Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the ranking member of my subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for working with me and with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) to help bring this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 562 addresses the difficult subject of claims arising from uncompensated property confiscation by totalitarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. House Resolution 562 stemmed from a Helsinki Commission hearing that I held in 1996 that examined the efforts underway to restore plundered properties in Central and Eastern Europe. One of the witnesses at that hearing explained that under the international law and practice, the U.S. government is only able to seek compensation from foreign governments on behalf of property claimants who were American citizens at the time that their property was taken. In contrast, claimants who were not American citizens when their property was taken have at their disposal only the domestic law of their former country, even if they later became naturalized American citizens. Mr. Speaker, this resolution urges countries to pass laws that will commit their governments to return plundered properties to their rightful owners, or, when actual return of property is not possible, to provide prompt, just, and effective compensation. This compensation language derives from the Bonn agreement on the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in which the participating states, including those in Central and Eastern Europe, recognized the ``right to prompt compensation in the event private property is taken for public use.'' This resolution also urges countries that have adopted restitution and compensation laws to implement those laws effectively and expeditiously. By adopting this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Congress will lend its voice and persuasive power to that of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, which have both passed strongly-worded and similarly-worded resolutions calling on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to adopt legislation for the restitution of plundered properties. I hope this will have the full support of the body. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman, and the Ranking Member of my Subcommittee, Representative Tom Lantos, for working with me to bring this resolution to the floor. Similar legislation was introduced in the 104th Congress, reintroduced in this Congress, and offered as an amendment to the foreign relations authorization bill which has not been passed by the Congress. H. Res. 562 is cosponsored by my colleagues Mr. Gilman, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Fox, and by my fellow members of the Helsinki Commission: Mr. Christensen, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Salmon, and Mr. Markey. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 562 addresses the difficult subject of claims arising from uncompensated property confiscations by totalitarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. Throughout much of this century, individuals and religious communities in Central and Eastern Europe saw their private property plundered by totalitarian regimes. In particular, Communist regimes expropriated real property, personal property, financial property, business property, and religious property in fulfillment of a main tenet of communism--the abolition of private property. Moreover, Communist-era expropriations often compounded Fascist-era wrongs. The restitution of property in Central and Eastern Europe today has a multitude of possible effects: restitution will demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law, will advance these countries in the establishment of free market economies, will encourage foreign investment, will help the newly-democratic regimes distance themselves from their totalitarian predecessors, and will provide a measure of justice to the victims of fascism and communism. H. Res. 562 stemmed from a 1996 Helsinki Commission hearing that examined the efforts underway to restore plundered properties in Central and Eastern Europe. Our witnesses at that hearing--Stuart Eizenstat, then the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade and the U.S. Special Envoy for Property Claims in Central and Eastern Europe, and Delissa Ridgway, the then-Chairwoman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission--explained that under international law and practice, the United States Government is only able to seek compensation from foreign governments on behalf of property claimants who were American citizens at the time their property was taken. Under one common scenario, the United States obtains payment of such claims by having the Secretary of State, on behalf of the President, negotiate a government-to-government settlement agreement that settles a block of claims by American citizens against the foreign government in exchange for a lump-sum payment from the foreign government to the United States. Before or after such a settlement is reached, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC)--an independent, quasi-judicial Federal agency within the Department of Justice--determines the validity and valuation of property claims of U.S. nationals against that foreign government. The FCSC informs the Secretary of the Treasury of the results of the FCSC's adjudications and the Secretary of the Treasury then distributes funds from the lump-sum settlement on a pro rata basis to the U.S. nationals that obtained awards from the FCSC. In contrast, claimants who were not American citizens when their property was taken have at their disposal only the domestic law of their former country, even if they later became naturalized American citizens. Considering these realities, Congress has a role in helping enable these dispossessed property owners to file claims in their former homelands with a real possibility of achieving a just resolution. Since that 1996 hearing, the Helsinki Commission has actively encouraged the governments in Central and Eastern Europe to adopt nondiscriminatory property restitution laws and has sought to intervene on behalf of several claimants whose rights under existing restitution and compensation laws are not being respected. While some progress has been made, the Helsinki Commission nonetheless continues to receive hundreds of letters from American and foreign citizens with unresolved property claims in Central and Eastern Europe. The writers plead for help from the Helsinki Commission and from Congress. Many have been struggling for seven or eight years to regain possession of their family properties. Many are elderly and are losing hope that they will ever recover their property. The issues addressed by this resolution are timely and, Mr. Speaker, they demand our attention. Some countries in the region have not yet adopted restitution or compensation laws. In those that have, certain requirements imposed on claimants involve so many conditions and qualifications that something just short of a miracle seems necessary for the return of any property. In Communist countries, expropriated properties were often given to Communist party officials or collaborators. In many cases, these former officials still live in the properties. Regrettably, a number of the democratic governments now in place are stalling and delaying the return of those properties to their rightful owners. Worse yet, some governments are offering meager compensation to the rightful owners and then allegedly reselling the properties for a profit that the State then pockets. The resolution urges countries to pass laws that will commit their governments to return plundered properties to their rightful owners or, when actual return of property is not possible, to provide ``prompt, just and effective compensation.'' This compensation language derives from the Bonn Document of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (now the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe) in which the participating States, including those in Central and Eastern Europe, recognized the ``right to prompt compensation in the event private property is taken for public use.'' The resolution also urges countries that have adopted restitution or compensation laws to implement those laws effectively. Several examples help illustrate the state of affairs in Central and Eastern Europe with respect to property restitution. The Helsinki Commission staff met recently with a group known as the Committee for Private Property that has collected information from more than fifteen hundred people with outstanding restitution claims in Romania. Most of these claimants are American citizens--hundreds of whom filed legal claims in Romania and followed the proper judicial process to obtain decrees reinstating their property titles. After obtaining what they believed to be final and irrevocable decrees, the property owners began paying taxes on their properties or, in at least one case, thousands of dollars due on an old mortgage, only to have the Romanian Special Prosecutor appeal the cases to the Supreme Court and win reversals of the judicial decisions. On the other hand, some positive advancements have been made in regard to communal property restitution in Romania. In April 1997, the Romanian Government adopted a resolution restoring Jewish community ownership rights over six buildings, including the National Jewish Theater, and issued a May 1997 decree that established a committee with joint government and community participation to review communal property claims. This past June, the Romanian Government pledged to return an additional seventeen buildings to several minority ethnic communities. These efforts are positive steps forward in the restitution of more than three thousand communal properties, such as orphanages, cultural centers, apartment buildings, ethnic community centers, and houses of worship, lost by religious and minority communities under communism. Regrettably, however, legislation