off. He and members of his family are followed wherever they go. Notwithstanding the fact that I had a Government thug following me wherever I went, Dr. Que invited us into his home and gave us a fascinating lecture on the future prospects for reform and democracy in Vietnam. He explained, for example, that the principal contradiction in Vietnamese society is not between North and South, not between traditionalism and modernity, but between the Politburo and everybody else in the country. We also met with religious leaders, including Archbishop Man, Father Chan Tin, and members of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church. And we met with Montagnard students, some of whom are Protestants who have been forbidden to have prayer meetings in their country. Unfortunately, on the advice of Ambassador Peterson, we were unable to meet with the leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church, who have come in for some of the most brutal treatment of all. The ambassador felt the time was not right. The next trip, I can assure my colleagues, we will meet with them. But we have continued to raise their issues, as well. One thing that was very clear from all of our conversations with human rights advocates, religious figures, and ordinary Vietnamese was that international pressure does indeed work. For example, Dr. Que pointed out that while trade may bring some reforms to Vietnam, these reforms will come quicker if the United States strongly uses each economic concession, especially the prospect of a bilateral trade agreement, as leverage to require immediate progress on human rights. If anyone doubts that economic leverage works to change the behavior of the Vietnamese Government, these doubts should be resolved by the experience of the ROVR program. In mid-1996, the Vietnamese Government promised that if the 20,000 or so people who were eligible for ROVR would return to Vietnam, the U.S. would be able to interview them for refugee resettlement in the U.S. Eighteen months after making this promise, the Vietnamese Government had let us interview only a few hundred of the 20,000 people. But when it was made clear to them that they would not get a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which would be necessary to allow subsidized loans under the U.S. Export-Import and OPIC programs, they allowed us to start interviewing people almost immediately. We eventually got 18,000 people to freedom under the ROVR program. So linkage to economic issues does work. Let me also focus on a couple of human rights issues. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) said so eloquently, the Vietnamese Government must stop imprisoning people for their political or religious beliefs. They must release all prisoners of conscience that they currently hold. Hanoi insists that it has no political or religious prisoners, only ordinary law breakers. When visiting, American delegations like my own point out that these law breakers include Catholic priests and Buddhist monks. When we raise these issues, they say that these people have been imprisoned for such crimes as activities to overthrow the government, which is utter nonsense, or using freedom and democracy to injure the national unity, whatever that means. Vietnamese officials cheerfully remind visitors that they have a ``different system.'' They need to be persuaded that if they are going to do business with us they have to abide by internationally recognized norms regarding human rights. The Vietnamese government must eliminate other gross human rights violations such as its two-child-per-couple policy, which deprives the parents of unauthorized children of employment and other government benefits. It must grant workers the right to organize independent trade unions and stop the practice of forced labor. It has to stop jamming Radio Free Asia, which tries to bring the Vietnamese people the kind of broadcasting they would provide for themselves if their government would allow freedom of expression. Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record an excellent article written by Le Van Tien on ``Vietnam's Failed Revolution.'' It was in the Asian Wall Street Journal on April 28, 2000. [From the Wall Street Journal, Fri., Apr. 28, 2000] Vietnam's Failed Revolution . . . (By Le Van Tien) We are marching to Saigon. We are entering the city. We are liberating the South. This was the song I heard the National Liberation Front soldiers singing as they marched behind the North Vietnamese tanks that rolled into Saigon on April 30, 1975. Later the lyrics were taught to children, who sang them enthusiastically enough. Say what you will about the Communists, they have always understood that children love parades. In the years just after the unification of Vietnam, even as many South Vietnamese were either fleeing in boats or being sent to prison or ``re-education,'' others--particularly young people--were willing to join the Communists in efforts to rebuild the country. Many were even willing to fight and die in the wars against Cambodia and China. Yet 25 years later most of the survivors can barely remember the songs they used to sing about the revolution. For those of us who were imprisoned or forced into exile, it is tempting to judge the revolution by our own standards. It is more instructive, however, to judge a movement by the extent to which it has met its own goals. Life in Vietnam has indeed changed in many ways since 1975, but not in any of the ways promised by the revolution. Vietnam was never a rich country, but now it is one of the poorest in the world, with a per capita GDP of about $300. Teachers make $20 per month, construction workers about $30, medical doctors $35. Of the 37 million working-age Vietnamese, only 7 million have stable jobs, almost all in government or in state-owned enterprises. The remaining 30 million are seasonal workers employed for 200 days or less per years. Almost everyone in Vietnam is struggling for survival day by day, and almost everyone blames the government--especially corruption in government. It is no accident that people in rural areas are the poorest of all (according to the World Bank, about 45% of Vietnamese farmers live below the poverty line) because these are the areas where government is most corrupt and has the greatest power over people's lives. Despite the harsh measures taken by the Vietnamese government against those who openly express their displeasure with government policies, there have been periodic demonstrations and even uprisings among rural people protesting corruption and oppression. In 1989, several hundred people from villages in the Mekong Delta traveled to Saigon, now called Ho Chi Minh City, to demand improved conditions in the countryside. These demonstrations were partly motivated by resentment at continued North Vietnamese domination of the South, but in the early 1990s there were riots in three provinces in Central Vietnam, in an area known as the ``cradle of the revolution.'' These events culminated in 1997 in Thai Binh, a northern province noted for the unusually high percentage of enthusiastic Communists among its people, in which thousands of peasants and farmers detained armed public security officers and demanded an end to confiscatory taxes, corruption, and other official abuses. Even a group of high- ranking Army officers from Thai Binh openly announced that ``the Communist party has succeeded in abolishing the old regime in which man exploited man, only to replace it with a regime in which the Party itself exploits the people.'' Many of the Thai Binh demonstrators were sent to prison or re- education, but the government also dismissed about 50 officials including the head of the provincial People's Committee. The poor living conditions of the farmers and the working class contrast sharply with the lifestyle of many Communist cadres, government officials, and executives in state-owned enterprises. They can afford conspicuous consumption not because of their salaries, but because of their far larger income from official corruption. In recent years, the government itself has recognized that corruption is at the heart of its problems, strangling the economy and scaring away foreign investors. In mid-1999 General Secretary Le Kha Phieu announced a two- year campaign of ``self-criticism.'' The campaign is intended to end bribery, extortion, smuggling, and other corrupt practices, in order to win the confidence of the people and also of foreign investors. These investors were initially attracted by the official policies of economic ``renovation'' and ``openness'' announced in the early 1990s, but they have been discouraged not only by the burdens of corruption and hyperregulation, but also by