Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my deep concern about the course of actions that appear to constitute retaliation against Linda Shenwick. In the most recent series of questionable actions, Ms. Shenwick has been ordered to vacate her office in New York by the close of business--she has already been told to do that--with a directed transfer to another Department of State position. We believe this action is properly construed as retaliatory and in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Accordingly, I and many other Members, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the full committee, have asked that she be protected and that this proceeding needs to be looked into much more. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) certainly puts us on record as being very much against what is happening here. Let me also say that she has been a whistleblower in a bipartisan way, bringing information to the fore that needs to be brought forward. One of the things that has galled me in 19 years as a Member of Congress--4 years now and counting as the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights--is our inability to get information in a timely and usable form. There is not transparency with this administration. We need to have it. I think the whistleblower needs to be protected rather than retaliated and punished. So I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has done a very, very good thing with his amendment. I hope everybody will support it.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding this time to me, and I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his amendment regarding self-determination in East Timor. It does represent a modest, but much needed, congressional statement that deserves the overwhelming support of this body. Mr. Chairman, for over 20 years international human rights advocates have been calling attention to abuses by the Indonesian government in the occupation of East Timor. Indonesia's armed forces invaded East Timor in 1975 only weeks after East Timor had obtained independence from Portugal. Since then, the Indonesian army has carried out a campaign of what amounts to ethnic cleansing against the Timorese through a program of forced migration. Persecution has been particularly harsh against the Christian majority. More than 200,000 Timorese out of a total population of 700,000 have been killed directly or by starvation in forced migration from their villages since the Indonesian invasion. The upcoming August vote on the political status of East Timor is of critical importance to the people of that region and represents the first step toward a just and humane solution of their political status. Of course, to be meaningful, that election must be carried out in a fair and peaceful atmosphere, free of violence and free of intimidation. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, members of the Indonesian military have been arming anti-independence militias which have been responsible for the intimidation and killing of unarmed pro- independence civilians in East Timor. According to one estimate, more than 58,000 people are now internally displaced as a result of paramilitary violence in East Timor. There has not been any independent investigation of recent atrocities including the atrocity at Liquica, the massacre in which over 50 civilians were killed in and around a church. Notwithstanding the helpful presence of members of the United Nations Assistance Mission in East Timor's capital of Dili, the political atmosphere is far from fair and peaceful, especially in rural areas where there is no international presence. Much more must be done and the Congress must send an unequivocal message to the Indonesian military: Stop the violence. I would like to at this point, Mr. Chairman, enter into a colloquy with my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). In addition to calling on the President and the Secretary of State to intensify their efforts to support self-determination, the original draft of the gentleman's amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules also mentioned the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. executive directors to international financial institutions. I understand that those references were withdrawn for reasons of germaneness. However, given the close relationship between the U.S. and Indonesian militaries--I would just point out parenthetically that we have had hearings in my subcommittee on the JCET program in Indonesia. And I have also gone out there and met with them, and I am very, very unhappy with what is going on there in our collaboration with Kopassus. But because of this relationship and because of the obvious influence wielded by the Treasury Department and international financial institutions in Indonesia, those actors may well have more leverage with Indonesian authorities than the State Department does. Does the gentleman believe, as I do, that although these officials are no longer mentioned in his amendment, it is just as important that they intensify their own efforts in support of self-determination in East Timor?