to return properties to the Greek Catholic Church was blocked in Romania's parliament last year and has yet to be enacted. Another group, American Owners of Property in Slovenia, has also contacted the Commission about property claims. This group estimates that a least 500 emigres from the former Yugoslavia are now American citizens with property claims in Slovenia. Despite clear mandates in Slovenia's restitution and compensation law requiring action on filed claims within one year, government officials have not implemented the law; the vast majority of claims remain pending without resolution seven years after the law was passed and five years after the filing deadline. Of the approximately 40,000 applications filed by the 1993 deadline, only 35 percent of the individual claims filed had been resolved by the end of 1997; sixty-five percent of the claims had received no action or only dilatory action. The Slovenian Government has not shown the political will to return property and has failed to take the administrative measures needed to implement the legislation. Moreover, it is of particular concern that this past September, the Slovenian parliament adopted amendments to its restitution law that contain numerous provisions that may further restrict the ability of victims of the Communist regime to regain ownership and access to their properties. Similarly, in Lithuania, despite enactment of a restitution and compensation law, Lithuanian Government officials also appear disinclined to return properties. Property claimants there encounter a variety of roadblocks to restitution, including citizenship requirements, unreasonable bureaucratic delays, and the sudden, suspicious inclusion of claimed properties on an official ``Register of Immovable Cultural Properties'' as the basis for non-restitution. In one case, Mr. Vytautas Sliupas, an American with dual Lithuanian citizenship, has struggled for seven years to regain ownership and possession of inherited property in Palanga, Lithuania. One building is controlled by the Ministry of Culture and Education and is reportedly used by the National Museum of Lithuania primarily as a vacation site for Museum personnel The second property is controlled by the City of Palanga and is rented to a commercial entity. These properties belong to Mr. Sliupas' family and were nationalized, without compensation, by the Communist regime. In 1993, the Minister of Culture and Education issued an official letter stating that the Ministry agreed to return the first property to Mr. Sliupas. In 1997, the City of Palanga passed a resolution to return the second property to Mr. Sliupas. Nonetheless, the groups occupying the properties have failed to comply with the orders to vacate. Mr. Sliupas has sought unsuccessfully to obtain the assistance of various government entities, including the courts, in enforcing his right to regain possession of these properties. The Lithuanian Government recently informed the Helsinki Commission that the property has been placed on the Register of Immovable Cultural Properties and, therefore, cannot be restituted to Mr. Sliupas. In Croatia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and other countries, the existing restitution and compensation laws only allow people who are currently residents or citizens of the country to apply for restitution. The Czech Republic's citizenship requirement discriminates almost exclusively against individuals who lost their Czech citizenship because they chose the United States as their refuge from communism; as many as 8,000-10,000 Czech-Americans are precluded from even applying for restitution or compensation because of this requirement. Citizenship and residency requirements have been found to violate the nondiscrimination clause of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international agreement that these countries have voluntarily signed onto, and yet the countries mentioned have been unwilling to eliminate the restrictions. The resolution calls on these countries to remove citizenship or residency requirements from their restitution and compensation laws. Mr. Speaker, the examples given only begin to show the obstacles faced by property claimants in formerly totalitarian countries. This past August, Stuart Eizenstat--now the Under Secretary of State or Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs and the U.S. Special Envoy for Property Claims in Central and Eastern Europe--testified before the International Relations Committee about the need for Congress to pass a resolution that encourages Central and East European countries to return wrongfully expropriated property. While that hearing focused on Holocaust-era assets, in reality many Holocaust victims who suffered the loss of their property at the hands of the Nazis were victimized again by Communist regimes. I comment Under Secretary Eizenstat for his tireless efforts on behalf of Holocaust victims and I hope that the Untied States Government will make property restitution and compensation a priority in Central and Eastern Europe--as it has done in Cuba, Nicaragua and other countries. By adopting this resolution, the Congress will add its voice and persuasive power to that of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament which have both passed strongly worded resolutions calling on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to adopt legislation for the restitution of plundered properties. For the record, I would ask that a reference list of provisions, form international law and agreements, relating to property rights and the restitution of property be printed following my statement. H. Res. 562 signals the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that the United States is concerned with the urgent return of plundered property to individuals and religious communities. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 562 and to join me and the other cosponsors of this resolution in pressing for a fair, timely and just property restitution and compensation process in formerly totalitarian countries. Mr. Speaker, I include the following materials relating to this resolution: Non-discrimination Clause of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 26: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 562) concerning properties wrongfully expropriated by formerly totalitarian governments.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 I traveled to Beijing, where I cochaired the Congressional delegation, along with my good friend and colleague the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) to the Fourth World Conference on Women. I had many reactions to the conference, but one of the most vivid impressions was how difficult it was to get straight answers to some of the most basic questions, such as who was running the conference and who was paying for it. One of the very hardest things to find out was the exact cost to the American taxpayer. At the time of the Beijing conference itself, we knew only that the State Department's total annual budget for international conferences that year was $6 million, and most of the amount was budgeted for smaller and less extravagant international meetings. So our participation in Beijing should have cost perhaps $1 million, certainly no more. Yet the facts on the ground were very different. It took five months and a GAO report to Congress to learn the true extent of U.S. costs on the Beijing conference. It turned out to be $5.9 million, spread out among the budgets of 13 different Federal agencies and the White House. The State Department's reported expenditures were just under $1 million, but they comprised only about one-sixth of the total cost to the U.S. taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today would ensure that Congress and the taxpayers have complete and accurate information on what it costs to send Federal officials and employees overseas to international conferences, no matter what the subject is. The bill is similar to an amendment introduced by Senator John Ashcroft which was ultimately included in H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act. The bill takes a moderate balanced approach to the problem. It imposes no unreasonable reporting requirements on the administration. In fact, the bill reflects many of the administration's own suggestions for improving the provision during the conference on H.R. 1757. For instance, the bill requires no reports on travel to international conferences by the President, the Vice President or Federal officials or employees carrying out intelligence-related activities or performing protective junctions or engaged in sensitive diplomatic missions. Other Federal officials and employees attending international conferences, and they comprise the vast majority, would be required to report their expenses, the duration of the travel and the name of the authorizing official. The reports will be submitted to the State Department's Office of International Conferences, and the department will file a report to the Congress every six months. So this legislation would help the State Department, as well as Congress and the American people, get a handle on who the various Federal agencies are sending to international conferences. Mr. Speaker, U.S. participation in international conferences in many cases is useful and necessary, but it should not take a GAO report to Congress to find out who we are sending and how much it costs. I think Senator Ashcroft should be thanked for this very important initiative, and I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the full Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Helms, Senator Gramm and Senator Biden and others for their contributions and their staffs as this was being shaped during the conference on H.R. 1757. This a good resolution. Hopefully it will have the full support of the body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4805) to require reports on travel of Executive branch officers and employees to international conferences, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, 