the consequent decline in economic growth rates from about 8% annually to just over 4%. Most ominously, many are frighted by the prospect of political instability as a consequence of the steady erosion of the government's legitimacy. The Vietnamese government seems to understand that it is in danger of losing its grip on power. It has been quietly advised by scholars, international financial institutions and representatives of other governments that it must act to regain the trust of the Vietnamese people. The most obvious way to do this would be through a campaign of renovation and openness extending beyond the economic sphere to include freedom of expression, religion, and the press as well as steps toward more representative government. Party leaders, however, regard these freedoms as an even greater threat to their power than the current popular dissatisfaction with government. In August 1999, at the closing session of the Seventh Communist Party Plenum, General Secretary Le Kha Phieu stated that ``there will be no sharing of power. The Communists will hold firmly to leadership. Any request for democracy, freedom, human rights, or `peaceful evolution,' is a conspiracy by the enemy forces to erase the socialist regime in Vietnam.'' This injunction has manifested itself in strong measures by local authorities throughout the country against actions suspected to be harmful to internal stability and order. Most recently, a number of Hoa Hao Buddhists were imprisoned for participating in a ceremony to commemorate the 53rd anniversary of the disappearance of their founder. Father Chan Tin, an outspoken Roman Catholic priest and human rights advocate, was recently ``tried'' in absentia at public meeting organized by the People's Committee in the district where his church is located. Father Tin was charged with such crimes as ``seeking to abolish the leadership of the Communist Party'' and ``destroying the solidarity between religions and the state.'' And the principal leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the country's largest religious denomination, remain under virtual house arrest. The government also recently arrested, searched, and deported French reporter Sylvaine Pasquier, who was apprehended outside the house of former political prisoner Nguyen Dan Que, whom she was attempting to interview. Ms. Pasquier reports that at one point her interrogator made a gesture to simulate a gun at her head and said she could put heroin in her purse and condemn her as a drug smuggler. Next month Mr. Phieu will make an official visit to France at the invitation of President Chirac--the first visit to a democratic country by a General Secretary of the Vietnamese Communist Party since Ho Chi Minh visited France in 1946. The Phieu visit was arranged with the help of the French Communist Party, which recently announced its determination to ``rejuvenate the spirit of communism'' as a movement committed to ``return political power to the individual citizen.'' Perhaps Mr. Phieu and his colleagues in the Vietnamese Communist Party will come to share the insight of their French comrades that Communism can only survive by finding a way to coexist with democracy and individual freedom. If not--if they keep trying to cure the consequences of Stalinism with more Stalinism--it is hard to imagine that anyone will be singing songs about the revolution in another 25 years. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for this excellent resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, some day soon, and I believe this is a matter of when and not if, future generations of Americans will look back with horror, incredulity, and astonishment that some of the best and brightest of this present age vehemently defended the slaughter of over 40 million babies by abortion. They will wonder how a seemingly sane, enlightened, and compassionate society led by its President, Congress, the media, academia and the courts could have so aggressively embraced violence against children and the abandonment of their mothers. With a mix of sadness and disbelief, future generations of Americans will absolutely marvel at our blindness and our insensitivity to the inherent cruelty of stabbing, dismembering, and poisoning little children under the euphemism of choice. What were they thinking, they will ask. How could they have construed the right to privacy to include injections of poisons or the hacking to death by knife or razor blade-tipped curette, so as to procure the death of a child. How could so many have remained unmoved or silent in the midst of a holocaust that claimed the lives of one out of every three babies in this country, 40 million boys and girls, a number roughly equal to five times the entire population of my home State of New Jersey. Future generations of Americans, and judging by the polls, super majorities of Americans today are finally, at long last, outraged that thousands of children each year are being butchered by partial-birth abortion. They are beginning to get it. Most people I talk to are outraged that babies who are partially born and fully kicking are legally jabbed in the back of the head with scissors for the purpose of making a hole in their fragile skulls so their brains can be sucked out. Anyone who has ever picked up and held a newborn baby knows how wobbly and fragile that child's head is. You gently cradle the child's neck in your hands to protect the baby from harm. The abortionist, on the other hand, has no such motive. When he grabs the baby's head, it is to stab it and to destroy the child. Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is a monstrous act of cruelty. Partial-birth abortion is a gross violation of human rights, a barbarous form of torture directed at a defenseless baby girl or boy. The pending bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is a desperately needed human rights initiative designed to offer at least a small measure of protection to some babies in a class of human beings who have, since 1973, been legally disenfranchised because of their age, immaturity, or condition of dependency. Many of us would surely like to save and protect more babies from the violence of abortion; I wish to God we could save more. But I believe we have a moral duty that is not so easily satisfied to save at least some, as many as we can, at every opportunity. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very, very modest step in that direction to save at least some.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, March 9, I chaired a hearing of the Helsinki Commission at which we heard compelling and disturbing testimony about the deterioration of human rights and democracy in Belarus. I was pleased to have as one of our witnesses Anatoly Lebedka, Deputy Chairman of Belarus' legitimate parliament, disbanded by Belarusian strongman Alyaksandr Lukashenka following an illegitimate 1996 referendum. Unfortunately, Mr. Lebedka was one of some 500 people arrested last weekend, during a peaceful pro-democracy demonstration in Miensk. He was reportedly beaten and spent two days in detention before he was released. He is scheduled to go to trial on April 4. Also detained without explanation were more than 30 Belarusian, Russian and Polish journalists. Film shot by press photographers was reportedly confiscated. Aleh Hrudzilovich, a journalist with the opposition newspaper Nasha Svaboda and Radio Liberty who was initially detained on March 25, was summoned for interrogation on March 27, handcuffed, and then hit several times in the face while being transported by police to a detention center. He was released later that day. Other detainees also reportedly suffered physical abuse by the police. Several demonstrators have been put on trial, and some have already been sentenced to short-term detentions. Mr. Speaker, during the Helsinki Commission hearing, I asked Mr. Lebedka about the scheduled March demonstrations, where he expressed the fear that there might be deliberate provocations by the police, as had been the case at a Freedom March rally last October. Fortunately, a large peaceful protest held on March 15 was held without any problems. According to many observers, including Mr. Lebedka, the growing number of participants in the officially-approved 30,000 strong March 15 demonstration prompted Lukashenka to take harsh measures against the March 25 demonstrators. Indeed, this comports with Lukashenka's recent warning that protestors who ``get out of line'' will have ``the stuffing'' beat out of them. Mr. Speaker, the suppression of the March 25 demonstration is yet another illustration of the Lukashenka regime's disregard for fundamental human rights, including freedom of assembly and association, and information. It is another among a long list of outrages perpetrated by Lukashenka upon the people of Belarus. It is yet another in a pattern of violations of human rights commitments, which Belarus freely undertook when it joined the OSCE in 1992. Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong concern for the safety of Anatoly Lebedka and all the other pro-democracy activists in Belarus, and I look forward to the day when democracy will flourish someday in Belarus.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000. Like most Americans, I am deeply troubled by the sharp increase in the price of petroleum products, as well as their impact. Fuel oil is especially crucial in the Northeast, and in my home state of New Jersey, where about one-third of the residents heat their homes with oil. Middle class families and seniors on fixed incomes cannot afford the nearly doubling of their heating oil expenses. It requires the President to send Congress a report explaining our security, economic, and trade relationships with Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC) members and other key oil exporting countries. And it requires the President to outline the diplomatic efforts that we are taking to convince all oil exporting nations that price fixing is wrong, and that volatile oil prices will have a negative effect on the world economy. Additionally, it requires the Administration to take the steps necessary to dismantle oil price fixing arrangements. I believe that just the threat of action, such as exemplified by the Oil Price Reduction Act, has already encouraged OPEC and other oil exporting nations to change their production quotas. Mexico, Norway, and Venezuela are already on record supporting an increase in crude oil production, and next week OPEC nations will meet to discuss raising their quotas. We need to continue this diplomatic momentum and pass this bill today. Unfortunately, for too long, the Clinton Administration, particularly, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, has seemed satisfied with a wait and see attitude. I reject this approach. If we just wait around for prices to drop on their own, people will go bankrupt and the economy could catch a nasty bout of inflation. I am worried that the Clinton Administration is playing with fire here through its inaction. The administration should have been addressing the energy crisis with oil exporting nations on a daily basis and it should have long ago been applying pressure where and when it was needed. The Oil Price Reduction Act will force the Administration to stay focused on the need for stable and reasonable oil prices and get tough with oil price fixing countries. If the United States told oil exporting nations that we would be forming an international cartel to raise the price of grains and bread by 200 or 300 percent, they would be the first to yell `foul,' and they would be justified in doing so. But I fail to see why the Clinton Administration's diplomacy is so bereft of outrage. The OPEC cartel's production cuts have unquestionably been the catalyst for rising oil prices, driving the price per barrel from $11 in December of 1998 to over $30 a barrel today. While we have recently been somewhat effective in our energy related discussions with OPEC, the Oil Price Reduction Act will ensure that we take the critical steps necessary to identify the threats to our energy security, develop options and a coherent plan, and effectively pursue policies that will stabilize world prices and head off price fixing arrangements that threaten the U.S. and world economies. Middle class American families, senior citizens of fixed incomes, and truck drivers cannot afford inaction. The Oil Price Reduction Act will help lower prices and provide a mechanism to guard against future price fixing schemes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a small bit of good news has emerged from the tortured region of Chechnya, where the Russian military is killing, looting, and terrorizing the population under the guise of an ``anti-terrorism operation.'' Andrei Babitsky, the Radio Liberty correspondent who had disappeared in Chechnya in early February after Russian authorities had ``exchanged'' him to unknown persons in return for some Russian prisoners of war, has emerged in Dagestan and is now in Moscow recuperating from his ordeal. Mr. Babitsky's courageous reporting from the besieged city of Grozny had infuriated Russian military authorities, and he was arrested in mid-January and charged with ``participating in an unlawful armed formation.'' Prior to his release, Mr. Babitsky had spent time in the notorious Chernokozovo ``filtration'' camp where the Russian military has been detaining and torturing Chechens suspected of aiding the resistance. Following his arrival in Moscow, Mr. Babitsky provided a harrowing account of his incarceration at the Chernokozovo prison, and especially the savage treatment of his fellow prisoners. It is another graphic reminder that for all the fine words and denials coming out of Moscow, the Russian military has been conducting a brutal business that makes a mockery of the Geneva Conventions and the code of military conduct stipulated in the 1994 Budapest Document of the OSCE. Mr. Speaker, last month President Clinton stated that Russia's Acting President Putin is a man the United States ``can do business with.'' With this in mind, I would suggest for the Record excerpts from Mr. Babitsky's interview with an NTV reporter in Russia. If Mr. Putin is aware of the state of affairs at Chernokozovo and condoning it, I would submit that our business with Mr. Putin should be extremely limited. If he is not aware of the truth, then his authority over Russia is a chimera, and we might better deal with the real rulers of Russia. Babitsky's statement follows: [From Hero of the Day NTV Program, 7:40 p.m., Feb. 29, 2000] Interview With Radio Liberty Correspondent Andrei Babitsky Babitsky. On the 16th I tried to leave the city of Grozny through the settlement of Staraya Sunzha, a suburb of Grozny which at the time was divided into two parts. One part was controlled by federal troops and the other by the Chechen home guard. I entered the territory controlled by the federals and it was there that I was recognized. I was identified as a journalist, I immediately presented my documents. All the subsequent claims that I was detained as a person who had to be identified are not quite clear to me. I had my passports with me, my accreditation card of Then I was taken to Khankala. Not what journalists who had covered the first war regarded as Khankala but to an open field. There was an encampment there consisting of trucks used as their office by army intelligence officers. Two of my cassettes that I had filmed in Grozny were taken from me. They contained unique frames. I think those were the last video pictures ever taken by anyone before Grozny was stormed. Those, again, were pictures of thousands of peaceful civilians many of whom, as we now know, were killed by federal artillery shells. I spent two nights in Khankala, in the so-called Avtozak, a truck converted into a prison cell. On the third day I was taken to what the Chechens call a filtration center, the preliminary detention center in Chernokozovo. I believe I am the only journalist of those who covered the first and the second Chechen wars who has seen a filtration center from the inside. I must say that all these horrors that we have heard from Chechens who had been there have been confirmed. Everything that we read about concentration camps of the Stalin period, all that we know about the German camps, all this is present there. The first three days that I spent there, that was the 18th, 19th and the 20th, beatings continued round the clock. I never thought that I would hear such a diversity of expressions of human pain. These were not just screams, these were screams of every possible tonality and depth, these were screams of most diverse pain. Different types of beatings cause a different reaction. Q. Are you saying that you got this treatment? A. No, that was the treatment meted out to others. I was fortunate, it was established at once that I am a journalist, true, nobody knew what type of journalist I was. Everybody there were surprised that a journalist happened to be there. In principle, the people there cannot be described as intellectuals. They decided that there was nothing special about this, that such things do happen in a war. As a journalist I was ``registered'', as they say, only once. They have this procedure there. When a new detainee is being taken from his cell to the investigator he is made to crawl all the way under a rain of blows with rubber sticks. It hurts but one can survive it. This is a light treatment as compared with the tortures to which Chechens are subjected day and night, those who are suspected of collaborating with the illegal armed formations. There are also cases when some testimony is beaten out of detainees. Q. What is the prison population there? A. In my opinion . . . I was in cell No. 17 during the first three days. In that cell there were 13 inhabitants of the village Aberdykel (sp.