Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself strongly with the remarks of all the previous speakers, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). And I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in drafting this legislation. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of it. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H. Res. 178, which many of us want to see passed unanimously today. Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, the ground at Tiananmen Square was hallowed by the blood of thousands of peaceful democracy advocates. Those Chinese patriots were slaughtered by a Communist regime that remains defiantly unapologetic for its actions and that continues to deny the very truth of what happened. I was gravely disappointed last year when the President of the United States and our country, which more than any other in the world ought to bear the standard of freedom and democracy and do so very, very diligently, met at that very site with the dictators who continued to lie about the murders committed less than a decade ago. In December of 1996, Mr. Speaker, General Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister of the People's Republic of China and the operational commander of the forces that attacked the pro-democracy demonstrators, we call him the ``Butcher of Beijing,'' was invited to the United States by the Clinton administration. During his visit he was given full military honors, a 19-gun salute, visits to several military bases and a tour of Sandia Nuclear Laboratory. And I would just say parenthetically, the Cox report suggests that that visit probably was not needed. He even had a personal meeting, Mr. Speaker, with the President of the United States at the White House. He also stated in what he called a responsible and serious manner, and I quote this, ``Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.'' He claimed that on June 4th, 1989, the People's Liberation Army did nothing more violent than pushing. General Chi Haotian said the only thing they did in Tiananmen Square was push people that he called hooligans. General Chi's remarkable ``big lie'' statement about Tiananmen Square helped the American people and the world to understand what he and his government are really like. Mr. Speaker, my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations has had more than a dozen hearings on China and its repressive human rights regime, and during one of those, when we heard those outrageous remarks, we very quickly put together a hearing with people who were there on the ground--students--and we also had a man that was a journalist from the People's Daily, who was actually arrested for his honest reporting as to what had occurred, a Time magazine correspondent, and, like I said, some of the students. But we also invited General Chi. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I, then the ranking member, wanted to give the Chinese an opportunity to give an account for Tiananmen Square. The General was mouthing off to audiences here in the United States that nobody died. We offered that he come without delay before the people's body and give an account, because we happened to have evidence that would prove contrary. General Chi didn't make it. He didn't show up. We offered it to a representative of his government and we also invited Ambassador Lee for a roundtable discussion, and at the very last minute, he opted out. C-SPAN, everybody was there to cover it and there was another empty chair because they do not want to be held accountable for the atrocities. Perhaps General Chi, perhaps the ambassador, perhaps any representative of the government could tell us that there are no persecuted Christians in China. Perhaps they could tell us there is no ethnic and religious persecution in Tibet or Xinjiang. Perhaps they could tell us there is no forced abortions or forced sterilization, no dying rooms for unwanted children, usually baby girls and usually handicapped children. They also perhaps could tell us there is no political suppression or dissent and no torture. Of course, we would know that is a lie, but it is about time we held them to account. At one of our hearings recently, Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International issued a report card and on every one of the items they came to the conclusion that there was a total failure by the dictatorship. For example, release of all Tiananmen Square prisoners and other prisoners of conscience. Amnesty's response, total failure. Not one Tiananmen Square prisoner has been released since President Clinton's visit. Review all counterrevolutionary prison terms, about 2,000 of them; total failure. Not one counterrevolutionary prison sentence has been reviewed. There has been no indication by Chinese authorities that they will undertake a systematic review of such cases; according to Amnesty. Allow religious freedom; continued strong repression, says Amnesty. There has been no indication of improvement since the President's visit. On the gross violation of coercive family planning and the harvesting of organs, again, Amnesty International reports no progress whatsoever. Those are crimes against humanity. The information concerning the practice of coercive population control is ``unequivocal''. And the Chinese authorities have announced no steps to stop it. Review of the system and reeducation through labor; total failure says Amnesty. Chinese authorities have made no changes in the system, nor have they announced any plans to do so. End police and prison brutality. Amnesty reports total failure in these two areas as well. Chinese authorities continue to use torture and beatings. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, General Chi did not respond to our invitation. Nor has the ambassador. And we reissue it again to them. Come and speak before the House, through our subcommittee or any other forum, because we think that there is much to be held accountable for. What really happened on Tiananmen Square? I think Ms. Pelosi put it so well. There were people there on the ground who reported. Let us not forget the very images we saw. It was captured on videotape. And yet, they still lie right through their teeth. Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times, who was in the Square on that night, reports, and this is his reporting, ``The troops began shooting. Some people fell to the ground wounded or dead. Each time the soldiers fired again and more people fell to the ground.'' When he went to the Xiehe Hospital, the nearest to the Square, ``It was a bloody mess with hundreds of injured lying on the floors. I saw bullet holes in the ambulances.'' Jan Wong of The Toronto Globe and Mail, looking down from a balcony in Beijing, ``watched in horror as the army shot directly into the crowds. People fell with gaping wounds.'' Later she reported, ``The soldiers strafed ambulances and shot medical workers trying to rescue the wounded.'' ``In all,'' she reported, ``I recorded eight long murderous volleys. Dozens died before my eyes.'' General Chi said this was just pushing. What an outrageous big lie, reminiscent of what the Nazis did during their terrible reign of terror. This is what Tiananmen Square means to the people of China, Mr. Speaker, and to the world. We should mark the tenth anniversary of that tragedy by remembering those who lost their lives in Tiananmen Square and by publicly committing ourselves to the cause for which they died, freedom for the people of China. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on May 16, the alternative Presidential election concluded in Belarus within the timeframe envisioned by the legitimate 1994 Constitution. While the opposition Central Election Commission (CEC) concluded that the final results of the voting were invalid because of various violations deriving from the impediments placed by Belarusian authorities, the ballot served as an important barometer of democratic engagement by the citizens of Belarus. In the months leading up to the election, President Alyaksandr Lukashenka had imprisoned one of the two Presidential candidates-- former Prime Minister Mikhail Chygir--on what were clearly politically motivated charges, arrested hundreds of election officials and volunteers, and instituted administrative proceedings against others. Nevertheless, the authorities were unable to thwart the election in at least one critically important respect--according to the opposition CEC, the voting itself was valid because more than half--or 53 percent of the electorate--participated. When one considers that these were unsanctioned elections that challenged Lukashenka's legitimacy, this is a substantial number of people. No matter what the imperfections, Mr. Speaker, the opposition's electoral initiative should send a powerful message to Lukashenka. Clearly, an appreciable number of Belarusian citizens are dissatisfied with the profoundly negative political and socio-economic fallout stemming from his dictatorial inclinations and misguided nostalgia for the Soviet past or some misty ``Slavic Union.'' The vote highlights the constitutional and political impasse created by Lukashenka's illegitimate 1996 constitutional referendum, in which he extended his personal power, disbanded the duly elected 13th Supreme Soviet, and created a new legislature and constitutional court subservient to him. Last month, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission), which I chair, held a hearing on the situation in Belarus, with a view toward promoting human rights and democracy there. Testimony from the State Department, OSCE mission in Belarus, the Belarusian democratic opposition and several human rights NGOs all reaffirmed that Belarus is missing out on what one witness characterized as ``the great market democratic revolution that is sweeping Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia'' because of Lukashenka's power grab and backsliding on human