14 years after the successful completion of the Yanuba Power and Desalination plant in Saudi Arabia, New Jersey-based Hill International is still fighting for payment for the work done by its former subsidiary Gibbs and Hill. As many of my colleagues know, historically, U.S. firms have had difficulty collecting payment from the Saudi government for work done in Saudi Arabia. It got so bad that, in 1993, Congress ordered the Department of Defense to investigate the claims and report on all outstanding billings. Of all the claims identified by former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, only one, the Gibbs and Hill claim, remains unpaid. Mr. Speaker, nobody in Saudi Arabia claims that the work done by Gibbs and Hill was inadequate nor was it incomplete. In fact, the Saudi government points with pride to the plant. They just do not want to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, both the House and the Senate have passed my legislation requiring the Department of State, Commerce, and Defense to aggressively pursue a resolution with the Saudi government and report back to Congress. Recently, Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Ambassador Martin Indyk, assured me and the full Committee on International Relations he will aggressively press this. The time has long come to pay this bill. In 1993 the Saudis promised Secretary Aspen that they would ``spare no efforts in resolving these additional claims in a fair and expeditious manner.'' Many here in Congress have worked hard to get the Saudis to make good on their promise. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, I have raised the issue of unpaid bills to every appropriate member of the Clinton Administration at the State Department and DOD. I've spoken with our Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler. And my colleagues and I have pushed this issue directly with Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar. Yet, the bill still goes unpaid. I hope that will be enough. It is time the Saudis get the message, not just from Congress, but from the Clinton Administration as well, We will not sit idle as the Saudi government tries to cheat an American company for a job well done.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for introducing this legislation and for giving us this opportunity as a body, Democrats and Republicans, to express our condolences not just to the American families but also to those in Kenya and Tanzania who lost loved ones or had loved ones hurt very severely, and also to thank the countries of Kenya and Tanzania for the cooperation they have given in trying to apprehend these cowardly terrorists. Let me also remind the body that within hours of that horrific act, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the ranking member on the Helsinki Commission, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I convened a press conference on the grassy triangle. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and others were all very supportive of that. We made it clear that no terrorist should take any solace in any bickering that they may see going on in the Capitol of Washington; that whatever the President's problems may be, we are united in our fight against terrorism; that we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder in trying to apprehend terrorists; and that when you pick on Americans, when you go after Americans, we are absolutely united. I think that message is coming across. This resolution will help. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for bringing us this important resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding this time to me, and I am very pleased to urge passage of H. Con. Res. 295, giving recognition and honor to the victims of the Soviet-engineered Ukraine famine of 1932-1933 by remembering this tragedy during its 65th anniversary. The Ukrainian famine, Madam Speaker, is one of the most devastating tragic events of the 20th century, a stark reminder of man's inhumanity to man. The scope and depth of this tragedy has been documented in many books, including such seminal works as Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow, and by the comprehensive report of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine created by Congress in the 1980s to study the famine. One only has to read some of the eyewitness accounts of survivors included in the famine commission report to appreciate the incalculable yet completely avoidable human suffering experienced at that time in the Ukraine. The truth of the matter is, Madam Speaker, that the 1932-1933 famine engineered by Soviet Dictator Stalin could have been prevented. Its 7 million victims did not die from natural causes, but because of the policies designed to punish the Ukrainian people for their opposition to Soviet rule. One of the findings of the 1988 Report to Congress of the Ukraine Famine Commission characterizes the famine with chilling succinctness, stating, and I quote: ``Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932 to 1933.'' The famine indeed constituted genocide, Madam Speaker, with Stalin using food as a political weapon to achieve his aim of suppressing any Ukrainian expression of political and cultural identity and self- assertion. The Ukrainian famine is a glaring illustration of the brutality of a totalitarian, imperialistic regime in which respect for human rights is a mockery and the rule of law is a sham. This man-made famine would have been impossible in an independent, democratic country which respected human rights and the rule of law. The Ukraine is slowly, Madam Speaker, if unevenly, overcoming the legacy of the brutal Soviet Communist rule as it moves to consolidate its democracy, its market economy and full respect for human rights; and it is fitting and proper, I would finally say, that this country, through its foreign aid, through its investments, support those who aspire to democracy in the Ukraine and also to try to alleviate at least some of the suffering those people are experiencing. Madam Speaker, just let me say finally that we have had hearings in our subcommittee, we have had hearings in the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I chair. One of those hearings, one of the most telling and devastating that I have ever chaired, was to hear what the aftermath, the consequences, will be from the near meltdown at Chernobyl and the cancers that are proliferating, particularly among small and now growing children, adolescents, and into adulthood. It is like a time bomb for those people, and we need to do more to try to mitigate some of that suffering. But the famine, as this resolution clearly points out, was man-made with this resolution we say, ``Never again.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and express my deep gratitude to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for authoring it and for helping to bring it to the floor today and to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his strong support for it and also to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for the very powerful words they have expressed on this floor, and to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Madam Speaker, the self-styled ``international community'' has displayed an unseemly haste in trying to persuade the pro-democracy parties in Cambodia--which between them soundly defeated the dictator Hun Sen in the recent election, despite the regime's attempt to intimidate voters and to silence the opposition--hey have tried to get them to fold their tents and just slink away into oblivion. But to their credit, the democratic opposition has refused to give up. This is because they know Hun Sen and his government all too well. They know that he is a monster, as the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out a moment ago. He is bloodthirsty. He kills. They know that as a Khmer Rouge commander who split with Pol Pot, he did it not out of some moral principle, but in a factional power struggle. They know that he has killed many of his political opponents, probably by the thousands, and will kill more if he is given the opportunity. And they know that the only hope for Cambodia is for the forces of freedom and democracy to hold on as long as they can. This resolution comes at a very timely moment. It will give them some hope, yes, maybe a small and modest amount of hope, but it will give them some hope that those of us in the international community, those of us in the People's House know what is going on and we stand in solidarity with those pro-democratic forces. It is a very good resolution. I hope it has the unanimous support of the House of Representatives. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for their leadership in bringing this to the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his work on this important legislation and all of these human rights initiatives. He has been steadfast and I for one--and I know I speak for many--appreciate it deeply. I thank my friend for his kind words, and also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the principal cosponsor of this legislation, along with 30 other bipartisan Members who have cosponsored H.R. 4309. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. This legislation provides $31 million over 2 years to help heal and to mitigate at least some of the agony and some of the suffering that is truly unfathomable, for those who have endured grotesque torture around the world. We have heard testimony time and time again that torture persists in many, many despotic countries. We have also heard from those who have suffered and their advocates on what steps the United States and other free countries ought to take to try to lessen some of that suffering. Those who suffer cruelty at the hands of these governments usually bear the scars, physically, emotionally, and psychologically, for the rest of their lives. For most, if not all, the ordeal of torture does not end when they are released from a gulag, a laogai or a prison camp. These victims, Mr. Speaker--and there are millions of them around the world and an estimated 400,000 survivors of torture living in the United States--need our help. To date, we have done far too little to assist these walking wounded. The Torture Victims Relief Act contains a number of important provisions designed to assist torture victims. First, Mr. Speaker, it authorizes grants for rehabilitation services for victims of torture and related purposes in both domestic and foreign treatment centers. Specifically, the bill authorizes $12.5 million, $5 million in fiscal year 1999, and $7.5 million in fiscal year 2000, from the Department of Health and Human Services for contributions to centers of treatment for victims of torture in the United States. There are currently 15 of those centers. I want especially to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for working with us on this, because that money comes from a different spigot, not a foreign aid spigot, and he came forward and was very helpful. Also, I thank Senator Rod Grams on the Senate side for helping us get that money from that particular source. The legislation also authorizes an additional $5 million in 1999, $7.5 million in fiscal year 2000 for international torture victim centers. There are currently about 175 of those centers around the world. All of these centers, Mr. Speaker, both domestic and international, are seriously underfunded. As a matter of fact, the Denmark-based International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, the IRCT, estimates the worldwide need for assisting victims of torture to be about $28 million and only a small portion of that has been met. H.R. 4309 also authorizes a voluntary contribution from the United States to the U.N. Voluntary Fund to the Victims of Torture in the amount of $3 million in 1999 and another $3 million in 2000. I am proud to say that our bipartisan efforts have already had an effect, because we have been pushing this bill for a number of years now. In 1995, the U.S. contribution was $1.5 million, when we originally introduced this bill in the 104th Congress. The administration had proposed to cut the fiscal year 1996 contribution by two-thirds to $500,000. Eventually, in response to the bipartisan support for this initiative, they put it up to $1.5 million. Now we will increase that to $3 million each fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, the bill also provides specialized training for foreign service officers in the identification of evidence of torture, techniques for interviewing torture victims, and related subjects. Finally, the bill contains an expression of the Sense of Congress that the United States shall use its voice and its vote in the United Nations to support the investigation and elimination of practices prohibited by the Convention Against Torture. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that whatever one's religion is--and I am a Christian, I am a Catholic, and others' sentiments come out of their deeply-held faiths--but one of the scriptures that motivates me is Matthew's gospel, the 25th chapter, when our Lord said, whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do likewise to me. Whether it be the unborn or a persecuted believer, Baha'i, a Jewish person, whatever, at any given time he or she can be the least of our brethren. We need to stand up for those people. In keeping with that scripture, I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation helps those people after they have been abused to get through that crisis and come to healing and to reconciliation with the trouble and ordeal they have experienced. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one final point. Grover Joseph Rees, the chief counsel and staff director of the Subcommittee on International Operations and of Human Rights, is the reason this legislation is on the floor, and I do want to thank him for his steadfast work on it. He used to be the general counsel at INS. He knows the inside of that building, and that is why we hired him on the committee, but, more importantly, he knows what is going on around the world and has been absolutely invaluable in these kinds of issues, whether it be religious freedom or in the case of this assistance to the torture victims. So I want to thank Joseph for his excellent work on this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), our chairman, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me begin by expressing my deep gratitude to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his courage and persistence in pushing this important bill through the long and arduous road to final passage. Frankly, I am disappointed, and I know many of my colleagues are, that the Senate amendments have somewhat weakened our bill. For example, the House had given the President a great deal of flexibility in deciding whether to impose sanctions against governments that severely persecute religious believers, but the Senate stretches flexibility almost to the breaking point. I am informed that this was necessary in order to avoid a filibuster. Even with the Senate amendments, let me say very clearly that the bill creates what I sincerely hope will be a strong and independent Commission on International Religious Freedom, which can be a voice on behalf of persecuted people around the world, and it provides modest but important safeguards for refugees and asylum seekers. I just wanted to make it very clear that our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, will work with the Commission and watch closely to ensure that it acts boldly and in an unfettered way to expose religious persecution wherever and whenever it exists, even when it is not politically expedient. Mr. Speaker, recently the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights held a hearing for the purpose of taking testimony from 5 witnesses to religious persecution: a Catholic from Pakistan, a Protestant from Cuba, a Muslim from East Turkestan, a Buddhist from Tibet, and a Ba'hai from Iran, each of whom had witnessed religious persecution firsthand. Each of these people had seen close friends or relatives imprisoned, tortured, even executed for their faith, or had suffered such horrors themselves. Each presented compelling and recent evidence that religious persecution is not a problem that will go away if we just pretend that it does not exist. This hearing was the latest in a series of hearings that our subcommittee has had, focusing in whole or in part on the persecution of religious believers. Other hearings focused on worldwide anti- Semitism; on the persecution of Christians around the world; on the 1995 massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica; on the enslavement of black Christians in the Sudan; and on the use of torture against religious believers and other prisoners of conscience. We have heard from Palden Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist monk who displayed--actually brought into the House, into our committee room-- the instruments of torture that had been used against him by his communist jailers from the PRC. We heard from Hasan Nuhanovic, a Muslim who unsuccessfully begged, begged the United Nations peacekeepers, UNPROFOR, not to turn his mother, father and brother over to the murderous Bosnian Serb militia. We heard from a Russian Jewish member of parliament who observed, and I quote, that ``anti-Semitism was the first industry to be privatized in the post-Soviet Russia.'' We heard from the Karen refugees whose villages in Thailand were burned by the Burmese military dictatorship, which openly used their Christian religion as an excuse to conduct cross-border raids against them; and from Christians and Buddhists subjected to imprisonment and torture by the communist governments of China and Vietnam. Wherever we hear from victims themselves, and whenever we hear from those victims, they make it very clear that the United States should press hard for an end to religious persecution abroad. This is important because the Clinton administration and some business people who had opposed the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act have suggested that by publicly demanding an end to the mistreatment of these people, we are more likely to hurt them than help them. Personally, I believe it may be true occasionally in the short run that a totalitarian dictatorship used to being coddled by the United States Government will react with anger when we suddenly insist that they behave in a responsible and civilized fashion. This is true whether the issue is religious persecution, nuclear proliferation, or anything else. In the long run, however, as we learned from the apartheid fight, these governments will act in their own self-interest. If we send them a strong and consistent message that economic and other benefits of a close relationship with the U.S. can be expected to flow to a government if and only if that government treats its own people decently, we are likely to save lives and promote human rights and freedom in the long run. Whatever we do to other governments that persecute religious believers, it is also important that the U.S. put its own house in order. One way we can do this is to monitor and improve our treatment of refugees, with special reference to religious refugees. Unfortunately, in recent years, the U.S. commitment to refugees, both in the amount we spend on protection overseas and the number of refugees we admit into the U.S., has declined sharply. In the last 4 years, our State Department has asked for and gotten a raise for itself every single year. Yet, the only major account in the Department that has not asked for an increase is the refugee budget. The administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request for refugees was $63 million lower than the amount we spent in fiscal year 1995. And this is when the world is absolutely awash in refugees. The number of refugees admitted to the U.S. has gone down in this administration from 130,000 to 75,000 in only 4 years. These declining resettlement rates encourage first-asylum countries to forcibly repatriate refugees to countries where they face serious danger. For example, in recent years we have seen Tibetan Buddhists forced back from Nepal into the hands of the Chinese Communists, and Iranian Christians and Bahais forced back to Iran from Turkey. We need to reverse that trend and restore the American tradition of a safe haven for the oppressed. In the words of President Ronald Reagan, the United States can and must be ``a shining city on a hill.'' Finally, I want to address those critics who suggest that by paying special attention to religious persecution, we somehow diminish the importance of those who have suffered persecution for other reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is no accident that those in Congress who have been the strongest in their support of persecuted believers also have stood up for all the other human rights issues as we have tried to deal with them in this body. Again, I want to just ask all of my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a compromise; it does not go nearly as far as I would like to see it, as far as the House passed it, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), has spent 18 years fighting against religious persecution and deserves the lion's share of credit. He is the one who made this a reality today, and I want to thank him for his great work.