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, just to respond again, it is a very unuseful fiction. The diplomatic fiction sometimes has a place. I do not like it. I like absolute honesty, transparency, everything on the table when dealing with something. That is why Ambassador Lilley's testimony was so compelling. He said, you are going to go to Kamchang-Ri and you are not going to see anything. They have had sufficient time to move everything out. For the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my good friend, to raise it as an example of some kind of compliance, I think misleads, however unintentionally he is doing that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman. I rise to support the amendment of my colleague from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, which adds safeguards to the issuance of first-time passports to children. By requiring the consent of both parents, or proof that the person executing the application has legal custody of the child, it will be an important weapon in the fight against international child abduction by noncustodial parents. The problem is very real. In numerous cases, estranged parents who are foreign residents have abducted their children to foreign countries, flagrantly violating the orders of courts in the United States. The problem is serious enough that the United States has become a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. That Convention establishes an international standard according to which children abducted to foreign countries will be returned to the country of their habitual residence. Unfortunately, the problem persists, even under the Convention. there are continuing, credible allegations that some countries have become havens for child abductors, and ignore return orders issued pursuant to the Hague Convention. For that reason, Section 203 of the underlying bill extends and expands the State Department's annual reporting on the compliance of signatories to the Convention. The Gibbons amendment is an additional safeguard that will help ensure that children are not wrongfully removed from the United States in the first place. I hope it receives wide support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of working this out, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am not sure if the gentlewoman is willing.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend we could move to rise, and it will take all of 30 seconds to do it in the full House and then go right back.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I urge strong support for the Bereuter amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. First of all, let me respond briefly to my friend from New York on one of the points that he raised. He talked about the visit to Kamchang-Ri by inspectors and they found nothing in that hole. Well, we had a hearing, and the gentleman, I am sure, remembers when Ambassador Lilley, our former ambassador to the People's Republic of China, came and testified and said, as matter of factly as he possibly could have, that we are not going to find anything. They have had about a year to clean it out; there are other caves and caverns and holes where they could put this material. So this is a Potemkin village, if ever there was one, to have a preannouncement that yes, we are going to come here. We had to buy our way to get into that site to begin with, and wonder of wonders, as predicted, as Ambassador Lilley pointed out so clearly, we know we are not going to find anything. So I think it is very, very disingenuous to raise that somehow North Korea is complying. We were told in advance by the former ambassador to the People's Republic of China, Ambassador Lilley, that we were not going to find anything. And wonder of wonders, we did not find anything. They had plenty of time to move it to one of their other sites, and there are perhaps 11 other sites that have not been checked out where they could have done so. So, again, that is why I think the language in here where we talk about the IAEA, full access to all additional sites and all information, including historical records deemed necessary by the IAEA to verify accuracy and completeness and so on, that is the kind of unfettered access that is needed. Otherwise we engage in a diplomatic fiction. We buy into a potential big lie of which this regime in North Korea is certainly highly capable. Let me just say, Madam Chairman, I do rise in strong support of the Gilman-Markey amendment. The CIA recently reported that, and I quote, ``North Korea has no constraints on its sales of ballistic missiles and related technology,'' close quote. As we know, that is alarming; but it is not surprising. In 1992, the IAEA concluded that Pyongyang had violated the nuclear nonproliferation treaty that it signed in 1985. Furthermore, the North Korean government has avoided cooperating with monitoring efforts by the International Atomic Energy Agency as required by its subsequent 1994 agreement with the United States. Thus, until Pyongyang reverses its practices and abides by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, any country that sends nuclear reactors and technology to North Korea should assume that it is exporting these most dangerous technologies to other dangerous regimes around the world. Madam Chairman, the government of North Korea has egregiously violated the human rights of countless of its own citizens, and I know that Members are aware of that. They may not be aware that food is being used, regrettably, as a weapon, against some of their own people. There are children--estimated to be somewhere on the order of 500,000 kids--arrested, often incarcerated, because they are poor. We have these children who are just being arrested. The government is so contemptuous of its own people that these kids are dying; and when they escape, sometimes they even escape to China to try to get a meal, they are brought back and arrested. The international community has no access to them, and that includes UNICEF, which has tried. So that is the kind of government we are dealing with. I just put that in as a parenthetical because I think it gives a backdrop to what we are talking about here. Let me just say also, Madam Chairman, before we have any U.S. exports of nuclear reactors, technology and the like to North Korea, we believe--I believe and the chairman believes and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) believes--the President should be required to certify that North Korea is fully complying with its obligations under NPT. The Congress must shoulder its responsibility to ensure that the North Korean government has kept its agreement not to develop or to export nuclear technology and weapons. When dealing with a country whose record on so many issues has been so poor as North Korea's and with such weighty issues as nuclear technology transfers, we have a responsibility to do no less.