rights and democracy. Despite repeated calls from the international community, including the Helsinki Commission, for Lukashenka to cease harassment of the opposition, NGO's and the independent media; allow the opposition access to the electronic media; create the conditions for free and fair elections and strengthen the rule of law, we have failed to see progress in these areas. Indeed, we see more evidence of reversals. Earlier this year, for example, Lukashenka signed a decree which introduces extensive restrictions on non-governmental activity and mandates re-registration--by July 1--of political parties, NGOs and trade unions. The decree, which among other onerous stipulations requires that organizations acknowledge the results of Lukashenka's illegitimate 1996 referendum, is clearly designed to destroy democratic civil society in Belarus and further consolidate Lukashenka's repressive rule. Moreover, within the last few months, several disturbing incidents have occurred, among them the March arrests of Viktor Gonchar, Chairman of the opposition CEC, and the Chygir imprisonment, as well as the mysterious disappearances of Tamara Vinnikova, former chair of the National Bank of Belarus and, on May 10, Gen. Yuri Zakharenko, former Interior Minister and a leading opponent of Lukashenka. Just a few days ago, Lukashenka's government announced that no more foreign priests will be allowed to serve in Belarus, making it extremely difficult for the Roman Catholic Church, which is rebuilding following the travails of the Soviet era, to function. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the Belarusian Government to comply with its freely undertaken commitments under the Helsinki Final Act and subsequent OSCE agreements and to immediately, without preconditions, convene a genuine dialog with the country's democratic forces and with the long-suffering Belarusian people.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of attending a forum on ``The Upsurge of Anti-Semitism in Russia'' sponsored by the American Jewish Committee at its 93rd annual meeting. This forum was attended by several Members of Congress and provided a useful opportunity for representatives of the AJC and Members of Congress to exchange their thoughts on the rise of anti-Semitism in Russia and the response of Congress. In this connection, I distributed a statement regarding the March 23 passage of H. Con. Res. 37, a resolution that condemned the anti- Semitic statements made by certain members of the Russian State Duma, as well as commending fair-minded members of the Duma for their efforts to condemn such statements. This resolution passed the House of Representatives unanimously. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I was proud to have introduced this resolution in the House, along with every member of the Helsinki Commission. A companion resolution in the Senate, S. Con. Res. 19, has been introduced by Commission Co-chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Ranking Commissioner Senator Frank Lautenberg. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I submit this statement for the Record. Statement of the Honorable Christopher H. Smith Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to meet with you today, at this 93rd annual meeting of the American Jewish Committee and the forum on ``Confronting the New Upsurge of Anti-Semitism in Russia.'' With the fall of the Soviet Union, many of the ``hidden'' ills of that society that had been ``frozen'' by a totalitarian regime devoted to superficial ``order'' re- emerged. One of these was open anti-Semitism. Freedom of the press has given rise to countless anti-Semitic publications and leaflets. As you know, two suspicious explosions took place in Moscow recently near the Maria Roshcha and Chorale synagogues. These are only the most recent instances of arson or suspected arson against these two synagogues. Other synagogues and Jewish cemeteries in the former Soviet Union and Russia have been hit as well. In post-Soviet Russia, the residue of official anti-Semitic propaganda of the Soviet era--disguised by Moscow as ``anti- Zionism''--was bound to find a certain reception among certain less-discriminating elements. These attitudes, freed from the constraints of the Iron Curtain and now aided by the Internet and an unrestrained press, and then reinforced and cross-pollinated by neo-Nazis and racists throughout the world. In their fervent anti-communism, some extreme nationalists have attempted to present a distorted picture of Jews as allies of communists destroying Russia during the Soviet period. In Russia today the communists blame Jews for being allies of capitalists destroying Russia. Finally, the economic malaise experienced in Russia has engendered hatred intolerance against not only Jews, but toward many ethnic minorities, especially the so-called ``dark people'' from the Caucasus. It is deplorable when vandals and hate-mongers attempt to spread bigotry in any society, but we must admit that such unfortunate incidents do not take place only in Russia. And, I have yet to meet any member of the Russian Jewish community who wants to return to the Soviet period. But I--and I know I can speak for other Members of the House of Representatives-- have been outraged by the antics and attitudes that have been exhibited by some members of the Russian Duma, especially in the ranks of the Communist Party. In December of last year, Mr. Viktor Ilyukhin, a Communist Party member and chairman of the Duma security committee, stated that Yeltsin's ``Jewish entourage'' is responsible for alleged genocide against the Russian people. Another Communist Party member, retired General Albert Makashov, speaking at public rallies, referred to ``the Yids'' and other ``reformers and democrats'' as responsible for Russia's problems and threatened to make up a list of targets and ``send them to the other world.'' Incidentally, I have seen films of Mr. Makashov's performance. It is quite sobering. I can only say, ``Heaven help the Russian people and the world,'' if he and his ilk ever do triumph. In fairness to the many conscientious Russians inside and outside of the government, these anti-Semitic statements were widely condemned in Russia. In response to the public outcry, both in Russia and abroad, Communist Party chairman Zyuganov explained that the Party had nothing against ``Jews,'' just ``Zionism.'' When fair-minded members of the Duma attempted to pass a resolution condemning Makashov's statement, it was voted down by the communist majority. The U.S. Congress, though, has reacted much differently. On March 23 of this year, the House of Representatives passed unanimously, 421-0, House Concurrent Resolution 37, condemning anti-Semitic statements made by members of the Russian Duma and commending actions taken by fair-minded members of the Duma to censure the purveyors of anti-Semitism within their ranks. I was proud to have introduced this resolution in the House, along with every member of the Helsinki Commission as original co-sponsors. A companion resolution in the Senate, Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, has been introduced by Commission Co-Chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Ranking Commissioner Senator Frank Lautenberg. In addition, several members of the Helsinki Commission and I have written to Mr. Zyuganov to express our dismay at his role and the role of his party in tolerating anti-Semitism in a participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. In that letter, among other points, we urged Zyuganov to take every appropriate step to disassociate the Communist Party from racist and anti-Semitic positions and to reject individuals who hold those positions. I would add that our Embassy and the State Department have performed commendably in expressing to Russian officials our deep concern about the rise of anti-Semitism in Russia. I am informed by the State Department that in recent days at least, there have been no more anti-Semitic statements emanating from Duma members. However, as Elena Bonner remarked earlier this year at Helsinki Commission hearings, the parliamentary elections in December of this year will be an important indicator of Russia's direction for the future. Will Russia return to the democratic path of the early 1990s or will it turn backward in reaction? We hope that the lesson of ethnic intolerance, taken to its extreme conclusion now in the Balkans, should be clear. In any event, let me assure you that as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the House International Relations Committee, I will use every appropriate opportunity to combat anti-Semitism and intolerance in Russia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. The feelings are mutual. This is a bipartisan effort and I do believe that the money is there if we have the priority to get it.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman from California for offering this amendment. I had an amendment that would have also used the $67 million, but obviously, being the ranking member of the committee, hers in the prioritization came first. But it is unfortunate that we would be looking to use the money for one thing and cannot get to the other. The money that I was hoping to use it for would be for the construction of refugee camps. I was part of the Armey delegation that just got back from Macedonia and Albania along with the presiding Speaker, and 19 of us were there and heard it was unanimity. Everybody we talked to, from the two star General to the AID people, that they desperately needed to build two more refugee camps in Albania to accommodate 20,000 people each. As my colleagues know, we got to remember there are, according to General Wesley Clark, 820,000 internally displaced people and more than 700,000 people who have exited the borders and are now officially called refugees, an enormous number of people, and unfortunately, because of budget caps and things of that kind, we are unable. Last night I went to the Committee on Rules and respectfully asked that I be able to offer $100 million additional moneys for the construction of those two refugee camps. They are $50 million a pop, and, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and his food aid amendment, I was turned down, and that is most unfortunate. Let me just say, when this gets into conference, it is my desperate hope, because we are looking at the possibility of cholera and other contagious and infectious diseases, we need to stabilize this situation and the military, no one does it better when it comes to constructing these camps. I would like to ask our very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), if he will help us, because I know his heart. He added $70 million to the refugee camp account over and above what the President requested and did make that appeal to the President to be more generous, not less.