--FNS). Most of them were young. Judging by their stories, I am not an investigator and I could not collect a sufficiently full database, but in such an atmosphere one very rarely doubts the veracity of what you are told. Mostly these were young men who had nothing to do with the war. They were really common folk. They were treating everything happening around them as a calamity but they were not taking any sides. They were simply waiting for this calamity to pass either in this direction or that direction. Beatings as a method of getting testimony. This is something that, unfortunately, is very well known in Russian and not only Russian history and tradition. But I must say that apart from everything, in my opinion, in all this torture, as it seemed to me, a large part is due to sheer sadism. In other words, an absolutely unwarranted torturing of people. For instance, I heard . . . You know, you really can't see this because all this happens outside of your cell. But the type of screams leaves not doubt about what is happening. You know, this painful reaction. For two hours a woman was tortured on the 20th or the 19th. She was tortured, I have no other word to explain what was happening. That was not a hysteria. I am not a medic but I believe that we all know what a hysteria is. There were screams indicting that a person was experiencing unbearable pain, and for a long period of time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 86, which recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. I thank my colleague Congressman Tom Ewing for introducing this legislation and for helping to bring it to the House floor today. The resolution seeks to end the Korean War's unfortunate status as the ``Forgotten War.'' We must never, ever forget the more than 90,000 veterans who were wounded in combat between 1950-1953. We must never, ever forget the 54,000 who died in a just and righteous cause. We must never, ever forget the more than 8,000 men who are still unaccounted for--missing in action. We must also never forget the immense sacrifices of our allies--particularly the South Korean people themselves. They, too, suffered terribly from the North's invasion. The resolution we have before us today is a painful, but powerful reminder of the immense sacrifices made by the 5.72 million Americans who bravely responded to the call of duty. We are all personally grateful for their service and their many sacrifices. Ensuring that the 50th anniversary Korean War is appropriately recognized is the least we can do to honor these brave Americans. Beyond recognizing the sacrifices made in blood, sweat and tears, we must also remember how pivotal the Korean War was to halting the spread of Communism worldwide. The sacrifices made by American soldiers on battlefields and mountains of the Korean peninsula helped make the containment of Communism, and its eventual demise, a reality some four decades later. Reflecting on the conflicts of the 20th Century, Communism along with Nazism will certainly go down as one of the great stains on humanity's soul. Communism was responsible for more raw bloodshed, misery, and horror than any other single idea in the history of mankind. The Korean War has many elements and characteristic that are unique to this struggle for freedom. For instance, the dangers from enemy bullets and bayonets was compounded by the extreme weather conditions of the Korean peninsula. In several battles of the Korean War, not only were American troops forced to fend off enemy fire in difficult terrain, but they had to do it sub-zero temperatures. Veterans lost limbs and fingers to frostbite. Others died outright from exposure. Veterans will tell you that nothing saps morale faster than being freezing cold. Yet for many years thereafter, these veterans received no disability rating from the VA that recognized their exposure to these harsh conditions. During the 105th Congress I introduced legislation to create a presumptive disability for veterans with cold weather injury, to help those veterans of the Korean War and other conflicts receive the treatment and benefits they need and deserve. In response to the bill, the Department of Veterans' Affairs changed its regulations to make them more friendly to veterans who suffered from cold weather injuries. Those whose sacrifices were forgotten were finally being recognized, even if this recognition was long overdue. One last point. I think it is particularly appropriate that on the 50th anniversary of the Korean War, that we remember the painful lessons of this conflict. There is a lot of feeling among historians that Secretary of State Dean Acheson's failure in January 1950 to clearly delineate South Korea as being within the U.S. defense perimeter in the Pacific lured the Communist Chinese and North Koreans into believing the U.S. would not respond to an invasion. 50 years later, I fear our nation is dangerously close to making the same mistake on the issue of Taiwan. If our nation fails to make it clear to the same Communist Chinese leadership that the United States will respond with decisive military force to any attempt by the People's Republic of China to invade Taiwan, Korean War veterans who went over at age 25 may be in the uniquely painful position of watching their 25 year-old grandchildren pay the price for appeasement once again. So, I want to thank Congressman Ewing again for introducing this resolution, and especially thank Korean War veterans for their heroic sacrifices.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week the Helsinki Commission held a hearing to review the current situation in Kosovo and the prospects for addressing outstanding human rights issues there. More specifically, the hearing focused on the more than 200,000 displaced of Kosovo, mostly Serb and Roma, as well as those Albanians-- numbering at least 1,600 and perhaps much more--imprisoned in Serbia. Witnesses included Ambassador John Menzies, Deputy Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State for Kosovo Implementation; Bill Frelick, Director for Policy at the U.S. Committee for Refugees; His Grace, Bishop Artemije of the Serbian Orthodox Church; Andrzej Mirga, an expert on Roma issues for the Project on Ethnic Relations and the Council of Europe; Susan Blaustein, a senior consultant at the International Crisis Group; and, finally, Ylber Bajraktari, a student from Kosovo. The situation for the displaced, Mr. Speaker, is truly horrible. In Serbia, most collective centers are grim, lacking privacy and adequate facilities. While most displaced Serbs have found private accommodations, they still confront a horrible economic situation worsened by the high degree of corruption, courtesy of the Milosevic regime. The squalor in which the Roma population from Kosovo lives is much worse, and they face the added burdens of discrimination, not only in Serbia but in Montenegro and Macedonia as well. There is little chance right now for any of them to go back to Kosovo, given the strength of Albanian extremists there. Indeed, since KFOR entered Kosovo eight months ago, it was asserted, more than 80 Orthodox Churches have been damaged or destroyed in Kosovo, more than 600 Serbs have been abducted and more than 400 Serbs have been killed. The situation for those Serbs and Roma remaining in Kosovo is precarious. Other groups--including Muslim Slavs, those who refused to serve in the Yugoslav military, and ethnic Albanians outside Kosovo--face severe problems as well, but their plights are too often overlooked. Meanwhile, the Milosevic regime continues to hold Albanians from Kosovo in Serbian prisons, in many cases without charges. While an agreement to release these individuals was left out of the agreement ending NATO's military campaign against Yugoslav and Serbian forces, with the Clinton Administration's acquiescence, by international law these people should have been released. At a minimum, the prisoners are mistreated; more accurately, many are tortured. Some prominent cases were highlighted: 24-year-old Albin Kurti, a former leader of the non- violent student movement; Flora Brovina, a prominent pediatrician and human rights activist; Ukshin Hoti, a Harvard graduate considered by some to be a possible future leader of Kosovo; and, Bardhyl Caushi, Dean of the School of Law, University of Pristina. Clearly, the resolution of these cases is critical to any real effort at reconciliation in Kosovo. This human suffering, Mr. Speaker, must not be allowed to continue. Action must be taken by the United States and the international community as a whole. Among the suggestions made, which I would like to share with my colleagues, are the following: First, get rid of Milosevic. Little if anything can be done in Kosovo or in the Balkans as a whole until there is democratic change in Serbia; Second, bring greater attention to the imprisoned Albanians in Serbia, and keep the pressure on the Milosevic regime to release them immediately and without condition; Third, rein in extremists on both sides--Albanian and Serb--in Kosovo with a more robust international presence, including the deployment of the additional international police as requested by the UN Administrator; Fourth, find alternative networks for improved distribution of assistance to the displaced in Serbia; Fifth, consider additional third-country settlement in the United States and elsewhere for those groups most vulnerable and unable to return to their homes, like the Roma and those who evaded military service as urged by NATO. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I intend to pursue some of these suggestions with specific legislative initiatives, or through contacts with the Department of State. I hope to find support from my fellow Commissioners and other colleagues. Having heard of the suffering of so many people, we cannot neglect to take appropriate action to help, especially in a place like Kosovo where the United States has invested so much and holds considerable influence as a result.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for yielding the time and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) as well. Mr. Speaker, words are inadequate to express my deep respect, affection, admiration and gratitude to John Cardinal O'Connor, one of the greatest and most consistent moral and spiritual leaders of the 21st century. Conferring the Congressional Gold Medal on this extraordinarily brave man of conscience is a small but important token of our appreciation of a life so selflessly and wonderfully lived. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for sponsoring this legislation today and for the Republican leadership for bringing it up on the floor as well. Mr. Speaker, I have known Cardinal O'Connor for almost 20 years. Although he would be embarrassed to hear it said, he is a living saint. Cardinal O'Connor is a man after God's own heart. He loves unconditionally and gives generously, expecting nothing in return. He faithfully proclaims and demonstrates by his words, works, and actions the indescribable blessings of the Gospel. He is a good and holy priest who radiates Christ and the healing power of God to both believers and nonbelievers alike. Over the years, however, there are some, who have belittled, mocked, and rejected Cardinal O'Connor's clear Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life and the duty of all men and women of good will, especially politicians, to protect the vulnerable from violence. Yet, he always treated the enemies of his message with respect and good humor. Amazing! Thank God, Mr. Speaker, that Cardinal O'Connor has been--and continues to be--a lightning rod for truth and inclusion and protection in law of all persons, regardless of race, color, creed, or condition of dependency. Cardinal O'Connor has worked tirelessly and effectively to bring an end to the culture of death and to usher in a culture of life so that God's will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven. Notwithstanding the enormous responsibility of being the leader of the New York Archdiocese, which includes 413 churches, 293 schools, and 35 full and affiliate hospitals, he has repeatedly called on all Americans to face up to the cruelty and the inherent violence and injustice of abortion. Under his leadership, the Archdiocese of New York has reached out to many mothers in need of help, shelter, medicine, or spiritual guidance. His new order of nuns, known as the Sisters of Life, are but one manifestation of his tangible love in action. Mr. Speaker, in the 25th chapter of Matthew's gospel, Jesus spoke of the last judgment and those who would be blessed in eternity. Jesus said, and I quote, `` `. . . For I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ``Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see you sick or in prison and come to You?' and the King will answer and say to them, ``Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as You did it to the least of these My Brethren, you did it to Me.' '' Mr. Speaker, Cardinal O'Connor has devoted his life and inspired countless others to do the same to help the least of our brethren, to help the disenfranchised and the unwanted, seeing Christ himself in the lives that nobody else wants and nobody else cares about. And he has done it without any fanfare whatsoever, never seeking applause, never seeking an accolade or pat on the back. He is truly a great man.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in October of last year, I expressed concerns in this Chamber on the condition of democracy in Croatia. At that time, the leadership of Croatia was resisting the transition towards free elections, stalling the construction of democratic institutions, flaunting the rule of law, and squashing ethnic diversity. Those that held power were maintaining it in two significant ways. The first was through the manipulation of the political system to their advantage, including, in particular, efforts to control the media and the unwillingness to allow free and fair elections. Second, there was heavy reliance on nationalist passions for support. Zagreb's policies swayed the loyalties of Croats in neighboring Bosnia and made it difficult for the displaced Serb population to return to the country. Since last October, things have changed drastically and for the better. In the Parliamentary election of January 3, the desire of the people for change was manifested as the party that had ruled since the fall of communism was defeated by an opposition coalition led by the new Prime Minister, Ivica Racan. Meanwhile, in a special presidential election on February 7 to succeed the late Franjo Tudjman, Stipe Mesic won on promises of reform, of a more democratic political system with diminished power for the presidency, of greater cooperation with The Hague in the prosecution of war criminals, of progress in the implementation of the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, and of the return of Croatia's displaced Serb population. These changes have been universally applauded, specifically by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during her visit to Croatia on February 2. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I join the Secretary of State in commending the new policies of Croatia's leaders, and I compliment our able Ambassador to Croatia, William Montgomery, for his role in pressing for democratic change. Mr. Speaker, it is good that Croatia's new leadership is talking about substantial reform. However, we must be sure that it is not just talk. We must be sure to encourage Croatia to move closer towards full freedom, true justice, and greater prosperity for all of her citizens, regardless of ethnicity. We must continue to press for the surrender to The Hague of those indicted for war crimes. As we do, we must be ready to support Croatia, even as we have been ready to criticize Croatia's shortcomings in the past. Recent violence in southeastern Europe underscores the need for true democracy in the region. In closing, I congratulate Croatia's new leadership and its promise of progress. Now that reform is on the horizon, I am hopeful that Croatia will soon be an integrated partner in European affairs.