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today marks the expiration of the term of office of authoritarian Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka under the 1994 Belarusian Constitution. To nobody's surprise, Mr. Lukashenka is not abandoning his office, having extended his term of office until 2001 using the vehicle of an illegitimate 1996 constitutional referendum. Since Lukashenka was elected five years ago, Belarus has witnessed nothing but backsliding in the realm of human rights and democracy and a deterioration of the economic situation. The Belarusian Government continues to violate its commitments under the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) relating to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. At the root of these violations lies the excessive power usurped by President Lukashenka since his election in 1994, especially following the illegitimate 1996 constitutional referendum, when he disbanded the Supreme Soviet and created a new legislature subordinate to his rule. Freedoms of expression, association and assembly remain curtailed. The government hampers freedom of the media by tightly controlling the use of national TV and radio. Administrative and economic measures are used to cripple the independent media and NGOs. Political opposition has been targeted for repression, including imprisonment, detention, fines and harassment. The independence of the judiciary has been further eroded, and the President alone controls judicial appointments. Legislative power is decidedly concentrated in the executive branch of government. The Helsinki Commission, which I Chair, has extensively monitored and reported on the sad situation in Belarus, and has attempted to encourage positive change in that country through direct contacts with Belarusian officials as well as through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in St. Petersburg earlier this month overwhelmingly supported a resolution encouraging democratic change in Belarus, including the conduct of free and fair elections next year. As Chairman of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE PA, I urged my fellow parliamentarians to join me in calling for the release of ex-Prime Minister Mikhail Chygir and the guarantee of free access to the media by opposition groups. In addition, I joined 125 delegates representing 37 of the 54 participating States in signing a statement which offered more harsh criticism of the political situation in Belarus, condemned the use of violence against Supreme Soviet members and representatives of the democratic opposition, and protested their detention. Within the last few days, there appears to be some glimmer of hope in the gloomy Belarusian predicament. According to a July 17 joint statement by the OSCE PA ad hoc Working Group on Belarus and the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group (AMG) in Belarus: ``The Belarusian President states his commitment to the holding of free, fair and recognizable parliamentary elections in Belarus next year, as well as his support for a national dialogue on elections to be held between the government and the opposition.'' I agree with the Working Group and AMG's emphasis on the importance of ``access to electronic media for all participants in the negotiations, and a political climate free of fear and politically motivated prosecution.'' Mr. Speaker, while I welcome this statement, I remain guarded, given Mr. Lukashenka's track record. I very much look forward to its implementation by the Belarusian Government, which could be a positive step in reducing Belarus' isolation from the international community and the beginnings of a reversal in the human rights situation in that country.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Engel's amendment (amendment #47, part of the en bloc) builds on Section 408 of the bill, a section which was added as a result of an amendment I successfully offered with Mr. Peter King of New York during consideration of this legislation in the International Relations Committee. Section 408--and, by extension, the language offered today--seeks to end the intimidation of defense attorneys in Northern Ireland, and to secure just and impartial investigations of the murders of two heroic defense attorneys, Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane. As adopted by the full committee, Section 408 cuts off funding authority for U.S.-sponsored training and exchange programs offered to Northern Ireland's police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), unless the President certifies that the United Kingdom has initiated independent investigations into the murders of two Catholic defense attorneys. It also conditions the funds on the President certifying that the UK is appropriately protecting other defense attorneys who have been harassed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). On September 29, 1998, Rosemary Nelson, a defense attorney from Northern Ireland, testified before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and told us that, as a defense attorney working on high-profile, political cases, she feared the RUC. She reported that she had been ``physically assaulted by a number of RUC officers,'' and that the harassment included, ``at the most serious, making threats against my personal safety including death threats.'' Six months later, on March 15, 1999, Rosemary