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, through Public Law 105-292, the International Religious Freedom Act, Congress is on record as standing for religious liberty throughout the world. Furthermore, Public Law 105-177, the foreign appropriations legislation passed in the 105th Congress, mandates that no foreign aid money be appropriated to the Government of the Russian Federation if the President determines that the Russian government has implemented legislation or regulations that discriminate, or cause discrimination, against religious groups or religious communities in Russia in violation of accepted international agreements on human rights and religious freedoms to which the Russian Federation is a party. This provision was in response to the 1997 Russian Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations, which many feared would lead to limitations on religious worship and a retreat from the standards of religious freedom that had been achieved in Russia following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This year, for the second year in a row, the President has made the determination that the Government of the Russian Federation has not implemented legislation or regulations that cause such discrimination against religious groups. The Presidential Determination states ``During the period under review, the Government of the Russian Federation has applied the 1997 Law on Religion in a manner that is not in conflict with its international obligations on religious freedom. However, this issue requires continued and close monitoring as the Law on Religion furnishes regional officials with an instrument that has been interpreted and used by officials at the local level to restrict the activities of religious minorities.'' Furthermore, the Presidential Determination states, ``To the extent that restrictions on the rights of religious minorities have occurred, they have been the consequence of actions taken by regional or local officials and do not appear to be a manifestation of federal government policy. Such incidents, while they must be taken seriously, represent a relatively small number of problems when viewed against the size of the country and the number of religious organizations.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe that the above statements are a reasonably accurate representation of the religious liberty situation in Russia and that the Presidential Determination is probably a fair one, given the lack of firm legal structure and the geopolitical situation in the present-day Russian Federation. Moreover, some of the most egregious instances of restrictions against religious groups in Russia have been corrected through court action. And to be fair, Russia is hardly the worst offender in the former Soviet Union. In Turkmenistan, for instance, religious groups are required to have five-hundred members before they can be legally registered with the government to operate openly. It is a ridiculously high number and has resulted in harassment of unregistered religious groups. Of course, unlike Russia, the Government of Turkmenistan doesn't claim to be much of a democracy or go out of its way to adhere to international standards of human rights. In Uzbekistan, the 1998 law imposes severe criminal penalties for meeting without registering and for engaging in free religious expression with the intent to persuade the listener to another point of view, in violation of OSCE religious liberty commitments. Since February 1999, several pastors in Uzbekistan have been detained and jailed on charges of drug possession eerily reminiscent of charges brought in years past against Soviet religious dissidents. These comparisons, however, do not change the fact that there are still several problems in the area of religious liberty in Russia that should be noted and corrected, especially if a considerable sum of U.S. taxpayer money still continues to go to Russia. In the East-West Church & Ministry Report of Winter 1999, Mark Elliot and Sharyl Corrado of the Institute for East-West Christian Studies write: Implementation of the 1997 law to date has been uneven. At least in the short run, a number of factors appear to have worked against consistently harsh application . . . . Still life since the passage of the law has not been easy for many who wish to worship outside the folds of the Moscow [Russian Orthodox] Patriarchate. The first 15 months of the new law included at least 69 specific instances of state harassment, restriction or threat of restriction against non-Moscow Patriarchate religious communities in the Russian Republic. For instance, I wonder if it was a coincidence that a few days after the Presidential Determination, the Russian Federation Ministry of Justice rejected the application of the Society of Jesuits for official registration. For that matter, most of the property seized by the Communists from the Roman Catholic Church in Russia has not been restored. In the city of Moscow, which is considered a liberal jurisdiction, the Jehovah's Witnesses have been subjected to a protracted trial that threatens to return them to ``underground'' status. In Stavropol, the local Moslem community has not only been refused the return of a mosque that had been seized by the Communists, but also been prevented from holding worship services in other quarters. A provincial official justified this policy by saying that Moslems only make up 10 percent of the population in the city. These are only a few of the most prominent cases of concern. In rural areas, local officials attempt to hinder worship activities by a number of subterfuges, ranging from the refusal to rent city property to religious groups without their own premises to outright threats and eviction of missionaries. Therefore, while I believe the Presidential Determination is, by and large, acceptable at this time, I would emphasize the reference to ``continued and close monitoring'' of the situation. In my opinion, the Administration has done a good job of monitoring the Russian religious liberty situation, and I trust these efforts will continue. As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I urge the Russian government to take every appropriate step to see that religious freedom is a reality for all in Russia, and I know the Congress will continue to follow this issue closely.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to call my colleagues' attention to the incisive commentary on the moral and religious dimensions of the horrific tragedy in Littleton, Colorado by Charles W. Colson, who many believe is one of the greatest Christian leaders in the world. The senseless killings at the Columbine High School are a direct challenge to human decency and powerfully underscore the consequences that can occur when the value of human life is eroded by our society and culture. Below is the full text of Mr. Colson's analysis of the killings, with a special emphasis on the heroism and courage of Cassie Bernall, who was gunned down, point blank, for merely professing her faith in God publicly. [BreakPoint Commentary, Apr. 26, 1999] Littleton's Martyrs (By Charles W. Colson) It was a test all of us would hope to pass, but none of us really wants to take. A masked gunman points his weapon at a Christian and asks, ``Do you believe in God?'' She knows that if she says ``yes,'' she'll pay with her life. But unfaithfulness to her Lord is unthinkable. So, with what would be her last words, she calmly answers ``yes, I believe in God.'' What makes this story remarkable is that the gunman was no communist thug, nor was the martyr a Chinese pastor. As you may have guessed, the event I'm describing took place last Tuesday in Littleton, Colorado. As the Washington Post reported, the two students who shot 13 people, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, did not choose their victims at random--they were acting out of a kaleidoscope of ugly prejudices. Media coverage has centered on the killers' hostility toward racial minorities and athletes, but there was another group the pair hated every bit as much, if not more: Christians. And, there were plenty of them to hate at Columbine High School. According to some accounts eight Christians--four Evangelicals and four Catholics--were killed. Among them was Cassie Bernall. And it was Cassie who made the dramatic decision I've just described--fitting for a person whose favorite movie was ``Braveheart,'' in which the hero dies a martyr's death. Cassie was a 17-year-old junior with long blond hair, hair she wanted to cut off and have made into wigs for cancer patients who had lost their hair through chemotherapy. She was active in her youth group at Westpool's Community Church and was known for carrying a Bible to school. Cassie was in the school library reading her Bible when the two young killers burst in. According to witnesses, one of the killers pointed his gun at Cassie and asked, ``do you believe in God?'' Cassie paused and then answered, ``Yes, I believe in God.'' ``Why?'' the