Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged by the killing of 14 Serbs last Friday near the town of Gracko in Kosovo. The culprits of this crime are, in my view, prime candidates for the next indictments for crimes against humanity by the International Tribunal which is located in The Hague. I certainly hope that the efforts of KFOR, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and Tribunal investigators will help identify and immediately apprehend those responsible for this crime. The killings, however, are no isolated incident. Since NATO air strikes ended, the Serb forces have retreated, and the Kosovar refugees have begun to return to their homes, those Serb civilians who chose to remain in the region have repeatedly been subjected to violent retribution. Certainly a Kosovo which is ethnically cleansed of Serbs-- and, according to reports, cleansed of Roma as well--is not the kind of Kosovo for which the international community undertook such a risky and costly intervention. Kosovo must pursue the path of rule by law not by lawlessness, and respect for and protection of basic human freedoms-- including life itself. A related disturbing trend is the attempt by leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army--the KLA--to fill the political vacuum created now that Serbian authorities have departed Kosovo. The KLA has yet to prove its democratic credentials; in many instances, its tactics have sent the opposite message. Mr. Speaker, before the KLA is granted any role in Kosovo's interim administration, it must prove itself. Helping to find those responsible for this latest atrocity would be a good place to start. Nationalist Kosovar Albanians can not hide behind the past victimization of their people by Milosevic and his forces, those responsible for these actions taken against Serbs and their property in Kosovo must be held accountable. Neither can they relegate responsibility for stopping these incidents to the international community alone. The international community must make clear to all Kosovar Albanian leaders that their actions now will go a long way in determining what kind of support they will find for their own aspirations down the road. The benefits of enhanced political status for Kosovo cannot be enjoyed without also undertaking the responsibilities of democratic governance.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman for leading our debate and introducing his resolution. Mr. Speaker, each year at this time, Congress has the opportunity to review the results of the administration's China policy, and each year it becomes more clear how miserably that policy has failed. In the 5 years since President Clinton delinked China's MFN status from human rights, there has been significant regression, not progress in China. Now, even as we hold this debate, Beijing is conducting another major crackdown, the most important internal security exercise since the Tiananmen Square massacre against religious freedom. Mr. Speaker, the Chinese government knows this vote is taking place today. We are being watched, and we are being tested. The test is simple. If we ignore the latest escalation in the brutality, if we just vote the same way we have in the past, then we fail. We will have abandoned the Chinese people. We will have abandoned our ideals of democracy and human rights. I ask my colleagues, what will it take for us to say no more business as usual with Communist China? I would respectfully submit that any reasonable limit has been passed a long time ago. Mr. Speaker, the administration's so-called policy of constructive engagement on behalf of human rights has been a disaster, even according to the administration's own benchmarks. In quarterly reports, Amnesty International tracks the seven human rights policy goals that President Clinton announced before his 1998 trip to Beijing. Those Amnesty reports detail a complete lack of progress in all categories. Let me explain. On the release of all prisoners of conscience and Tiananmen Square prisoners. Amnesty reports total failure, regression. Two, review of all counter-revolutionary prison terms: Total failure, no progress. Allow religious freedom. Amnesty reports total failure, no progress. Four, prevent coercive family planning and harvesting of organs: Total failure, no progress. Five, fully implement pledges on human rights treaties: No progress. Six, review of reeducation through labor system: Total failure, no progress. Seven, end police and prison brutality: Again, Amnesty reports total failure, no progress. Mr. Speaker, the Communist government of the PRC blatantly and systematically violates the most fundamental human rights. It tracks down and stamps out political dissents. Just turn on television news. It is happening before our very eyes. The Beijing dictatorship imprisons religious leaders, ranging from the 10-year-old Panchen Lama to the elderly Catholic Bishop Su of Baoding. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) mentioned this holy and heroic man earlier. I led a human rights delegation to China a few years ago. Biship Su met us and celebrated mass. For that he was put into prison. Bishop Su said nothing offensive about the government. He loved those who hated him. The Chinese government also harvests and sells the internal organs of executed prisoners. Harry Wu--the great Chinese human rights leaders testified about this practice at one of my hearings. China, as we all know forces women who have unauthorized pregnancies to abort their babies and then to be sterilized against their will. Brothers and sisters are illegal in China--forced abortion is common place. China continues to brutalize the indigenous peoples of Tibet and of Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, and it summarily executes Muslim Uighur political and religious prisoners. Mr. Speaker, when will we learn the lesson that, when dealing with the PRC, the U.S. cannot settle for paper promises or deferred compliance? The Chinese dictatorship regularly tells bold-faced lies about the way it treats its own people. It says, for example, that nobody died in Tiananmen Square. Mr. Cho Hao Tlea, the Defense Minister in this city, said no one died there. Mr. Speaker, I convened a hearing of several of the leaders of the democracy movement, some of the dissidents in correspondence who gave compelling testimony about how people died at Tiananmen Square; and, yet, the defense minister said nobody died. Incredible! I invited the defense minister to our hearing--he was a no show. Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Chinese Government claims religious freedom exists in the PRC. We know now there is no religious freedom. But brother knows better. Mr. Speaker, since my time is about to expire, I just want to remind Members that when the business community and the administration want to see intellectual property rights protected, what do we do? We threaten sanctions. I believe we should put people at least on par with pirated software, CDs, and movies. This Congress should declare that torture, forced abortion, and overt crimes against humanity count at least as much as protecting copyrights and consumer goods. Sanctions do work if consistently applied. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the very important resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). And salute him for his wisdom in offering it today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I rise today to highlight the persecution of religious believers in Uzbekistan. The problem is worsening by the day, as the crackdown continues under the guise of ``anti-terrorism.'' While there is some justifiable threat of terrorism, the widespread violations of rule of law and human rights perpetrated by authorities are not defensible, especially in light of Uzbekistan's OSCE commitments. Under President Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan has been the second most repressive former Soviet republic, next to Turkmenistan. Karimov has used new constitutions and referendums extending his tenure to remain in office, where he seems determined to stay indefinitely. In mid-1992, he cracked down on all opposition parties, driving them underground or into exile, and all opposition or independent media were eliminated. In Uzbekistan today, human rights are systemically violated. Arbitrary arrests, abuse and torture of detainees are pervasive, and flagrantly politicized judicial proceedings are routine. According to Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, there are well over 200 individuals who are prisoners of conscience either for their religious or political activities. Defendants have been convicted of criminal offenses based on forced confessions and planted evidence. The regime has also refused to register independent human rights monitoring organizations (the Human Rights Society and the Independent Human Rights Society), while groups which cooperate closely with the government (Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Individual) have been registered without delay. On June 25, Uzbek police savagely beat Mikhail Ardzinov, one of the country's most prominent human rights activists. A key component of Uzbekistan's assault on human rights has been a thoroughgoing campaign against religious believers. Since 1997, hundreds of independent Muslim activists and believers associated with them have been arrested. In February of this year, bombs exploded in the capital, Tashkent, which killed sixteen bystanders and damaged government buildings, narrowly missing President Karimov and government officials. Karimov accused Muslim activists of having carried out a terrorist attack intended to assassinate him. The harassment and detention of Muslim activists has greatly intensified since then and an ongoing series of show trials had discredit them as dangerous religious extremists. Last month, six people were sentenced to death and another 16 received prison terms ranging from eight to 20 years in a trial that by no means met Western standards for due process. Since then, two arrested Muslims have died in prison, and there is no sign of a let up. President Karimov has argued that the threat of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia's most populous and traditional state necessitates a hard line, especially because Islamic radicals from neighboring Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are determined to subvert Uzbekistan's secular, developing democracy. But the state's repressive policies are radicalizing Muslims and turning them against the regime. Non-Muslims faiths, particularly Christians, have also been subjected to harassment, imprisonment and violations of their religious liberty, especially those who share their faith and are actively meeting. According to Compass Direct, Ibrahim Yusupov, the leader of a Pentecostal church in Tashkent, was tried and sentenced last month to one year in prison on charges of conducting missionary activity. Another court in June sentenced Christian pastor Na'il Asanov to five years in prison on charges of possession of drugs and spreading extremist ideas. As with other cases mentioned below, witnesses attest that police planted a packet of drugs on Pastor Asanov and also severely beat him while he was in detention. Also in June, three members of the Full Gospel Church in Nukus were sentenced to long prison sentences. Pastor Rashid Turibayev received a 15-year sentence, while Parhad Yangibayev and Issed Tanishiev received 10-year sentences for ``deceiving ordinary people'' as well as possessing and using drugs. Their appeal was denied on July 13. Reports indicate that they have suffered severe beatings in prison, have been denied food and medical