Nelson was murdered, the victim of a car bomb. Because of Rosemary's own stated fears, and because of subsequent reports issued by Northern Ireland's Independent Commission on Police Complaints, several questions have been raised about RUC complicity in her murder. Amazingly, however, the British government insists that the RUC be the agency most involved in investigating Rosemary's murder. In addition to the Nelson family, numerous international human rights organizations, the European Union, the Northern Ireland Law Society, elected officials from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, and the U.S. Congress have all called for independent inquiries--RUC- free inquiries--into Rosemary Nelson's murder. Similarly, leading human rights activists are calling for an independent judicial inquiry into the allegations of government collusion in the murder of slain defense attorney Patrick Finucane. In an extraordinary show of bipartisan support, this past April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed my bill, H. Res. 128, condemning the Finucane and Nelson killings and calling on the British government to adequately protect defense lawyers. The resolution unequivocally linked Ms. Nelson's murder with that of Patrick Finucane, recognizing the hostile environment within which Northern Ireland's defense lawyers function, particularly aggravated by threats coming directly or indirectly from the police. Section 408 of this bill renews our previous calls for the independent inquiries as but one step toward accountability for human rights violations against defense lawyers in Northern Ireland. It blocks U.S. funds to RUC programs and requires the President and the State Department to do more to persuade the Blair government to mitigate the harassment of defense attorneys in Northern Ireland. Mr. Engel's amendment extends our efforts in Section 408 by restricting the export of law enforcement equipment to the RUC until the Section 408 goals are met. While the RUC does not currently receive the equipment banned by the Engel amendment, the added language precludes them from doing so, or even qualifying for such equipment, until the standards are met. It is important to note that even while negotiations have been stalled and the future of the new Northern Ireland Assembly is in jeopardy, the British government can take some unilateral steps to restore confidence in the peace process. As recommended in this bill, the Blair government should pull the RUC off the Rosemary Nelson murder case, take decisive action to protect defense attorneys, and initiate an objective, public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, during this past week the Communist People's Republic of China started a series of events to threaten Taiwan: Starting just this last weekend and going into this week, China has been conducting the first military exercise in the Taiwan Strait since 1996, with soldiers chanting ``We will liberate Taiwan''; Meanwhile the Communist Party newspapers ran the headline, ``Those who play with fire will get burnt''; In addition, last Thursday, China declared that it has mastered the design technology for the neutron bomb. In light of these imminent threats from mainland China, the U.S. Congress must send a clear message that we support our democratic ally Taiwan and that the U.S. will defend Taiwan from military attacks. Without that clear message, Communist China may be tempted to attack Taiwan and destabilize the world, hoping that the U.S. will stand aside, particularly when the Clinton Administration advocates for ``one China.'' If there were one democratic China, the U.S. Congress and the people of the United States would support it. For now, there is only one democratic State in China--The Republic of China on Taiwan--so we will support Taiwan. The people of Taiwan have spoken with their votes to stay separate from the Communist mainland until there is democracy for all. We respect their votes and their voice. We commend them for building this flourishing democracy regardless of threats from the Beijing. I support the amendment from my colleagues Mr. Andrews, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Bilirakis, to declare that we stand with our democratic allies, and we will defend democratic Taiwan.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to that, and I understand that under regular order the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) would proceed first?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for 20 years the U.N. Population Fund has poured millions of dollars, about $157 million to be exact, provided technical assistance, and given effusive praise to China's program that relies on forced abortion and forced sterilization to achieve its goals. For 20 years, the UNFPA has whitewashed these crimes, the kind the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) just talked about, and has heaped lavish praise on China's one-child-per-couple program. It has provided cover and covered up for the Beijing hardliners who oppress and victimize women and murder their children. In fact, Nafis Sadik, the executive director of the UNFPA, has had this to say about the Chinese program: ``The implementation of the policy in China and the acceptance of the policy is purely voluntary. There is no such thing as a license to have a birth.'' That is an unmitigated lie, I say to my colleagues. She has also said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the Government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a totally voluntary program.'' That, too, is a lie. For 20 years, the UNFPA has participated with the perpetrators of the most egregious systematic abuse of women in history. My colleagues heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) talk about Mrs. Gao. She was one of those who