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to protect New Jersey's oceans and beaches from continued ocean dumping of harmful substances. Just a few miles off the coast of Sandy Hook lies an area that--after years of protracted debate and political maneuvering--was appropriately designated as the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS). The designation was made to protect the site from the future dumping of toxic dredged mud. It was July, 1996 when vice President Gore Triumphantly announced that the dumping would stop and the site-- affectionately called the old Mud Dump--would be cleaned up with clean dredge material. Unfortunately, we now know that the 1996 announcement was not an iron clad commitment to end ocean dumping of toxic sludge. In a betrayal of our trust, the Clinton Administration's Army Corps of engineers has approved permits allowing Castle Astoria Terminals, Inc., and Brooklyn Marine Terminals, to dump dredge materials that actually contain higher levels of contamination (including toxic PAHs and PCBs) than the stuff already in the Mud Dump. Mr. Speaker, common sense dictates that you cannot clean up something by capping it with a substance dirtier than the original mess. Unfortunately, the ``category 1'' standards in use by the Army Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are so insufficient that using the dredged mud from the Castle Astoria and Brooklyn Marine Terminals to remediate the HRS is like trying to clean an oil spill by pouring nuclear waste on top of it. It will only make a bad situation even worse. Fortunately, the interests of keeping New Jersey's and New York's ports open, and protecting the environment and New Jersey's multi- billion dollar tourist industry, are not mutually exclusive. The people of New Jersey and New York need both the shipping and tourist industries to be healthy if our high standard of living is to be preserved. There are new ways to treat and decontaminate dredged materials so they are truly clean and pose no threat to the environment. New Jersey has been very proactive in trying to find creative ways of disposing of dredged materials so we can avoid the need to dump at sea. For example, dredged materials have The problem, however, is that the State of New York has done virtually nothing to look beyond ocean dumping for its dredging needs. Every objective, outside observer of the ocean dumping fight admits that New York is not pulling its own weight. And the bottom line is that as long as New York can easily and cheaply use the Jersey Shore as a dumping ground for its dredged soil, New York will never have any incentive to look for real alternatives. I mean to change that. Under the legislation I am introducing today, an immediate ban will be placed on any existing ocean dumping permits at the Mud Dump to be issued by the Army Corps until new remediation standards are in place. The bill also requires the EPA, within 90 days of enactment, to formulate a new set of remediation standards. These remediation standards were promised to New Jerseyans in 1996, but four years later, they have still to be issued. We have waited long enough for these standards to be promulgated. It is time for the EPA to act to protect the health of our oceans and beaches. In addition, my legislation sets forth basic principles that the EPA must follow when developing and proposing new remediation material standards. First, the actual level of contaminants (including PAHs and PCBs) in the remediation material must be significantly lower than the Mud Dump pollutants it is to be used to cover. Sadly, under the current and deeply flawed EPA ``Category 1 standards,'' pollutant levels in proposed dredge spoils can actually exceed by many orders of magnitude the levels found in the material at the Mud Dump. Second, the remediation material used at the Mud Dump must actually reduce pollution levels there. Third, the remediation material must be shown to reduce the harmful impacts on the environment and marine life caused by the toxins found in the Mud Dump. It bears noting that the reason the HARS was created was not to provide the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey with an unlimited dumping ground. The HARS was created to remediate and clean up the toxins on the ocean floor and prevent harmful bioaccumulation of toxins in the seafood we eat. Fourth, the new remediation standards must meet `sunshine laws' that provide opportunities for a public notice and a public comment period. This provision is needed because the Army Corps issued the Brooklyn Marine Terminals permit without providing adequate public notice for comment. On January 24th, 2000, the Army Corps recognized its failure to provide adequate public comment and held a public meeting in New Jersey. Fifth, the goal of the new remediation standards is to eventually clean up the Mud Dump to reflect a contamination level that is substantially equivalent to the level found naturally in the ocean. Given the amount of debate over what the EPA defines as ``clean,'' it is important to set clear and common sense goals of what the word ``clean'' really means--restoring the oceans to their natural state. Only when consumers of seafood are reassured that the fish they eat are free from pollutants will the damage from ocean dumping be fully remediated. Lastly, the bill would permanently close the Mud Dump as soon as it is fully remediated and capped with a clean layer of sand and silt that prevents existing pollution at the bottom of the ocean from finding its way into our food chain. If the economy of New York and New Jersey are to remain vibrant and healthy, we need to continue exploring alternative dredge disposal methods now. The costs of inaction greatly outweigh the additional costs of alternative disposal methods when one factors in the $14.8 billion tourist and commercial fishing industry in New Jersey that will be seriously harmed if ocean dumping continues unabated.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act which will abolish the unfair marriage tax penalty by raising the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly so that it is equal to twice the standard deduction for single fliers. It also expands the lowest tax bracket at fifteen percent to twice that of single filers. If you vote ``yes'' to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, fifty million married taxpayers will gain from doubling the standard deduction, and six million senior citizens will benefit from this provision. Another six million taxpayers will no longer have to itemize, which greatly simplifies the tax process, and taxpayers will save $66.2 billion over ten years. On the other hand, if you vote ``no,'' you will be taking an average of $1,400 out of the pockets and bank accounts of our nation's hardworking families. If you vote ``no,'' you will be rejecting legislation that benefits the middle class, particularly women. Not only do women early just 74% of what men earn, but under the marriage tax penalty, the second wage earner is taxed at a higher rate. This is the ultimate double-whammy. If you vote ``no,'' you will singlehandedly take much needed tax relief away from more than 61,000 couples in my district and almost 1 million couples in my state who already pay more than their fair share of taxes--just because they are married. And finally, if you vote ``no,'' you will send a clear message to our nation's children--that the sanctity of marriage is not to be respected--it instead is to be taxed by Uncle Sam. Do not punish couples because they have found happiness, have made a lasting commitment to each other, and have gotten married. Cast your vote for the American family today and vote to help do away with the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week I chaired a hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe on promoting and protecting democracy in Montenegro. Montenegro is a small republic with only about 700,000 inhabitants, and yet it is among the strongest proponents of democratic change in the Balkans. As a result, Montenegro has the potential of being the target of the next phase of the Yugoslav conflict which began in 1991. Montenegro, with a south Slavic population of Eastern Orthodox heritage, is the Only other former Yugoslav republic to have maintained ties in a federation with Serbia. Since 1997, Montenegro has moved toward democratic reform, and its leaders have distanced themselves from earlier involvement in the ethnic intolerance and violence which devastated neighboring Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In contrast, the Belgrade regime of Slobodan Milosevic has become more entrenched in power and more determined to bring ruin to Serbia, if necessary to maintain this power. The divergence of paths has made the existing federation almost untenable, especially in the aftermath of last year's conflict in Kosovo. We now hear reports of a confrontation with Milosevic and possible conflict in Montenegro as a result. One witness Janusz Bugajski of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, presented the conflict scenarios. He said: ``Other than surrendering Montenegro altogether, Belgrade has three options: a military coup and occupation; the promotion of regional and ethnic conflicts; or the provocation of civil war. More likely Milosevic will engage in various provocations, intimidations and even assassinations to unbalance the Montenegrin leadership. He will endeavor to sow conflict between the parties in the governing coalition, heat up tensions