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of New Jersey's broadcasters and the New Jersey Broadcasters Association who have worked in partnership to help focus public attention on some of the key concerns for residents in my state. While radio and television stations are required to address important public issues, New Jersey broadcasters have worked hard to exceed their responsibilities. New Jersey's television and radio stations have raised over $1 million for charitable causes and donated over $3 million in air-time for public service projects. Broadcasters in my state have raised money to build new housing for needy families, provided gifts for children during the Christmas holidays, and helped many individuals who were victimized by natural disasters. Stations in New Jersey have donated countless hours of public affairs programming and public service announcements aimed at educating residents about alcohol abuse, anti-crime initiatives, and efforts to fight poverty and hunger. Additionally, two-thirds of the radio stations in New Jersey have made it their policy to offer free air-time to political candidates. The median value of the air-time totaled $27,000 per station. Radio and television stations have done much to provide important information for people throughout New Jersey. Their important charitable fund raising, coordinated through the New Jersey Broadcasters Association, has helped enhance the quality of life for many of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Phil Roberts, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Broadcasters Association and all the people who work at New Jersey's radio and television stations for their commitment and dedication to the people of New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, survivors struggled to build their lives, and nobody knows this better than the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I want to commend him for bringing this legislation to the floor, for authoring it and for the very important provisions that it contains. Mr. Speaker, Holocaust victims in Western countries generally received some compensation, some monetary compensation, from Germany, albeit very limited. Those victims whose homelands fell behind the Iron Curtain after World War II did not receive even this slight measure of justice. Other issues related to the Holocaust era, including the disposition of assets such as real or financial property, artwork, insurance policy proceeds, went unresolved for all of these individuals, as well as for religious communities. Mr. Speaker, a belated measure of justice, and again, this is infinitesimally small compared to the unparalleled, horrific nature of the Holocaust, is within reach. Much has been achieved, including unprecedented settlements between Holocaust survivors, Swiss banks and European insurance companies. Building on this momentum, as was pointed out, the State Department and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum will convene a Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets next month to address issues of Nazi-confiscated assets, including art, insurance, communal property, libraries and archives, as well as Holocaust education, research and remembrance. Conference participants will include government officials from over 40 countries, historians, experts and representatives of major NGOs, including the survivor community. Mr. Speaker, this resolution should not and could not be considered at a more opportune moment. The resolution calls on countries to return expropriated properties to Holocaust victims or their heirs without arbitrary discrimination. It calls for the opening of archives relating to the Nazi-era and for the continued prosecution of Nazi-era war criminals. It calls on Germany to provide reparations to all Holocaust victims without delay and without the use of unreasonable eligibility criteria. And of very real importance, this resolution calls on all countries to encourage education on the history of the Holocaust and the consequences of the failure to respect human rights. It is a great resolution, very timely and important and I urge its passage.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to improve the quality of research on pervasive developmental disorders like autism. My legislation--The Autism Statistics, Surveillance, Research, and Epidemiology Act of 1998 (ASSURE)--will provide critical support for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) ongoing efforts to better quantify the incidence and prevalence rates of autism and its related developmental disorders. This legislation was crafted in close cooperation with the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR), the developmental disabilities experts at CDC, as well as with service providers from my district. It is an important health care and medical research bill which I urge all members to support. According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``autism is a serious life-long developmental disability characterized by impaired social interactions, an inability to communicate with others, and repetitive or restrictive behaviors.'' It is estimated that autism affects one out of every 500 children, although precise rates are unknown. There is also a general consensus that autism rates seem to be increasing, although it is not known whether these increases represent a better understanding the developmental disability (i.e., better diagnosis), or an actual increase in developed cases of autism. The story behind the creation of this legislation is in many ways illustrative of why we need to pass and enact the ASSURE act when Congress reconvenes next year. For it was only after I had a meeting with a pair of courageous parents of autistic children in Brick Township that I realized the pressing need for better autism research. Mr. and Mrs. William and Bobby Gallagher, the parents of two beautiful children with autism, met with me in the summer of last year to share their concerns that Brick Township seemed to have an abnormally high number of children diagnosed with autism. After presenting me with preliminary data suggesting that as many as 27 children may have been diagnosed with autism in Brick over the last decade, I relayed their concerns personally to Len Fishman, Commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Health and Senior Services. I asked him to initiate a preliminary inquiry to determine if an autism ``cluster'' investigation was warranted. Commissioner Fishman was very receptive to the concerns of the Brick parents, particularly since the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) and the Ocean County Department of Health, in conjunction wit the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and disease Registry (ATSDR), have been conducting a very comprehensive investigation of a cancer cluster in Toms River, New Jersey. However, after a few weeks of preliminary research by state officials, it became apparent that the current level of scientific knowledge in the United States about autism was inadequate and no one knew for certain what the national rate of autism was. Although there were rough estimates of autism rates from studies in foreign countries, CDC and the NJDHSS did not have enough information that an epidemiologist could use to determine if the alleged autism ``cluster'' in Brick was a real public health problem or an illusion of chance. As a result, an intensive effort by CDC and ATSDR is underway to try to derive national autism rates and try to determine if an autism ``cluster'' exists in Brick. The study is one of the first of its kind ever undertaken in the United States, and the results of the investigation will prove invaluable for other communities that may be affected by similarly high numbers of autism cases. That is where the ASSURE act comes in. Under my ASSURE legislation, CDC will uncover and monitor the prevalence of autism as a national level by establishing between three and five ``Centers for Research in Autism Epidemiology'' across the country. These Centers would conduct population-based surveillance and epidemiologic studies of autism. Periodic screenings of the population (5 to 7-year old children) would be undertaken to examine prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal factors that contribute to autism development. These Centers would combine data from multiple sites to gain a better understanding of how autism differs from other, related, developmental disabilities and disorder. Because autism is suspected to be caused by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors, the ASSURE legislation would help CDC track the trends of autism and determine which factors are responsible for the apparent rise in autism cases nationwide. More importantly, the collaborative efforts by CDC and State health departments will help public health officials to possibly prevent autism once scientists better understand which environmental exposures are most likely to cause children to develop autism in the womb. The idea is that each Center established under this legislation would develop a certain niche of autism expertise. Such areas could include: specific genetic markers, early prenatal maternal drug and other exposures; and investigating other autism spectrum disorders. Mr. Speaker, CDC has already established a pilot program--an autism epidemiology center--near Atlanta, Georgia. The limited but promising results from this initiative points to the fact that current understanding of autism is woefully inadequate and that better surveillance and monitoring of developmental disabilities like autism are critical to providing answers and hope to the parents of nearly 500,000 autistic persons in America.