attention, and their personal possessions have been confiscated by the police, leaving their families destitute. Recently, the most senior Pentecostal leader in Uzbekistan, Bishop Leonty Lulkin, and two other church members were tried and sentenced on charges of illegally meeting. The sentence they received was a massive fine of 100 times the minimum monthly wage. The leaders of Baptist churches, Korean churches, the Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as many others, have also been subjected to harsh legal penalties. Although they have filed for registration, local authorities refused to sign their documents. Mr. Speaker, the State Department's report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 reported that the Uzbekistan law on religion ``limits freedom of religion'' with strict registration requirements which make it virtually impossible for smaller church organizations to gain legal status. The law passed in June 1998, ``prohibits proselytizing, bans religious subjects in school curriculums, prohibits teaching of religious principles, forbids the wearing of religious clothing in public by anyone except clerics, and requires all religious groups and congregations to register or re-register.'' Also approved last May was a second law establishing the penalties if one were convicted of violating any of the statutes on religious activities. The penalties can range anywhere from lengthy prison sentences, massive fines, and confiscation of property, to denial of official registration rights. On May 12 of this year, Uzbekistan tightened its Criminal Code, making participation in an unregistered religious group a criminal offense, punishable by a fine equivalent to fifty times the minimum monthly wage or imprisonment of up to three years. Mr. Speaker, these actions indicate that the policies of the Government of Uzbekistan toward religious groups are not moving in the right direction. In fact, these initiatives are in direct violation to Uzbekistan's OSCE commitments, including Article 16.3 of the Vienna Concluding Document which states that ``the State will grant upon their request to communities of believers, practicing or prepared to practice their faith within the constitutional framework of their States, recognition of the status provided for them in the respective countries.'' In the Copenhagen Concluding Document of 1990 Article 9.1, Uzbekistan has committed to ``reaffirm that everyone will have the right to freedom of expression including the right to communication. This right will include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' Uzbekistan's current course of strangling all forms of religious discourse is a flagrant, deliberate, and unrelenting violation of these principles. Last year Congress overwhelmingly passed the Religious Freedom Act of 1998 which reaffirmed the United States' commitment to supporting religious freedom abroad through U.S. foreign policy. Considering the litany of violations affecting religious liberty and the ongoing persecution of believers, it is time for Congress to consider our aid programs to Uzbekistan, including our military cooperation programs which cost about 33 million dollars in this year alone. Congress should also reconsider our trade relationship with Uzbekistan and scrutinize other programs such as Cooperative Threat Reduction where we can leverage our influence to help protect religious liberty and human rights.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from California. I share the Member's concern about recent negative trends within Peru. I have held hearings in my own Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights focusing on some of those concerns with regard to human rights problems. There is a serious need for increased press freedom and judicial independence in that country. There is no doubt about that. I also agree that the procedures used to convict Lori Berenson of aggravated terrorism were egregious. Lori Berenson certainly deserves due process and to have her case tried by an open, civilian court in Peru. The fact that Peru discontinued its use of faceless military tribunals in 1997 is a further indictment of the process that was used to convict her. But the amendment before us calls for something different than a fair trial and due process rights for Berenson. Let me just point out that it calls for release. It calls for her release. I think that goes beyond what we should be willing to do. In so doing, it implies her innocence. We should be taking no stance on the merits of the very serious terrorism charges leveled against Ms. Berenson and we must avoid commenting, even implicitly, on the serious evidence against her. To do anything else would denigrate the valid interest of the people of Peru in combating terrorism, which that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Peruvian civilians during the past two decades. Mr. Chairman, the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, or MRTA, which Ms. Berenson is accused of assisting, is a terrorist organization. According to our State Department, it was responsible for numerous killings of civilians, hundreds of violent attacks and other egregious human rights violations in Peru during the past year. The MRTA was responsible for the siege of the Japanese ambassador's residence in late 1996 which resulted in the holding of numerous hostages, including over a dozen Americans, for 5 months. Assisting such activities could merit someone a life sentence here in the United States. Again, she needs due process and a fair trial and we should not comment on whether or not she is innocent or guilty. Mr. Chairman, people in the United States have the right to a fair trial and an opportunity to confront their accusers. I believe we must demand such basic rights for U.S. citizens abroad, no matter how serious the charges may be against them. We must demand an open, fair trial for Lori Berenson. Unfortunately, this amendment does not do that. It says in the plain text, it calls for her release. So I must respectfully oppose it. Let me also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International have been calling for a fair trial. They have not been calling for her release. I respectfully suggest to the gentlewoman from California, these groups--and I am a great admirer of Amnesty International--have not said release her. They have said she has to get a fair trial.