in the Sandjak region of Montenegro by pitting Muslims against Christian Orthodox, and threaten to partition northern Montenegro if Podgorica [the capital of Montenegro] pushes toward statehood. The political environment will continue to heat up before the planned referendum'' on independence. In addition to the ongoing operations to keep the peace and provide justice and democratic governance in Bosnia and Kosovo, Mr. Speaker, the United States and the rest of the international community will face the challenge this year of promoting and protecting democracy in Montenegro. Srdjan Darmanovic, head of the Center for Democracy and Human rights in Montenegro, said it is logical and understandable that the international community encourages the Montenegrin authorities to follow a policy of ambiguity on the republic's future. On the one hand, the international community already has the burden of two peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslav region and doesn't want another, yet it does not want Milosevic to seize Montenegro and stop the democratic development taking place there. Darmonovic concluded, however, that this situation ``creates a very narrow space in which the Montenegrin Government has to play a dangerous chess game with the Milosevic regime in which the price of failure or miscalculation could be very high. . . . The `politics of ambiguity' has very dangerous limits. It cannot last forever.'' Veselin Vukotic, head of the Center for Entrepreneurship in Montenegro, described the economic steps which Montenegro has taken to distance itself from Serbia. He said that Montenegrin citizens cannot wait for the day when Milosevic resigns, which may never come. Economic change must begin now. The introduction of the Deutsche mark as a second currency has allowed the Montenegrin economy to move away from that of Yugoslavia as a whole. This has led to a decrease in Serbian- Montenegrin commerce and permits Montenegro to receive outside assistance even as Serbia remains under international sanctions. Still, he noted that the Montenegrin economy needs to be transformed into a market economy. This will require transparency to deter the continuing problem of corruption, as well as the development of a more open society. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, Montenegro is no longer alone in seeking to base its future on multi-ethnic accord, democracy and openness, rather than the nationalism of the 1990s. Beginning in late 1998, a similar trend began in Macedonia, and now in Croatia, new government leaders were elected who will reverse the nationalist authoritarianism of the Tudjman years. Hopefully, this will resonate in Serbia itself, where change is needed. The bottom line, as the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Marc Grossman said in a conversation, is that there must be change in Serbia In testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet made clear: ``Of the many threats to peace and stability in the year ahead, the greatest remains Slobodan Milosevic--the world's only sitting president indicted for crimes against humanity. . . . He retains control of the security forces, military commands, and an effective media machine.'' With good judgment and resolve, Mr. Speaker, conflict can be avoided in Montenegro, and those seeking conflict deterred. As democracy is strengthened in Montenegro, the international community can also give those in Serbia struggling to bring democracy to their republic a chance to succeed. The people of Serbia deserve support. Democracy- building is vital for Serbs, Montenegrins and others living in the entire southeastern region of Europe. Mr. Speaker, in the past decade, those of us who follow world affairs have had an in-depth lesson in the history, geography and demography of southeastern Europe. Places like Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo were little known and little understood. Unfortunately, too many policymakers became aware of them only as the news reports of ethnic cleansing began to pour in. The Helsinki Commission, which I have now had the honor of chairing for the past 5 years, has sought for over two decades to inform Members of Congress, the U.S. Government and the American public, of developing issues in countries of Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Hopefully, with timely and well-informed attention, we can more effectively and quickly respond to a potential crisis, and perhaps save lives.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2116, the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act of 1996. As a conferee on this legislation, I am grateful the Senate accepted one particular provision, my proposal to add bronchiolo alveolar carcinoma to the Department of Veterans Affairs presumption list for radiogenic cancers. For the last ten years, I have worked to add this lung cancer to the VA's presumption list for service-connected veterans. During the 104th and 105th Congresses, the House passed my legislation to add this cancer to the VA's presumption list. This year, we have convinced our Senate colleagues of the need to put this provision into law because of the VA's continual denial of most claims by atomic veterans and their survivors. Bronchiolo alveolar carcinoma is not considered a smoker`s cancer. During a recent class action lawsuit in the state of Florida, the jury specifically excluded bronchiolo alveolar carcinoma from the list of lung cancers compensable due to smoking. Furthermore, the National Research Council cited Department of Energy studies in the BEIR V report stating that ``bronchiolo alveolar carcinoma is the most common cause of delayed death from inhaled plutonium 239.'' I know of this firsthand because I have been working with Joan McCarthy, a New Jersey resident, who lost her husband, Tom, to bronchiolo alveolar carcinoma in 1981. Tom had served as the navigator on the U.S.S. McKinley which participated in Operation Wigwam, an underwater atomic test in the Pacific that produced a surge of mist which Tom inhaled. Twenty-five years later, Tom died of lung cancer, a father and husband who was only in his early forties. Passage of the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act today will add this cancer to the VA's presumption list and thus ensure that Joan McCarthy and other veterans and their widows receive the compensation which they need and deserve. I am also proud of this bill's long-term care provisions for our nation's veterans. It reflects the months of heavy lifting that the House Veterans' Affairs Committee has done on this issue as America's veterans community gets older and consequently needs quality health care. Another provision which I authored as free standing legislation and is now in the conference report is a respite care provision. For the first time, we are giving the VA the ability to contract out for respite care services. Until now, if a veteran's care giver, be it his spouse or adult child, needed a short break, their only recourse was to wait for a bed to be made available at either a VA or state nursing home. The extra burden of transporting the veterans almost makes this self-defeating and it is witnessed by the fact that only 232 cases of respite care were provided by the VA during the 1998 fiscal year. The need for respite care cannot be underestimated. A few years ago, my wife, Marie, was the primary care giver for my mother who was dying of brain cancer. We chose to take care of her in our home and my wife was the one who saw to her needs. Consequently, I know how important it is for the care giver, as well as the veteran, to be provided with the occasional day off so that they might attend to their own lives for a few hours or a few days. In the long run, this will significantly improve the quality of life and care of our veterans and unquestionably save the VA money in the long run. Most Americans want to remain in their own homes or with their families for as long as possible. The benefits of respite care cannot be understated. According to the Caregiver Assistance Network, family and volunteer caregivers provide 85% of all home care given in the United States. However, our veterans' caregivers need our help. In a California statewide survey taken by the Family Caregiver Alliance, 58% of the caregivers showed signs of clinical depression. When asked, they responded that their two greatest needs were emotional support and respite care. On average, they are providing 10.5 hours of care per day. Providing the VA with the ability to contract with the nearest nursing home, adult day care center or sending someone to the veterans' home will make a real difference in the day to day quality of life for a veteran and his or her family. The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act also requires the VA to provide needed nursing home care for veterans who are 70% service- connected or in need of such care for a service-connected condition. It also lifts the VA's six month limit on adult day health care and it allows the VA to expand the scope of the state home program to encompass all extended care services such as respite care, adult day health care, domiciliary care, and other alternatives to institutional care. It also guarantees emergency care for uninsured veterans and reinstates preferential eligibility for recipients of the Purple Heart. It also requires the VA to establish a policy regarding chiropractic treatment, a provision which I first introduced as legislation during my first term in Congress. And finally, it authorizes payments to the surviving spouses of former POWs who were rated totally disabled due to any service-connected cause for a period of one or more years immediately prior to death. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend to the attention of my colleagues this disturbing article by Mona Charen, which appeared in the November 11, 1999 edition of the Washington Times. As the article itself states, ``This is not a bad joke. Nor is it the hysterical propaganda of an interest group.'' It is comprised of the personal recollections of a medical technician who worked for a medical firm engaged in selling the body parts of the victims of late- term abortions. In her most chilling descriptions, she relates the means by which children born alive are killed, so that their bodies may be sold for profit. On this life and death issue, I urge my colleagues to consider this woman's words for themselves: [From the Washington Times, Nov. 11, 1999] Offering Body Parts for Sale (By Mona Charen) ``Kelly'' (a pseudonym) was a medical technician working for a firm that trafficked in baby body parts. This is not a bad joke. Nor is it the hysterical propaganda of an interest group. It was reported in the American Enterprise magazine-- the intelligent, thought-provoking and utterly trustworthy publication of the American Enterprise Institute. The firm Kelly worked for collected fetuses from clinics that performed late-term abortions. She would dissect the aborted fetuses in order to obtain ``high-quality'' parts for sale. They were interested in blood, eyes, livers, brains and thymuses, among other things. ``What we did was to have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go there on certain days. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceutical companies and universities were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts. We only wanted the most perfect specimens,'' That didn't turn out to be difficult. Of the hundreds of late-term fetuses Kelly saw on a weekly basis, only about 2 percent had abnormalities. About 30 to 40 babies per week were around 30 weeks old--well past the point of viability. Is this legal? Federal law makes it illegal to buy and sell human body parts. But there are loopholes in the law. Here's how one body parts company--Opening Lines Inc.--disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: ``Turn your patient's decision into something wonderful.'' For its buyers, Opening Lines offers ``the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it.'' Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An ``intact trunk'' fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law's prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to ``perform the harvesting,'' as well as to ``offset [the] clinic's overhead.'' Opening Lines further boasted, ``Our daily average case volume exceeds 1,500 and we serve clinics across the United States.'' Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, ``a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, `Got you some good specimens--twins.' I looked at him and said: `There's something wrong here. They are moving. I can't do this. This is not in my contract.' I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over the mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this.'' But she did go back and dissect them later. The twins were only the beginning. ``It happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, we had live births come back to us. Then the doctor would either break the neck take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead.'' American Enterprise asked Kelly if abortion procedures were ever altered to provide specific body parts. ``Yes. Before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The [abortionist] would get us the most complete, intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating.'' The magazine pressed Kelly again: Was the type of abortion ever altered to provide an intact specimen, even if it meant producing a live baby? ``Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens.'' Some practical souls will probably swallow hard and insist that, well, if these babies are going to be aborted anyway, isn't it better that medical research should benefit? No. This isn't like voluntary organ donation. This reduces human beings to the level of commodities. And it creates of doctors who swore an oath never to kill the kind of people who can beat a breathing child to death with tongs.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, we have seen a number of historic dates come and go, with appropriate commemoration. November 9, for example, marked the tenth anniversary since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yesterday, November 17, is recognized as the commencement of the Velvet Revolution which unleashed the forces of democracy against the totalitarian regime in Czechoslovakia. To mark that occasion, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev and other former leaders from the day met with President Vaclav Havel in Prague. Beyond the symbolism of those dates, they have had other meaning. Many of us had hoped that the wall in Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic--a symbol of racism--would be brought down on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Regrettably, November 9, came and went, and the Usti Wall still stood. We had hoped that the Usti Wall would come down on November 17. Some Czech officials even hinted this would be the case. Regrettably, November 17 has come and gone, and the Usti Wall still stands. Now, I understand some say the Usti Wall should come down before the European Union summit in Helsinki--scheduled for December 6. Mr. Speaker, the Usti Wall should never have been built, and it should come down now, today. As President Reagan exhorted Mr. Gorbachev more than ten years ago, so I will call on Czech leaders today: Tear down the Usti Wall. Last fall, a delegation from the Council of Europe visited Usti nad Labem. Afterwards, the Chairwoman of the Council's Specialist Group on Roma, Josephine Verspaget, held a press conference in Prague when she called the plans to build the Usti Wall ``a step towards apartheid.'' Subsequently, the United States delegation to the OSCE's annual human rights meeting in Warsaw publicly echoed those views. Since the construction of the Usti Wall, this sentiment has been voiced, in even stronger terms, by Ondrej Gina, a well-known Romani activist in the Czech Republic. He is now being prosecuted by officials in his home town of Rokycany, who object to Gina's criticisms. The criminal charges against Mr. Gina include slander, assault on a public official, and incitement to racial hatred. In short, Mr. Gina is being persecuted because public officials in Rokycany do not like his controversial opinions. They object to Mr. Gina's also using the word ``apartheid.'' I can certainly understand that the word ``apartheid'' makes people feel uncomfortable. It is an ugly word describing an ugly practice. At the same time, if the offended officials want to increase their comfort level, it seems to me that tearing down the Usti Wall--not prosecuting Ondrej Gina--would be a more sensible way to achieve that goal. As it stands, Mr. Gina faces criminal charges because he exercised his freedom of expression. If he is convicted, he will become an international cause celebre. If he goes to jail under these charges, he will be a prisoner of conscience. Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for discussions of racial issues in the United States to become heated. These are important, complex, difficult issues, and people often feel passionate about them. But prosecuting people for their views on race relations cannot advance the dialogue we seek to have. With a view to that dialogue, as difficult as it may be, I hope officials in Rokycany will drop their efforts to prosecute Mr. Gina.