gunman asked. Cassie did not have a chance to respond; the gunman had already shot her dead. As her classmate Mickie Cain told Larry King on CNN, ``She completely stood up for God. When the killers asked her if there was anyone who had faith in Christ, she spoke up and they shot her for it.'' Cassie's martyrdom was even more remarkable when you consider that just a few years ago she had dabbled in the occult, including witchcraft. She had embraced the same darkness and nihilism that drove her killers to such despicable acts. But two years ago, Cassie dedicated her life to Christ, and turned her life around. Her friend, Craig Moon, called her a ``light for Christ.'' Well, this ``light for Christ'' became a rare American martyr of the 20th Century. According to the Boston Globe, on the night of her death, Cassie's brother Chris found a poem Cassie had written just two days prior to her death. It read: Now I have given up on everything else I have found it to be the only way To really know Christ and to experience The mighty power that brought Him back to life again, and to find Out what it means to suffer and to Die with him. So, whatever it takes I will be one who lives in the fresh Newness of life of those who are Alive from the dead. The best way all of us can honor Cassie's memory is to embrace that same courageous commitment to our faith. For example, we should stand up to our kids when they want to play violent video games. We should be willing to stand up to community ridicule when we oppose access to Internet pornography at the local library. For the families of these young martyrs, I can only offer deep personal sympathy and the hope that they might take strength from the words Jesus spoke to the woman who honored Him by pouring ointment on His head. ``Wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her'' (Matthew 26:13). ``Well done, good and faithful servant. Now enter into the joy of your Lord'' (Matthew 25:23).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the votes today are extraordinarily difficult ones for each of us. The difficulty arises not because we are afraid to face up to these decisions, but because we must find a way to support freedom and democracy for the people of Kosovo and for the people of Serbia without writing a blank check for more fatal blunders on the part of the Clinton administration. I do not agree with our bombing campaign, but the present ``bombing only'' policy appears to have been based on the tragic miscalculation by President Clinton that Milosevic would back down if we bombed Serbia for a week or maybe two. This seems to have been based on an even more fundamental miscalculation, that Milosevic cares more about Serbia than he does for Milosevic. Former Governor George Allen of Virginia pointed out recently, and it was a very good and apt analogy when he said it was the equivalent of being in a football game and you say you are going to pass on every play. You have really given away your options. We did the same thing when we told Milosevic there would be no ground troops. That permitted him to anticipate and adjust to NATO moves. Another miscalculation. Whatever happened to ``loose lips sink ships''? U.S. and NATO spokesmen--including the President, babble on and on. Such carelessness puts the lives of our servicemen at risk and its wrong. Mr. Speaker, let me just say a couple of things. I have had more than a dozen hearings on the Baltics in my subcommittee, the International Operations and Human Rights Committee and in the Helsinki Commission. I chair them both. We have looked again and again at the problems, first with Bosnia and Croatia and now with Kosovo and sought to understand and react prudently to mitigate the suffering. We've looked at the war crimes that have been committed by Slobodan Milosevic's military, police and hoods. I find it incredible that the Clinton administration for the last 6 or more years has not sought to bring action against Slobodan Milosevic at the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague. In public and private I have asked repeatedly, where is the dossier, the documents, the evidence, why are we not trying to bring this war criminal to trial. To my shock, I am informed that the administration has collected nothing on this tyrant. Thus, last year virtually every Member of this Chamber voted in favor of my resolution that petitioned, admonished, and encouraged the administration to begin the effort to bring Milosevic to justice. Mr. Speaker, just let me also say that I do not believe voting for this declaration of war is the right thing to do. Our fight is not with the Serbian or Yugoslav people. It is with a cunning madman, and a very small number of very dedicated terrorists who surround him. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the declaration of war. Mr. Speaker, the votes today will be extraordinarily difficult ones for many Members of Congress. The difficulty arises not because we are afraid to face up to these decisions, but because we must find a way to support freedom and democracy for the people of Kosovo--and for the people of Serbia--without writing a blank check for more fatal blunders on the part of the Clinton Administration. I don't agree with NATO's bombing campaign but the present ``bombing only'' policy appears to have been based on the tragic miscalculation, by President Clinton and his top advisors that Slobodan Milosevic would back down if we bombed Serbia for a week or so. This seems to have been based on an even more fundamental miscalculation--that Milosevic cares more about Serbia than he does about Milosevic. Former Governor George Allen of Virginia has pointed out that to announce in advance that we would only use bombs and missiles and never use ground troops is the equivalent of announcing at the beginning of a football game that you intend to pass on every play. Even if we had no intention of using ground troops, it was yet another miscalculation to tell Milosevic about this plan. In war, you don't put your plan on CNN. In effect, we were telling him that we would punish the Serbian people for his regime's crimes, but that we would do nothing to prevent them. The campaign of murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was already under way--there were over 150,000 displaced persons there even before Rambouillet, and as early as June of last year Physicians for Human Rights issued a report that found ``intensive, systematic destruction and ethnic cleansing''--but when we announced that we would bomb and do nothing else, Milosevic knew he could get away with intensifying this campaign, and that is exactly what he did. So our options now are stark indeed: We cannot turn the clock back to a time when it might have been possible to persuade the people of Kosovo to accept some kind of autonomy within Serbia. The mass rapes and mass murders, the beatings and tortures, the burning of villages and clearing of cities, have made this next to impossible. Nor can the Muslim population of Kosovo forget the Dayton agreement, in which the Clinton Administration brokered the dismemberment of Bosnia. Instead of arresting Milosevic on the spot and bringing him before the War Crimes Tribunal, our diplomats exchanged toasts and compliments with him and turned over half of Bosnia to his murderous cronies. Speaking of the War Crimes Tribunal, I have tried for years, Mr. Speaker, to get this Administration to turn over all relevant evidence of Milosevic's responsibility for crimes against humanity. Last September, the House passed my resolution admonishing the Clinton Administration to work to bring Milosevic to justice at the Hague, sadly, nothing was done. This begs the question as to why the Clinton Administration has, in essence, given one of the most brutal dictators on the face of the earth defacto immunity from prosecution. Mr. Speaker, we cannot simply continue the bombing forever, in the face of mounting collateral deaths and injuries of men, women, and children--Serbs, Montenegrins, and Kosovars alike--and mounting evidence that the campaign is not likely to succeed in bringing down the Milosevic regime or in bringing peace and freedom to Kosovo. Nor can we simply consign the Kosovars to their fate. For the hundreds of thousands outside Kosovo, this would mean being refugees forever. For those still inside, it would mean more murders, more rapes, more tortures. for those of us who are lucky enough to live in safety and freedom, it would almost certainly mean in the last analysis that we stood by and watched yet another genocide. So our only real choice is to come up with a plan--perhaps a new diplomatic initiative along the lines suggested by Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, there is no sign that the Administration has such a plan or is trying very hard to come up with one. So Congress today must vote in a way that signals clear support for a just solution to the crisis in Kosovo, without inviting the Administration to blunder its way into further non-solutions. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for the declaration of war, because our fight is not with Yugoslavia--and our fight is most certainly not with the peoples whose governments might come in on the side of Yugoslavia in an all out war. Our fight is with Milosevic. Mr. Speaker, I also will not vote for an absolute and inflexible legal requirement that all U.S. forces be removed from the zone of hostilities within 30 days, because this would be yet another gratuitous decision to tie our own hands in advance, without knowing what may happen in the next day or week or month. To announce in advance that we will withdraw our forces no matter what Milosevic does would be eerily reminiscent of President Clinton's decision to announce in advance that we would use only bombs and never ground troops. Its most likely effect would be to spur Milosevic on to further atrocities. It would also probably have the effect of depriving the humanitarian campaign on behalf of the refugees in Albania and Macedonia of the invaluable assistance of the U.S. military. I want to make clear that my criticisms of the Administration's military policy are not intended to reflect on the humanitarian campaign. All indications are that everyone involved--UNHCR, the non-governmental organizations, and government agencies emphatically including our armed forces--are doing the Lord's work and doing it as well as can be expected under the circumstances. My only suggestion is that we urgently need even more resources for this humanitarian campaign. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Goodling bill, which will require Congressional authorization for the use of ground troops. At the beginning of the decade, President Bush persuasively made his case--to Congress and the American people--for ground troops for the Persian Gulf War. Mr. Clinton, it seems to me, has no less of a responsibility to explain why he might be willing to risk the lives of Americans in a ground action. It's bad enough the President initiated the misguided bombing with its disastrous consequences to Kosovar Albanians without prior Congressional approval. Any potential, new, escalation must include clear authorization from the Congress.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have been disturbed by the stories which have come to my attention from family and friends of constituents and from travelers from abroad, who have complained about the standard process for obtaining U.S. nonimmigrant visas. I certainly understand the challenge faced by our consulates around the globe in considering and processing the immense number of visa applications, and I recognize that dedicated consular officers serve as the vanguard for orderly and legal transit across our borders. Coupled with the responsibilities of customs officers posted at ports of entry, these are the public servants who are often the first to offer words of welcome to foreign visitors. Some personal accounts that have been shared with me, as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, paint a different picture. Rather than words of welcome, the messages are for some ones of harassment and seemingly prejudicial treatment. One particular collection of incidents is that experienced by my friend and fellow parliamentarian, Romanian Member of Parliament Peter Dugulescu, who travels with a Diplomatic Passport. When we last met in person, I asked that he prepare a written explanation of the difficulties which he has faced. The track record of this one man's treatment at a combination of ports of entry represents a sad commentary on the soiled welcome mat which is sometimes laid out for our visitors. I would hope that greater attention would be given to treating our foreign visitors with respect and the dignity deserved by each. For the record, I would ask that the recent appeal to the President made by the Honorable Peter Dugulescu be printed in the Record. To: Mr. William Jefferson Clinton--United States President, United States Congress, United States Department of State. From: Petru Dugulescu, MP, Committee on Foreign Affairs. Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, I am grateful for the opportunity I have been given to take part in the 1999 National Prayer Breakfast. My colleagues and I want to express our gratitude for the relations established between your country and ours, and for continuing to build on this foundation. In the spirit that has made United States of America a model country for the world, for its democracy and for the opportunities it gives to its citizens and non-citizens living here, I come before you with my sincere appeal in matters that pertain to further advance the relationship between your country and ours, between your people and the people of Romania. Saddened by the situation, I kindly ask for your attention to this letter and take it in adequate consideration with measures that only you can decide to take as you may see fit. Prior to the Romanian Revolution of 1989, because of my admiration for your country, for its social-political system and the religious freedom, for my religious and political beliefs, I have suffered persecution, mistreatment, and was subjected to mockery many times in Romania. Only God kept me and my family alive through the hard times. (Aspects of my persecution have been made known in United States by reputable author Charles Colson in his book ``The Body'') Numerous leaders, such as US representatives; Frank Wolf (VA), Tony Hall (OH), Christopher Smith (NJ), have showed their support and intervened in different ways to the Romanian authorities. Former US Ambassador to Romania, Mr. David Funderburk, has visited our church and my family several times, and continuously showed his support, thus alleviating some of the pain. Following the 1989 Romanian Revolution, I have been blessed with an invitation to take part in the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, as a pastor, together with a Romanian delegation. I have been part of this magnificent event every year. Since 1990, I have visited the United States several times for meetings with diplomats and/or social-cultural and religious organizations. My colleagues are looking at me as at someone who truly supports relations with the United States by proven activity. However, I am saddened to say that not all of my visits have been pleasant. This last arrival in your country has been most uncomfortable, to say the least. On January 7th 1999, I arrived in the United States with a Visitor's Visa and Diplomatic Passport, on board flight no. 120 (Route: Bucharest-Zurich-Atlanta) of Swissair, at Atlanta's International Airport, around 2:00 p.m. Upon the U.S. Immigration inspection service, I was asked by a female officer of the U.S. Customs if I was from Romania. As a result of my positive answer, she asked me to open my luggage and they started taking my personal belongings out in the open while laughing. When I saw the scene caused by this incident, I asked kindly to see what they were looking for. ``Food'', they replied. I told them I didn't have any. However, they continued to do the same thing. When they were done emptying my luggage, I started collecting my pajamas and other belongings attempting to pack as people were looking at me as to a criminal who just got caught smuggling something illegal into the United States. I can't explain my hurt and embarrassment caused by these officers who continued to joke. When they asked me what I was coming to the States for, I told them that I was invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast with their President. They laughed again. I showed them the Diplomatic Passport and the invitation, which prompted them to laugh even harder and said: ``Send our greetings to Bill Clinton from us, Tom & Jerry''. . . . I was shocked by their arrogance. Of all the custom inspection services in the world, this should have been the most painless and most comfortable, especially since I did not break the law in any way. If a U.S. citizen travelling to Romania would be subjected to such humiliation and mockery, would probably say that Romanians are barbarians and the country is still communist. I honestly hope that you can imagine my frustration. The fact is that this incident with the opening and emptying of luggages in customs was not a first. In September 1996, at the International Airport in Portland, Oregon, I had another similar experience. Other colleagues and acquaintances have told me their experiences as well, leading me to the conclusion that some measures must be taken. What is the conception or the mentality of the U.S. Customs Officers pertaining to us Romanians who come in the United States as visitors? Why are we treated as 2nd class citizens (or even worse)? Why can't we feel welcomed into this great democratic country? Why are we Romanians different than other travellers? Or, if not considered different, then why are we treated differently? As a representative of Romanian people both in the Romanian Government and abroad in foreign relations, it is my duty to ask these questions and kindly appeal for your intervention to the proper departments in order to insure that the image United States is portraying to the Romanian tourists is a better one. Another great concern that I have pertaining to travelling in the United States is the procedure that the U.S. Department of State has established for Romanian applicants for visitor's visas. I have raised this issue in conversations with U.S. Ambassador to Romania James Rosapepe and the U.S. Consul, Mr. Patterson, and was told that my concern was not uncommon but unfortunately procedures are set in Washington DC. An application for a visitor's visa, which is, in fact, an interview tax, costs $45. Apart the fact that the applicant must demonstrate ``strong ties'' to the origin country and, therefore, for the U.S. Embassy to avoid the danger of a new immigrant, (demonstration that is not always taken into consideration on a consistent criteria basis), the applicant has to pay for the visa, for the travel to Bucharest in order to give an interview with the Consul, interview which occurs only 1 or 2 out of 10 applications, the rest being just useless conversations with some desk officer at the U.S. Consulate. A simple arithmetic shows that the applicant pays sometimes his or her monthly salary (an average salary in Romania is about $120/month) just to learn that he or she has been rejected and thus is not allowed to travel to the U.S. Should I mention to you also that rejected applicants never get back their money? Or is there a way to make money out of the sincere and legitimate desire of Romanians to travel to the U.S.? And when taking into consideration the original if not strange technique of the ``visa lottery'', one could picture a very commercial way to observe the universal right to free travel and circulation of any citizen of the world. I