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Connecticut makes a very helpful suggestion. I would hope that the gentlewoman from California would agree to that, and that would require us proceeding out of order. A unanimous consent would be proposed to let the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) proceed while we discuss, and hopefully we can come to language that will send the message to the Peruvian government, to Fujimori, that we are united, that she has been denied her due process rights, and I mean we all want justice. I do not know if exoneration, release is justice. It may be; I do not know. I have looked at the case. If I were a jury, I would want to know a lot more. So I would hope that we can do what the gentleman from Connecticut has suggested.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time just briefly, and then I will be happy. As my colleagues know, the charges are that she was planning on blowing up the Peruvian Congress. Now I do not know if that is true or not, but we know how seriously we take those acts of violence that are committed on our own Congress, killing of our two policemen which we so rightfully honored yesterday. This lady may be completely innocent. What she deserves is a fair trial, not a de facto exoneration by the Congress or the House of Representatives of the United States, and I think we err seriously if we make a decision not knowing, and Members will be walking in that door voting based on a handout in some cases or just a scintilla of knowledge. We need to know the real facts which are voluminous about this case.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, again I think it is unfortunate that the gentlewoman from California cannot accept a fair trial language in place of the release of. I think it will be very wrong, I would say to my colleagues, if all of us went on record saying that this lady, and she may be innocent, we do not know. I believe we have to be honest enough to say that the charges, and I have checked with the human rights groups, they are in doubt as to her innocence, and that is to leading groups.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This is exactly why the attempt has to be at the highest levels of our government, going right to the President of the United States, who needs to make this a major issue--that she be given a fair trial. That goes for all of us. To date, it has not been a major issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on Line 17, where it says ``to secure the release of Lori Berenson,'' to strike ``the release of'' and put ``a fair trial for'' Lori Berenson, and also on Page 2, Line 6, just so it is internally consistent, ``to assist in providing a fair trial for.'' And then I hope we would be unanimous, because I do believe it was a sham trial, as I said to the gentlewoman. My subcommittee has looked into it. We think it is awful. Her due process rights were trashed. But if indeed we are talking about a situation where she may have been involved with this, that is something that a fair trial has to adjudicate. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Just let me make a couple of points. In reading over this amendment again, I have great empathy for it. I have had hearings in my subcommittee about human rights abuses and have gone down to Lima, Peru to meet with President Fujimori to express my own concerns, especially in light of the ``Fuji coup'' that took place some years back. But again my position comports with that of the administration and the State Department. And the human rights organizations like Amnesty International, are not saying release her, they are saying give her a fair trial. I think that is where our efforts ought to be put. We do not have the capability or the competence or the information--because I have looked at the reams of information--to make a definitive decision as to whether or not she should be freed. There are very serious charges of terrorism with a group that has a despicable track record on the use of violence against individuals and innocent people. Whether or not she is a part of it, I do not know, but there are serious allegations. She was given a sham trial, no doubt about it. I would be willing to ask unanimous consent, if the gentlewoman would change the wording in her amendment from ``the release of'' Lori Berenson to ``a fair trial for'' Lori Berenson. We could all support that amendment. But again, to say we should release somebody? Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent if the gentlewoman could accept that kind of change in the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, it is the release that we are talking about. I believe she needs a fair trial. That is where all of our diplomatic efforts must be put. No American should be immune from prosecution of a criminal charge, but they are entitled, I say to the chairman and to my colleagues, to a fair trial. She has not gotten it and that is where I believe that President Fujimori has erred completely. I happen to believe that the tendency in Peru is towards dictatorship on the part of the President, although there have been some trends that may suggest otherwise. I would ask for a fair trial, not her release. I would hope--and we had asked the gentlewoman through staff and through other ways to reword her amendment so we could all support it, asking again for due process rights to be protected, not for her release. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my very good friend for yielding me this time and rise in strong support of the Engel amendment and thank him for offering it to us this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, the people of Kosovo suffered greatly in the past 18 months, especially during the brutal ethnic cleansing campaign which paralleled the NATO air strikes from March to June of this year. While now is the time for Kosovars to return and rebuild their homes and their lives, many continue to be held in Serbian prisons, wrongly held, and illegally held. Over the 3 months of the conflict, thousands of Albanians in Kosovo, mostly men, were pulled from their homes and from columns of refugees. Some were killed and only the excavation of mass graves and subsequent forensic investigations will tell their stories. But many were incarcerated in seven prisons around Kosovo, without formal charges, under a martial law decree that governed Yugoslavia during the war. At war's end as NATO forces advanced into Kosovo province, some prisoners escaped, others were marched to the Albanian border and released by Yugoslav forces, and the rest were taken in a long convoy of buses and trucks to Serbia. We do not know the exact numbers, but these are the people that we speak to in this amendment. I would like to point out that recently I led a delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE in St. Petersburg. I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) because he was able to raise the issue during the course of those deliberations and we got language in the concluding document, the St. Petersburg Declaration, that raised this issue in a way that hopefully will get the attention of the entire international community and especially of Belgrade to let them go. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that the continued incarceration of Kosovar Albanians by Serbian authorities is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, as is the denial of outside access by other international observers like the Red Cross. This must be corrected. It is very important that we go on the record, hopefully unanimously, saying: Let these people go.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, the word ``release'' should not appear in this document, in this Sense of the Congress, because we should not be coming down on the side of releasing someone who has been accused of a very, very serious offense in cooperation with a terrorist organization that has a despicable record in Peru. But, again, we must demand that the charges against her be properly adjudicated. Let me remind Members that there were Americans who were held hostage in the Japanese ambassador's residence by this very group. I would urge a no vote on this, and I say that with reluctance. This is not a properly constructed amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to repeat my request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). We were unable to work it out in that short time we had together. I wanted to put, in lieu of ``the release of'' Lori Berenson, ``a fair trial pursuant to international standards.'' Regrettably, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) wanted to add the words, ``or release,'' or, as she just pointed out, 1 year later there would be a release. I can say this having raised this issue myself before, with all my force. I have been concerned about it, like many Members on both sides of the aisle. But the issue here is one of fair trial and not of judging the evidence, because there is a lot of evidence, pro and con. Regrettably, in a sense of the Congress, which is a very serious matter, we should not go on record calling for the release of someone about whose innocence we are not persuaded one way or the other when the allegation is of a very, very serious terrorism charge. The MRTA, with which Ms. Berenson has been identified--and I think this should be underscored--is exceedingly violent. It was responsible, as I said earlier in the debate, among other acts of terrorism, for the seizure of the Japanese ambassador's residence in Peru. Remember, I say to my colleagues, day in and day out, as we watched CNN and we watched the news clips of those ambassadors and support personnel and everyone else who were caught behind those closed doors. Those hostages lived in agony for 5 months. To be associated with that group is a serious charge. Although we cannot effectuate it, we must at least use the moral suasion of Congress to emphasize that there needs to be a fair trial, pursuant to international standards. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) goes far beyond what we should be recommending in this situation. I would also point out that I have raised this issue. I take a back seat to no one regarding human rights violations that occur in Peru, or anywhere else in the world. My Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights has had something on the order of 100 hearings since I have been chairman. We have had fact-finding missions, including one to Peru, to raise issues of human rights. I believe in due process rights. I believe that she deserves them. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) knows, our embassy was trying, our personnel were trying, to get her to serve out her sentence here in the United States in what, hopefully, would be a more pleasant situation or circumstance, relatively speaking. So I really reluctantly rise in opposition to this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order and to proceed directly to the Bilbray amendment when we return to the Committee of the Whole House and then, after that point, to return to the amendment from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).