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4660, authorizing the provision of rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of war criminals and those who have committed other serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for sponsoring this and for his steadfast work on behalf of those suffering in that very, very troubled region. As cochairman of the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Speaker, and also as chair of the International Ops and Human Rights Committee, I have had a number of hearings in both of those panels on the issue of war crimes tribunals, on the fact that from the very beginning, we did far too little, we did not provide enough money, but certainly the effort was worth it to try to collect information. Thankfully some of the problems we had in the beginning of underfunding are beginning to be met and the indictments of Mladic and Karadzic and others is, I think, a compelling testimony that we will at some point hold these people responsible. Our hope is that this will be extended in a very proactive and a very aggressive way to what is going on in Kosovo where there is slaughter. Our Helsinki Commission held a hearing just a few days ago. We heard from former Senator Bob Dole and Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck who had just visited the region and gave riveting, unbelievably disturbing testimony about the terrible carnage that they had witnessed firsthand and the accounts that they had heard from people fleeing those who are committing these crimes. Those who do these things must be held accountable. This resolution seeks to up the ante, if you will, put a price on their heads, to try to say that there is a reward for those who will promote justice and bringing these people to justice as they so surely deserve. I want to again thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). This is a very, very worthwhile resolution deserving of the support of our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4660, authorizing the provision of rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of war criminals and those who have committed other serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have followed the tragic developments in the former Yugoslavia and advocated decisive action to stop the senseless slaughter, first in Bosnia, and most recently in Kosovo. The tragic chapters of genocide and cold blooded murder in the Former Yugoslavia will not be closed until those responsible for such heinous criminal acts are brought to justice. Developments in Bosnia underscore the fact that there is a price--a high price--to be paid for allowing indicted war criminals like Karadzic and Mladic to remain at large. The unfolding carnage in Kosovo is most certainly the handiwork of the ``Butcher of Belgrade,'' Slobodan Milosevic. I applaud the recent passage of resolutions in the House and Senate calling for the investigation and indictment of Slobodan Milosevic as a war criminal. In fact, I introduced the measure in this House. We all recognize, though, that true justice demands that the net be cast further than the one person most responsible. As a supporter of the Tribunal from the get go, I offered amendments to boost funding--I believe it is critical that the Tribunal take a proactive stance in Kosovo that could serve as a possible deterrence against a new round of war crimes in the Former Yugoslavia. In the case of Bosnia, the Tribunal could only react to crimes that were mostly committed before and during its formation. In Kosovo, however, crimes could perhaps be deterred, if the Tribunal is vigorous and visible in its investigation of ongoing activity. Mr. Speaker, we saw a couple of days ago the reports of a major massacre in three villages in Kosovo, where women, children and the elderly were slain and, in some instances, their bodies mutilated by the Serbian security forces. These scenes are all too familiar and, absent determined action, will be repeated over and over and over again. The Helsinki Commission has received disturbing reports from Senator Bob Dole and Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck who formed a fact-finding mission to Kosovo. They told us about men being separated from women and children and simply taken away, perhaps to lengthy detention or maybe their execution. There are also reports, again of the mass rape being used as a weapon of war. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4660, I believe adoption of this legislation will underscore the continued commitment of the United States to see that those responsible for the war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law are held accountable for their actions. While it is unlikely that the offer of rewards alone will lead to the arrest or conviction of all of those responsible for war crimes in the Former Yugoslavia, even if one criminal is brought to justice as a result of our action today, the modest investment would have been worth the effort.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his kind words and for his work on this important legislation. I also thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther) and a number of other sponsors, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights; the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen); the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who already spoke; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and others who helped shape this legislation and worked so hard to bring it to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, international child labor is a cancer on our global economy that defies an easy cure. In the words of the International Labor Organization, and I quote, ``Few human rights abuses are so unanimously condemned while being so widely practiced as child labor.'' Today somewhere between 200 and 250 million children under the age of 14 are being robbed of their youth for the profit of others. Many work in hazardous industries such as mining, explosives, manufacturing, and even deep-sea fishing. Others are forced into prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation. The sheer magnitude of these statistics, 250 million kids, a staggering number of kids, can blind us to the human misery that they represent. Those of us who are parents should imagine our own kids in those kinds of circumstances. Only then, I think, do we begin to get a taste of the hopelessness caused by this exploitation. While the problem is heartbreaking and immense, there are new reasons for hope. Global public awareness of this problem is greater than it has ever been. My subcommittee has held three exhaustive hearings on the issue of child labor, and it involved representatives of the administration, nongovernmental organization witnesses, labor and manufacturing representatives, concerned celebrities such as Kathie Lee Gifford, who I think offered some very useful insight to our committee, and child victims themselves. Those who had actually been exploited came before the committee and stood there and told us how they were abused. This year, the International Labor Conference issued proposed new labor standards on what they call extreme forms of child labor, which is expected to be adopted next June. Tonight it is increasingly important that we seize this momentum. Experts believe that the current international financial difficulties that we see every day, just open up the paper about what is going on over the world, may only worsen the problem unless we take some real action. One of the most promising weapons in the fight against child labor is the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor, or IPEC, of the International Labor Organization. IPEC works within countries to help develop and execute practical solutions to child labor abuse. IPEC works only in countries whose governments have officially committed themselves to developing national child labor policies in cooperation with employers, workers, NGOs and other relevant parties. Over the past 3 years, the United States' modest, and I mean this, it is really modest, contributions to IPEC has been on the order of $1 million to $3 million. Yet even that minuscule amount of money has resulted in discernible improvements. Remember, this bill will authorize $90 million over 3 years for these kinds of programs. We are talking about 1 to 3 million, and we even see some success there. One U.S.