strongly believe that principles are to be observed not only by declarations, but also by facts. And people can feel the difference. I remember a demonstration in front of the U.S. Embassy when people were carrying slogans like: ``The Berlin's walls were moved to the U.S. Embassy''. Few years ago, talking to the U.S. consul in Bucharest about visa issues, I told him that the U.S. Government was accusing Ceausescu about restraining the Romanian's right to travel free and he replied that ``traveling to America is not a right, but a privilege''. U.S. citizens come to Romania without applying for a visa, nor paying for one (unless they stay longer than 30 days). I strongly believe that in the spirit of democracy, The United States Department should take measures to waive discriminating treatment and to envisage a reciprocal one. As an advocate for the democratic system of United States who has not given up under the pressure of communism, I come before you urging you to take this appeal in consideration. People of Romania are not 2nd class citizens, they are not beggars, nor criminals. We have our dignity and would like to be treated accordingly. We look up to the United States, to Americans, to anything that carrys a label ``made in America'' with open heart. Romanians want to be part of NATO and part of the Western culture, however, aspects of life such as ones mentioned here are making us believe that we are not welcomed. We are treated sometimes as we are not good enough to be worth a chance. I close this appeal by saying that I will continue to believe and to preach the model of democracy that United States offers to the world, while believing that these things are going to be dealt with properly. I thank you all for listening or reading this letter, for understanding our feelings and for taking action. Respectfully yours.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, later this week the Republic of Turkey will celebrate ``Children's Day'' as has been the custom every April 23rd since the early 1920s. Such festive occasions are important reminders of the wonderful blessing that children are to family and society alike. Regrettably, the joy of this celebration will not be shared by all children in Turkey. Recently, I chaired a hearing of the Helsinki Commission that reviewed human rights practices in Turkey, an original signatory to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. The disturbing testimony presented at that hearing underscored the vulnerability of children. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Harold Koh, cited the case of two-year-old Azat Tokmak to illustrate how terrible and dehumanizing the practice of torture is for everyone involved, including children. Azat was tortured, according to Mr. Koh, in an effort to secure a confession from her mother. He testified: ``In April [1998] the Istanbul Chamber of Doctors certified that Azat showed physical and psychological signs of torture after detention at an Istanbul branch of the anti-terror police. Azat's mother, Fatma Tokmak, was detained in December 1996 on suspicion of membership in the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Azat was burned with cigarettes and kicked in an effect to make her mother confess.'' Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a two-year-old child--a baby--being tortured by police. At the same March 18th hearing, Stephen Rickard, Director of the Washington Office of Amnesty International USA, observed, ``There is something Orwellian about calling units that torture and beat children and sexually assault their victims ``anti-terror'' police.'' Mr. Rickard displayed a photograph of Done Talun, a twelve-year-old girl from a poor neighborhood in Ankara, to give a human face to the problem of torture in Turkey. ``For five days, she was beaten and tortured while her frantic family asked for information about her whereabouts and condition,'' Rickard said. Done was accused of stealing some bread. Her torture reportedly occurred at the Ankara Police Headquarters. ``Is this young girl's case unique? Unfortunately, it is not,'' he concluded. Mr. Rickard presented the Commission with a recent AI report: ``Gross Violations in the Name of Fighting Terror: The Human Rights Record Of Turkey's `Anti-Terror' Police Units.'' The report includes a section on the torture of children. Mr. Douglas A. Johnson, Executive Director of the Center for Victims of Torture, testified that there are thirty-seven different forms of torture practiced in Turkey today. Addressing the torture of children, Johnson observed, ``twenty percent of our clients over the years were tortured when they were children, and usually that was to use them as a weapon against their parents,'' similar to the case of two-year-old Azat Tokmak. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Clinton Administration to press the Government of Turkey to eliminate the climate of impunity that has allowed children like Azat and Done to be subjected to such gross abuse at the hands of the police. Then, and only then, will children such as these--``the least of these''--be able to fully partake in the joy of this special Children's Day set aside to celebrate their lives and those of all children in Turkey.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise, along with my colleagues, in solemn commemoration of the events of April 24th, 1915. On that day, a group of leaders of the Armenian community in Turkey was murdered. That fateful day marked the beginning. By 1923, about a million and a half Armenians had been killed and 500,000 more had been deported. The Armenian community of the Ottoman Empire was uprooted, as this bloody century witnessed its first genocide. Many survivors came to the United States to rebuild their lives. As a community and as individuals, they attained remarkable successes, contributing greatly to their new homeland and consolidating Armenians' longstanding reputation for resourcefulness and resilience. But they never forgot their roots or their ancient homeland or the terrible wrong done to them. Our remarks today demonstrate our solidarity with them as they grieve over their losses, even while contemplating how much Armenia and Armenians have accomplished in this century. Every commemoration of the Armenian Genocide is somber. But 1999's ceremonies are especially so. After all these years, after all the invocations and prayers, after all the memorials, it is horrifying to realize that the century is ending as it began. Once again, a government is using all its instruments of war against a civilian population solely because of its ethnic and religious affiliation. In Kosovo, marauding soldiers and paramilitary groups are terrorizing and killing men, women and children, in the implementation of a deliberate policy devised by truly evil people, led by Slobodan Milosevic. The twisted drive for ``purity'' is bad enough when reflecting the sincere convictions of intolerant and unenlightened masses of people; but it is somehow even more awful when stirred and manipulated by cynical politicians, determined to hang on to power and willing to employ literally any means--even the most unconscionably savage--to do so. The worst instincts of the human heart are claiming new victims, despite our earnest pledges that such atrocities would never happen again. In this century, Armenian Christians, European Jews, and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia--among others--have been singled out as targets. The fate that has befallen them all demonstrates the universality of the lesson of their suffering. If the international community ignores the massacre of minorities, its perpetrators will be emboldened. Though nothing can compensate the Armenians for the losses of the genocide, the sacrifice they made earlier this century helped change the world's consciousness. I pray that we have learned from the hard lesson taught us by the Armenians and their sufferings. Days of commemoration are meant to honor those who have gone before us, and hopefully the lessons learned will provide some solace to the grieving on this sacred day.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the measure now under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 54) recognizing the historic significance of the first anniversary of the Good Friday Peace Agreement, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, next week the British and Irish governments will resume talks with the major political parties of Northern Ireland in an attempt to move the promises held in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, to try to move them from good rhetoric to actual implementation. This resolution that is being offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) is really a message of encouragement and hope. It urges all those who have worked so hard to achieve the Good Friday Agreement on paper to now rededicate themselves to the actual implementation of its provisions so that peace and justice will take root in the north of Ireland. Last year, by overwhelming majorities, the people of Ireland, both north and south, embraced the ideals put forth by this peace agreement. Only those who are enemies of peace and justice in Northern Ireland could be content with the prospect that the agreement may be stalled or parked as a result of new time lines and deadlines injected into the process. Instead, as friends of Northern Ireland and sponsors of this resolution, we call on the leaders of all parties to move beyond the current impasse, to stick to the agreement as approved, resist renegotiating or clarifying the promises it holds, and do whatever can be done to ensure that the guarantee of fundamental human rights for both communities of Northern Ireland remains the driving force behind all that is done and worked for. When the guarantee of fundamental human rights supersedes all other negotiation considerations, then we will see a just and lasting peace take hold in the north of Ireland. This resolution puts us on record as saying go forward, and I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his sponsorship of this very timely and important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his excellent statement and his leadership these many years on the issue of Northern Ireland, just to underscore how important it is that that investigation be completely independent of the RUC in order to procure a result that we know we can live with, and will hopefully yield the results and catch the perpetrators, because there are people who actually did the killing, and there are many others who are probably a part of that killing, and the officials need to get to the bottom. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), my good friend and another great leader in the cause of human rights in the north of Ireland.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his good, strong statement and for his work on this resolution. Let me close very briefly. British justifications for not having an independent inquiry were further undercut by the Northern Ireland Independent Commission on Police Complaints, which expressed doubts that the RUC could objectively address Mrs. Nelson's earlier allegations of police harassment and threats. The commission, after initially watching the RUC's investigation of itself, concluded that the RUC did not inspire confidence. The commission noted the need for independence and referred the matter to the metropolitan police in London for investigation even before Mrs. Nelson's tragic murder. That referral report has leaked out since Mrs. Nelson's murder, and it is a scathing indictment of the RUC and its indifference to her safety. For example, the report says that of the RUC officers involved in the investigation, that there was, ``observable hostility, evasiveness and disinterest. One officer attended the interview 45 minutes late without explanation and smelled of alcohol.'' It is time now to act independently, to encourage real independence in this investigation and Pat Finucane and for protection of all the defense attorneys in Northern Ireland. That is why this resolution sends that clear message to the British. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his fine work on this resolution and for helping us when we got to the full committee, and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), as was mentioned, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), one of the cosponsors. We have worked as a team, and I think this is a very important resolution for House consideration today. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today condemns the brutal murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Rosemary Nelson and calls for the British Government to launch an independent inquiry into Rosemary's killing. The resolution also calls for judicial inquiry into the allegations of official collusion in the 1989 murder of defense attorney Patrick Finucane and an independent investigation into broader allegations of harassment of defense attorneys by Northern Ireland's police force, known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the RUC. Rosemary Nelson was a champion of due process rights and a conscientious and courageous attorney in Northern Ireland. She was the wife of Paul Nelson and the mother of three young children: Sara, Gavin, and Christopher. Her murder, Mr. Speaker, on March 15, 1999, was a cowardly act by those who are the enemies of peace and enemies of justice in Northern Ireland. Her death is a loss felt not just by her family and friends but by all who advocate fundamental human rights. Consideration of this resolution today is particularly timely, as officials in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the U.K. continue to question the ability of the RUC to properly conduct this murder investigation. In fact, last week the European Parliament passed its own resolution, offered by Dublin's representative Bernie Malone, which calls for ``a fully independent team of investigators to conduct the inquiry as a means of securing confidence and objectivity.'' Anyone who knows anything about human rights in Northern Ireland would have little confidence that the RUC could produce a credible or a transparent or thorough investigation of the murder of a Catholic defense attorney. The history of intimidation of defense attorneys by the RUC has been documented by my subcommittee as well as by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Thus, Mr. Speaker, there is little reason to believe that Rosemary Nelson, who was mistreated by members of the RUC throughout her professional life as an attorney, would now be treated respectfully and justly in death. I first met Rosemary Nelson in Belfast a few years ago when she shared with me her genuine concern for the administration of justice in the Northern Ireland. She explained how, as an attorney, she had been physically and verbally assaulted by RUC members and how they sent death threats to her through her clients. Many of her clients were harassed as well. Notwithstanding these threats, Rosemary still carried an exhaustive docket which included several high-profile political cases, such as representing the family of Robert Hamill, who was beaten to death by a sectarian mob and representing the residents of Garvaghy Road in their bid to stop controversial marches through the neighborhood. Through her work, she became an international advocate for the rule of law and the right of the accused to a comprehensive defense and an impartial hearing of their case. For this, however, Rosemary was often the subject of harassment and intimidation. For her service to her clients, Rosemary Nelson paid the ultimate price with her life, the victim of a car bomb. Mr. Speaker, in September of last year, just 7 months ago, Rosemary testified before my subcommittee. She told us how she feared, she feared the RUC. She reported that she had been, quote, and I quote from her testimony, ``physically assaulted by a number of RUC officers'' and that the harassment included ``threats against my personal safety, including death threats.'' She said she had no confidence in receiving help from her government, because in the end her complaints about the RUC would be investigated by the RUC. Testifying along with Rosemary Nelson was a man by the name of Mr. Cumaraswamy, a U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, who led an extensive human rights investigative team to the UK and published a report in 1998. Mr. Cumaraswamy stated that he found evidence, and I quote him, of ``consistent and systematic,'' close quote, RUC harassment and intimidation of defense lawyers in Northern Ireland. His report was quite critical of the excessive authority granted to the RUC by the so-called ``emergency laws,'' and he expressed dismay that the government had not moved decisively to protect lawyers that were under threat. Mr. Cumaraswamy recommended a judicial inquiry into the threats and the intimidation of Rosemary Nelson and other defense attorneys. Last week at the UN Commission on Human Rights at their annual summit in Geneva, Mr. Cumaraswamy reported that in the years since the release of his report about the great dangers facing Northern Ireland's defense attorneys that the RUC had shown, and these are his words, ``complete indifference.'' He accused the RUC chief, Constable Ronnie Flanagan, and I quote him again, of ``allowing the situation to deteriorate,'' and like the rest of us, the Special Rapporteur says he has, and these are his words again, ``a nagging feeling that the RUC involvement in what is now a murder investigation could affect and taint the impartiality and the credibility of that investigation.'' And yet, our friends in the Blair government seem unmoved. Despite Rosemary Nelson's testimony, her concerns and the concerns now raised by human rights experts around the world, the British Government has forfeited the investigation of Rosemary Nelson's murder to the very agency she feared and mistrusted the most. It does not seem to phase them that a report just released by Northern Ireland's police watchdog, the government's Independent Commission for Police Complaints, the ICPC, said that RUC investigators investigating the death threats against Rosemary Nelson were themselves evasive and disinterested. It also found an ill-disguised hostility to Mrs. Nelson on the part of some police officers. Astonishingly, even the police from the bereaved family, even the pleas from the father himself, the husband and father of the three children, Paul Nelson; he went to Geneva just the other day, and his quote: ``If the ICPC had no confidence in the ability of the RUC to investigate the death threats against Rosemary, how can my family,'' he says, ``be expected to have confidence in their ability, indeed their willingness, to effectively investigate her murder?'' Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, the resolution before us today, truly captures Mr. Nelson's sense of despair and reflects the growing international consensus that the British Government needs to act decisively and remove any and all doubts about the investigation into Rosemary Nelson's murder. RUC Ronnie Flanagan has rejected the call for an RUC-free investigation and has instead been spinning his wheels trying to create the image of impartiality and external influence on his investigation. It does not cut, nobody is buying it, and we need now an RUC-free investigation. Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that the major international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, British/Irish Human Rights Watch, the Committee for the Administration of Justice, Human Rights Watch and the Geneva-based Commission of Jurists all support the call for an independent inquiry. That is what we tried to do in this resolution. The time is long past for this to happen, and I hope we get the full support of this body in support of this resolution. The resolution before us today condemns the brutal murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Rosemary Nelson and calls on the British Government to launch an independent inquiry into Rosemary's killing. The resolution also calls for a judicial inquiry into allegations of official collusion in the 1989 murder of defense attorney Patrick Finucane and an independent investigation into broader allegations of harassment of defense attorneys by Northern Ireland's police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). Rosemary Nelson was a champion of due process rights and a conscientious and courageous attorney in Northern Ireland. She was the wife of Paul Nelson and the mother of three young children: Sarah (8), Gavin (11), and Christopher (13). Her murder on March 15, 1999, was a cowardly act by those who are the enemies of peace and justice in Northern Ireland. Her death is a loss felt not just by her family and friends, but by all who advocate fundamental human rights. Consideration of this resolution today is particularly timely as officials in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom continue to question the ability of the RUC to properly conduct this murder investigation. In fact, last week, the European Parliament passed its own resolution--offered by Dublin's representative, Bernie Malone (MEP)--which calls for ``a fully independent team of investigators'' to conduct the inquiry as a means of securing confidence and objectivity. Anyone who knows anything about human rights in Northern Ireland would have little confidence that the RUC could produce a credible, transparent, thorough investigation of the murder of a Catholic defense attorney. The history of intimidation of defense attorneys by RUC members has been documented by my subcommittee, as well as by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Thus, there is little reason to believe that Rosemary Nelson, who was mistreated by members of the RUC throughout her professional life as an attorney, would now be treated respectfully and justly in death. I first met Rosemary Nelson in Belfast a few years ago, when she shared with me her genuine concern for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. She explained how, as an attorney, she had been physically and verbally assaulted by RUC members and how they sent death threats to her through her clients. Many of her clients were harassed as well. Notwithstanding these threats, Rosemary Nelson still carried an exhaustive docket which included several high profile political cases, such as representing the family of Robert Hamill, who was beaten to death by a sectarian mob, and representing the residents of Garvaghy Road in their bid to stop controversial marches in their neighborhood. Through her work, she became an international advocate for the rule of law and the right of the accused to a comprehensive defense and an impartial hearing. For this, however, Rosemary Nelson was often the subject of harassment and intimidation. For her service to her clients, Rosemary Nelson paid the ultimate price with her life--the victim of a car bomb. In September 1998--just 7 months ago--Rosemary testified before our subcommittee. She told us she feared the RUC. She reported that she had been ``physically assaulted by a number of RUC officers'' and that the harassment included, ``threats against my personal safety including death threats.'' She said she had no confidence in receiving help from her government because, she said, in the end her complaints about the RUC were investigated by the RUC. Testifying along with Rosemary Nelson was Mr. Param Cumaraswamy, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, who led an extensive human rights investigative mission to the United Kingdom and published a report in 1998. Mr. Cumaraswamy stated that he found evidence of ``consistent and systematic'' RUC harassment and intimidation of defense lawyers in Northern Ireland. His report was quite critical of the excessive authority granted to the RUC through the so-called ``emergency laws'' and he expressed dismay that the government had not moved decisively to protect lawyers under threat. Mr. Cumaraswamy recommended a judicial inquiry into the threats and intimidation Rosemary Nelson and other defense attorneys had received. He endorsed the establishment of a police ombudsman and he called on the British government to provide protection for defense attorneys who had been harassed. Today, it is hard not to wonder: if only the British Government had taken the Special Rapporteur's recommendations more seriously, Rosemary Nelson might have been better protected and still with us today. But last week, at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights annual summit in Geneva, Mr. Cumaraswamy reported that in the year since the release of the UN report about the grave dangers facing Northern Ireland's defense attorneys, the RUC has shown ``complete indifference.'' He accused RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan of ``allowing the situation to deteriorate.'' And like the rest of us, The Special Rapporteur says he has a ``nagging feeling'' that RUC involvement in what is now a murder investigation ``could affect and taint the impartiality and credibility of the investigation.'' And yet, the our friends in the Blair government seem unmoved. Despite Rosemary Nelson's testimony, her concerns, and the concerns now raised by human rights experts the world over, the British government has forfeited the investigation of Rosemary Nelson' murder to the very agency she feared and mistrusted most, the RUC. It doesn't seem to faze them that a report just released by Northern Ireland's police watchdog, the government's Independent Commission for Police Complaints (ICPC), said that RUC officers investigating the death threats against Rosemary Nelson were themselves ``evasive and disinterested.'' It also found an ``ill-disguised hostility to Mrs. Nelson on the part of some police officers.'' Astonishingly, even the pleas of the bereaved family have fallen on deaf ears at Stormont Castle. As a result, Rosemary Nelson's husband, Paul, went to Geneva last week to gain outside help in his push for an independent investigation into the murder of his wife. He has said very simply, ``if the ICPC had no confidence in the ability of the RUC to investigate the death threats against Rosemary, how can my family be expected to have confidence in their ability--indeed their willingness to effectively investigate her murder?'' The bill before us today captures Mr. Nelson's sense of despair and reflects the growing international consensus that the British Government needs to act decisively to remove any and all doubts about the investigation into Rosemary Nelson's murder. RUC Chief Ronnie Flanagan has rejected the call for an RUC-free investigation and has instead been spinning his wheels trying to create an image of impartiality and external influence in his investigation. But, it's all an illusion. While the Chief Constable's diversionary tactics have flattered some--even one or two in our own FBI--the people in the affected community have not been fooled. This week, both the Irish News and the Irish Times reported that despite Mr. Flanagan's posturing about external influences on the investigation, community witnesses ``have been reluctant to talk to the police.'' And who can blame them? Local residents remain skeptical of the RUC's window dressing and have no confidence in an investigation that has already swapped one non-RUC lead investigator for another. They don't buy an investigation that advertises itself as a 50-member ``outside'' investigate force even though 40 members of the team are RUC and only 10 are not. They have low expectations and little trust in an ``investigative team'' that tells people its working hard on the crime but can't get the date of the murder right and issues a telephone hotline number that's already been disconnected or never put in service. The camouflage on Mr. Flanagan's so-called independent, outside inquiry has already worn thin. Because of the documented, open hostility that RUC officers displayed towards Rosemary Nelson, the RUC simply does not have the credibility to answer the burdensome questions: Who killed Rosemary Nelson? Who ordered her murder? And did the RUC officers who threatened her life in the past either instigate, condone, or cover-up her killing? In order for this investigation to be beyond reproach, and to have the confidence and cooperation of the Catholic community that Rosemary Nelson adeptly represented, it must be organized, managed, directed and run by someone other than the RUC. Anything short of that may have surface appeal, but it still leaves too much of the grueling investigation under the charge of an organization of which the murder victim herself was extremely suspect, and to whom the local people are afraid to talk. The major international human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, British/Irish Human Rights Watch, the Committee for the Administration of Justice, Human Rights Watch and the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurist support the call for an independent inquiry. Mr. Speaker, one of the major tenets of the 1998 ``Good Friday Agreement'' is its promise of an acceptable police force that will secure due process rights--rather than thwart them--for members of both communities in Northern Ireland. The success of the peace process is predicated on the government's ability to deliver on a police force that will protect fundamental human rights and to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that injustices such as harassment of defense attorneys and the murders of Patrick Finucane and Rosemary Nelson will be investigated by top-notch, dedicated and impartial personnel. For these reasons, I urge final passage of this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.