ran the program in Fujian Province for 14 years. That is what the UNFPA has covered up for all of these years. Let me just remind my colleagues that both Presidents Reagan and Bush, with the support of Democratic Congresses, barred all funding to the UNFPA because of its complicity and support of China's barbaric program. Last year Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act that included a total cut-off of UNFPA funding. Why? Because it includes heavily forced abortion and forced sterilization. The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and I are offering would prohibit U.S. funding to the UNFPA unless the President certified that UNFPA has terminated all activities in the PRC; or, during the 12 months preceding such certification there have been no abortions as a result of coercion. This is all about forced abortion. The UNFPA has been complicit. They have supported it. And they have said it with their statements and have been part of a cover-up. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just so the record is very clear on this, the question was asked by our former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, what will be the role of the Chinese Government? And the answer back from the executive director of the UNFPA was as follows: The Chinese Government, at the central and provincial levels, will be in charge of coordination, internal monitoring, guidance, and evaluation, all of which will be conducted in accordance with ICPD principles. The local government will be in charge of the actual implementation of project activities at the county level program. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the problem. The Chinese Government, as they have been doing for the last 20 years, will run this program; and again, the UNFPA will give it more cover, which it certainly does not deserve. Women, it even says in the document, will be assessed a social compensation fee if they do not conform to the guidelines, the one- child-per-couple program.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). I know that many of us are often frustrated with the U.N. and especially some of its activities. But I do believe that the amendment does risk throwing the baby out with the bath water. The amendment would effectively take us out of the U.N., while it has its blemishes, and the previous amendments certainly underscored my concern that the UNFPA, for example, has been absolutely complicit in the forced abortion program in the People's Republic of China; and I do believe a calibrated focused approach like that is the way to make our point. But look at some of the good things that the U.N. has done again with blemishes and all. I will never forget, back in the early 1980s, I was in El Salvador when the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, under Jim Grant, working with the Catholic church, working with the Duarte government, and working with the FMLN, the Communist insurgency, headed days of tranquility. Hundreds of thousands of children were immunized against the world's leading killers of children and those that extract or impose a great morbidity on young lives. Pertussis, tetanus, all of these diseases were wiped away from these kids, and because of these immunizations. The U.N. played a very, very important role in that. Look at the world food program which provides necessary foods to children and families, the victims of torture. Our subcommittee, and I offered the bill, it became law, provided an additional amount of money to the U.N. voluntary fund for torture to help the people who suffer from torture. There are 400,000 former torture victims living in the U.S. with posttraumatic stress and all kinds of other problems. Many hundreds of thousands abroad, they need our help. Then when it comes to such things as peacekeeping, yes, it is flawed. The UNPROFOR was a very flawed deployment, but there are many that had been successful. I would just remind Members that, when we had the Gulf War, the U.N. played a pivotal position in mobilizing, especially through the Security Council, our efforts to try to mitigate the abuses of Saddam Hussein. While I deeply respect the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I do think it overreaches, and I would hope that Members would vote it down. But remembering that it does have its problems, the U.N. certainly is not a perfect organization, it is far from it, but it does have some agencies and things that do some very, very good things. I missed it, but on refugees, the UNHCR is vital to proceeding refugee protection and assistance. So I do ask Members to vote ``no''.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I spoke earlier about some of the other merits of the bill. There will be a very important amendment for Members later on as we consider this bill. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Campbell amendment. The Campbell amendment would provide a $20 million grant to the United Population Fund. Let me remind everyone that last year the Congress passed and the President signed, albeit reluctantly, legislation that cut off funding to the U.N. Population Fund because of its ongoing complicity with the one-child-per-couple policy in the People's Republic of China, where forced abortion and forced sterilization are commonplace. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and I are offering an amendment that says that $25 million can proceed if, and only if, the UNFPA has terminated all activities in the PRC or during the 12 months the President can certify that no abortions have been the result of coercion. The issue is coercion. I would hope that Members would stand with the oppressed women who suffer unspeakable cruelty as a result of the one-child-per-couple policy. Vote ``no'' on the Campbell amendment when we get to it later on.