-funded project in Bangladesh removed 10,000 children from garment factories and placed them in schools. Another program in Pakistan will remove 7,000 kids from the soccer ball industry. My kids play soccer and have played it all their lives and are on travel teams. It causes me great concern, as it does all of us, that every soccer ball that we pick up comes from Pakistan, made by some kid. That is horrible and has to change. This modest program has begun to change that. This program provides a social safety net for children and creates a local monitoring mechanism to ensure that they do not return to factory work. By stressing in-country program ownership and requiring local industries to share the costs, IPEC plans for those efforts to become self-sufficient. The old adage, give somebody a fish and they can eat; teach them to fish, and they can eat for a lifetime. We try to help, they try to help the countries to really become self-sufficient. Let me remind my colleagues that when they are working at these sweatshops, these kids are not going to school. So their prospects for the future are greatly inhibited and retarded as a direct result of the exploitation, and the prospects of breaking out of that become very limited indeed. Mr. Speaker, our country should be the global standard bearer for human rights. On some things we are, and many other aspects we fall far short. But at least we should be always striving for human rights and human decency. We are blessed, clearly, with unparalleled prosperity. However, to date our IPEC contributions total only about $8 million. That is the aggregate, as compared to $65 million pledged by Germany and $12.5 million by Spain. We must, I would submit, and we can, and with this legislation we will, do better. Notwithstanding international acclaim for its program, IPEC has not had enough funding, and we have asked them and they have documented that they are far short of the funding needed to meet all the requests or even most of the requests that they have received from countries seeking help. This bill seeks $30 million, as I said, each year over 3 years, $90 million total over the next fiscal years. These are some of the things that they have identified: The International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor has identified the need for approximately 10 sectoral programs in dangerous industries where child labor is prevalent, such as mining, fireworks, agriculture, and brick making. Those programs would require a minimum of $2 million for each sectoral program in each participating country. Based on the success of the U.S.-funded projects in Pakistan in the sporting goods industry, IPEC would like to begin projects in other exporting countries with strong links to the U.S. market. They would like to address the surgical instrument industry in Pakistan, the sporting goods industry in India, and other similar projects. As a matter of fact, they gave us a list at our request of what their hopes would be. Looking through it, they are working, preparatory as they call it, in preparatory countries; nine African countries, five Arab states, four in Asia, one in Central Europe and Eastern Europe, and four in Latin America. That is what this money helps to do, to push the envelope to get into those countries and hopefully help to mitigate the suffering of those kids. Let me conclude by saying in addition to the more than 30 countries currently participating in IPEC, the total of what I just mentioned, 23 additional countries are seeking IPEC assistance. I would hope that we would get an overwhelming support for this legislation. It is bipartisan, and, as I mentioned earlier, my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is the principal cosponsor of this legislation and has worked with us in the hearings. We stand arm in arm, Democrat and Republican, trying to advance the cause for these kids who are suffering and for their families. Mr. Speaker, I do hope the body will adopt this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important resolution that addresses many of the unresolved issues of the Holocaust era. I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues, Mr. Gilman and the bill's sponsor, Mr. Lantos, and their staff for preparing this important measure. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, survivors struggled to rebuild their lives. Holocaust victims in Western countries generally received some monetary compensation from Germany, albeit very limited compensation. Those victims whose homelands fell behind the Iron Curtain after World War II did not receive even this slight measure of justice. Other issues related to the Holocaust era, including the disposition of assets such as real or financial property, art work, and insurance policy proceeds went unresolved for all of these individuals, as well as for religious communities. Mr. Speaker, a belated measure of justice for Holocaust victims is within reach. Much has been achieved, including unprecedented settlements between Holocaust survivors, Swiss Banks, and European insurance companies. Building on this momentum, the State Department and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum will convene the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets next month to address issues of Nazi-confiscated assets, including art, insurance, communal property, libraries and archives, as well as Holocaust education, research and remembrance. Conference participants will include government officials from over 40 countries, historians, experts, and representatives of major NGOs including the survivor community. This resolution could not be considered at a more opportune moment. The resolution calls on countries to return expropriated properties to Holocaust victims or their heirs without arbitrary discrimination. It calls for the opening of archives relating to the Nazi era and for the continued prosecution of Nazi-era war criminals. It calls on Germany to provide just reparations to all Holocaust victims without delay and without the use of unreasonable eligibility criteria. Of equal importance, this resolution calls on all countries to encourage education on the history of the Holocaust and the consequences of the failure to respect human rights. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this resolution as a demonstration of Congress' support for the U.S. Government's efforts to achieve justice for Holocaust victims and their families. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4660, authorizing the provision of rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of war criminals and those who have committed other serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have followed the tragic developments in the former Yugoslavia and advocated decisive action to stop the senseless slaughter, first in Bosnia, and most recently in Kosovo. But decisive action is not limited to military intervention alone. The tragic chapters of genocide and cold blooded murder in the Former Yugoslavia will not be closed until those responsible for such heinous criminal acts are brought to justice. Developments in Bosnia underscore the fact that there is a price--a high price--to be paid for allowing indicted war criminals like Karadzic and Mladic to remain at large. The unfolding carnage in Kosovo is most certainly the handiwork of the ``Butcher of Belgrade,'' Slobodan Milosevic. I applaud the recent passage of resolutions in the House and Senate calling for the investigation and indictment of Slobodan Milosevic as a war criminal. In fact, I introduced the measure in this House. We all recognize, though, that true justice demands that the net be cast further than the one person most responsible. As a supporter of the Tribunal, I believe it is critical that the Tribunal take a proactive stance in Kosovo that could serve as a possible deterrence against a new round of war crimes in the Former Yugoslavia. In the case of Bosnia, the Tribunal could only react to crimes that were mostly committed before and during its formation. In Kosovo, however, crimes could perhaps be deterred, if the Tribunal is vigorous and visible in its investigation of ongoing activity. Mr. Speaker, we saw a couple of days ago the reports of a major massacre in three villages in Kosovo, where women, children and the elderly were slain and, in some instances, their bodies mutilated by the Serbian security forces. These scenes are all too familiar and, absent determined action, will be repeated over and over and over again. The Helsinki Commission has received disturbing reports from Senator Bob Dole and Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck who formed a fact-finding mission to Kosovo. They told us about men being separated from women and children and simply taken away, perhaps to lengthy detention or maybe their execution. There are also reports, again of the mass rape being used as a weapon of war. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4660, I believe adoption of this legislation will underscore the continued commitment of the United States to see that those responsible for the war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law are held accountable for their actions. While it is unlikely that the offer of rewards alone will lead to the arrest or conviction of all of those responsible for war crimes in the Former Yugoslavia, even if one war criminal is brought to justice as a result of our action today, the modest investment would have been worth the effort.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has focused much needed attention on U.S. foreign policy with respect to the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion and the right to practice one's personal faith. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and for the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to direct the attention of this House to the Department of State's ``OSCE Implementation Report 1998'' and, more specifically, the sections concerning religious freedom issues. In Central Asia, the recognition of religious liberty has been mixed. The Constitution and laws of the Kyrgyz Republic provide for the right of all citizens to choose and practice their own religion. However, these rights are not being effectively protected in practice. In December 1996, the President issued a decree creating new legal obstacles for registering church congregations. In 1997, a new law failed to pass the parliament that would have severely limited religious liberties. Similarly, in its seventh year of independence, Kazakhstani citizens enjoy basic religious rights, although the government is inclined to regulate the activities of foreign religious associations. Current law in Turkmenistan requires 500 signatures before registration is granted and in Uzbekistan, similar restrictions apply to religious groups. In Eastern Europe, although there are signs of progress, there are some countries that could be potential trouble spots. In 1997, Russia enacted a potentially discriminatory law concerning religion which imposes new restrictions on the establishment of new religious organizations. In Moldova, there is currently in force a 1992 law on religion that contains some restrictions to religious liberty and could inhibit the activities of some religions, although these provisions are reportedly not being enforced. In Ukraine, despite the 1991 law which has positive provisions, a 1993 amendment to that law has been used to restrict the activities of foreign religious organizations. Foreign religious workers have encountered resistance from Ukrainian local officials when trying to renew visas or seeking the use of public buildings for religious services. These kinds of government activities may violate commitments found in the Helsinki Final Act, Basket III, Section 1d, in which the participating states confirm that religious faiths can have contacts and meetings among themselves. The focus of the report on the Baltic States is Latvia where freedom of religion is constitutionally well established. Under the 1995 Law on Religious Organizations, the Government of Latvia does not require religious groups to register. However, there is incentive to do so in that certain rights and privileges will be afforded to them only if they register. The Justice Ministry has registered some 800 congregations under this law but still denies registered status to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latvian Free Orthodox Church, the Church of Christ Scientist, and the Rock of Salvation Church. With respect to foreign missionaries, they are allowed to hold meetings and proselytize only if Latvian religious organizations invite them. In particular the Jehovah's Witnesses have encountered severe obstacles under the current Latvian legal framework. As one of the privileges afforded to registered religious organizations, Latvian law allows for religious education to be provided to students in public schools on a voluntary basis by representatives of registered faiths. Elsewhere in the Baltics, Estonia has yet to clarify the implementation of a new visa law enacted in January which could potentially restrict residency of foreign missionaries to ninety days during any six month period. The Baltics merit a close watch, despite some favorable reports. In the Caucasus, both Azerbaijan and Armenia have strict laws prohibiting foreigners from proselytizing. While Azerbaijan does respect ``domestic'' faiths, placing no restrictions on them, many foreign groups have reported harassment. The Ministry of Justice has denied registration to one such group but does allow it to continue to function. The Helsinki Commission in investigating this case has learned that, because of this church's work among the refugee population, the Azeri government continues to refuse to register the humanitarian aid arm of the church but continues to refuse registration to their religious body. Unfortunately, this appears to be a pattern the Azeri Government follows when it receives a benefit from a group it does not want to register. In Armenia there are similar concerns. In September of 1997, a new law was enacted by parliament, designed to stifle the growth of non- Armenian Orthodox churches by tightening registration requirements for non-Apostolic religions and also by tightening funding restrictions so that foreign-based churches are not allowed to be supported by funds from headquarters outside Armenia. Despite this, however, a variety of faiths regularly hold services. While there has been progress in the OSCE region, there remain areas where significant violations of religious liberty are occurring in Eastern and Central Europe. I commend the ``OSCE Implementation Report 1998'' to my colleagues as an interesting study of the progress and problems of the region.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, given the lateness of the hour, I will be very brief. I do want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for authoring this legislation. I think it sends a very clear and unmistakable message about the Lord's Resistance Army. One has to wonder what Lord they are serving with the kind of atrocities that are committed, stealing upwards of 10,000 kids and then forcing kids, as was pointed out in the resolution, as young as 8 years of age, to carry weapons and to commit atrocities and to try to overthrow the government. It is absolutely appalling. We have had hearings in our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and have heard from some witnesses who spoke firsthand about these atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army. Humanitarian aid workers as well. This resolution is very timely, and again I want to commend my good friend from New Jersey for authoring it and bringing to the full House's attention this terrible situation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4293, The Northern Ireland Visa for Peace and Reconciliation Act, I rise to urge my colleagues to support final passage of this bill and give further evidence of America's support for achieving economic justice and a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, I have held a series of hearings on the human rights abuses that persist in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, harassment of defense attorneys, lack of access to legal counsel, search and seizure abuses, sectarian use of plastic bullets and the prospect of collusion between loyalist paramilitary organizations and the police and security forces have all marked the history of British rule in Northern Ireland. Along with these problems in the judiciary and in the enforcement of the rule of law, Northern Ireland has also suffered from discrimination against Catholics in the workplace. For instance, Catholic males are more than twice as likely as Protestant males to be unemployed. H.R. 4293, like the International Fund for Ireland which we created in the 1980s and which we have funded consistently every year since, will help those in Northern Ireland who continue to struggle to find work, or who are still discriminated against because of their faith. H.R. 4293 creates a temporary working visa category for individuals from disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland so that they can come to the U.S., learn new job skills, participate in cross-community training programs, and promote economic equality when they return to Ireland. As drafted, H.R. 4293 is intended to help mitigate the social and economic problems that have contributed to civil unrest in Northern Ireland. By permitting young, unskilled people from the areas of civil strife to spend a brief time in the U.S. to learn a craft and experience the diversity of our country, we will help disadvantaged youth in nationalist and loyalist communities break the cycles of unemployment and distrust which have contributed greatly to the civil unrest in the region. The program will also enhance economic relations the trade between the U.S. and Northern Ireland. When I was in Northern Ireland last year, I was amazed, saddened--and highly insulted--when a leading Unionist party official told me that Catholics remained unemployed in Northern Ireland not because of any subtle or blatant discrimination against them but rather because ``they'' are unskilled. He proceeded to reason, to my disbelief, that Catholics are good in the arts and entertainment field--i.e., singing and dancing--but are ``wanting'' in the math, sciences and other applications more fitting for finding work. I asked for data to back up his theory and needless to say I never got it. It is this sort of ``typecasting'' and discrimination that can fuel civil strife. I am pleased that H.R. 4293 will go a long way in providing new employment experiences for the workers in both the Catholic and Protestant communities, give them opportunities to disprove the stereotypes they have supposed about each other over the years, and enable them to return home and provide the crucial skill base needed to attract more international private investment opportunities in their local economy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. The language that would be offered, I believe by either the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) or by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), would force most health care providers in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to provide chemicals and devices that result in early abortions. What is largely unknown and largely misunderstood is the fact that some devices and some chemicals that advertise as contraceptives also have the effect of preventing implantation of a newly created human being. For example, the copper IUD, when inserted up to 7 days after intercourse, after intercourse, acts in a way that does not prevent fertilization, but it acts in a way to prevent implantation. That is advertised as emergency contraception. If a conscientious objector who is not basing his or her objection on religious beliefs or plan would like to not provide this, they would not have that opportunity because it is a mandate. That is what we are talking about. All of these things are permissible under current administrative policy and current law. All of these things are permissible, including early abortions through these chemicals. What is not the case, they are not mandated. This is all about a mandate saying to a plan, you either tow the line and offer copper IUDs 7 days after intercourse, or you lose your ability to be in this program; and that is where the mandate ought to be rejected. Keep it permissible, not mandatory. Vote ``no'' on the motion.