Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of discouraging news from Russia of late. We are told that the Russian economy is at a dead end, the currency is collapsing, political reform is stalled, and the military is deteriorating to a dangerous point. Moreover, it appears that a good deal of the money that the U.S. Government has extended to Russia through grants or loans has been--at best--ineffective. Nevertheless, I would like to point out one small project where I believe U.S. contributions have been wisely used and appreciated in Russia. I am referring to the Andrei Sakharov Museum and Public Center in Moscow, named in memory of the distinguished human rights activist of the Soviet era. The museum was established through the efforts of the late Dr. Sakharov's wife and fellow human rights activist, Dr. Elena Bonner, along with many other friends of freedom. The museum director is Yuri Samodurov. The U.S. Government, through the Agency for International Development, has been providing financial assistance to this worthwhile project. Naturally, the museum management has been seeking domestic funding and would like to be self-sufficient in the future. When I visited the museum in January of this year, Mr. Chairman, I was very impressed by the layout and the thoughtfulness of the exhibits. There are permanent sections dedicated to the Bolshevik Revolution, political prisoners, and ``perestroika,'' as well as temporary exhibits devoted to human rights issues currently facing Russia. The library contains a wide collection of human rights publications, dissident literature, and of course, the works of Dr. Sakharov himself. The museum has also become a major venue for important conferences on human rights and the humanitarian dimension. This is one area where I believe our foreign assistance has played, and I trust will continue to play, an important role in assisting our friends in Russia to promote and further the cause of rule of law and civil society.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the situation in Russia seems to be deteriorating further every day. An enfeebled Boris Yeltsin, under pressure from a Communist-dominated parliament, has named Foreign Minister Evgenyi Primakov, the anti-American former chief spy, Russia's Prime Minister. As we watch this man entrusted with Russia's domestic policy while maintaining control over foreign affairs, our once fond hopes for political and economic reform in the former Soviet Union are fraying at the edge. The rout of Russia's so-called reformers has raised troubling questions about the policy of supporting one man in the name of security and stability. While the situation in Central Asia is very different, of course, there are some disturbing parallels. specifically, I rise today to discuss the depressing state of human rights and democratization in Uzbekistan, which the United States apparently has come to see as an anchor of stability in a complex region. The Departments of State and Defense have avidly pursued a relationship with Uzbekistan. I do not criticize them for doing so. Uzbekistan is the most populous country in Central Asia, and if it lacks the large-scale potential of Kazakstan or Turkmenistan to export oil and gas, it still has impressive reserves of natural resources. Moreover, its strategic location and its pro- American stance bolster the case for good relations between Washington and Tashkent, especially in the face of longstanding neo-imperialist instincts in Russia. Nevertheless, Uzbekistan remains the second most repressive country among the new independent states, slightly ahead of benighted Turkmenistan. The rationale Tashkent offers for the acknowledged lack of freedom is the need to ensure stability. But President Islam Karimov's policies may well create the very dangers these policies are ostensibly designed to avert. Over the last ten years, it occasionally seemed Uzbekistan might develop towards genuine pluralism. Opposition movements were allowed to function, though under constant duress, from the late 1980s to mid- 1992. In December 1991, Karimov actually permitted an opposition leader to run against him. But since June 1992, when another opposition leader was nearly beaten to death in broad daylight, the regime has clamped down on all expressions of dissent. No opposition parties may function, opposition literature is confiscated, and Soviet-style censorship stifles freedom of the press. The authorities have even refused to register an independent human rights monitoring organization, although western human rights NGOs have been operating in Uzbekistan since 1996. Uzbek and western groups have compiled a list of some 35 political prisoners, not counting about 20 more caught up in a wave of mass arrests in the Fergana Valley last year. To mask these realities, President Karimov, like all the leaders of the new independent states, have adopted the fashionable rhetoric of democratization and created institutions which purportedly realize that goal. Under the guise of creating three branches of power, for example, Karimov has created a pocket parliament. Uzbekistan's judiciary, for its part, is wholly subordinate to the executive in political matters or corrupt in other cases. The government has also established human rights organizations, which distribute educational materials and supposedly work for the country's eventual democratization, while allowing the regime to show a reformist face to the international community. All of these issues are well known, as human rights groups can testify, and as the Helsinki Commission's reports and the State Department's annual reports document. But in the last year and a half, another issue has come to the fore: persecution of religious believers. It is true that Uzbekistan's constitution enshrines freedom of religion and Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam have emerged from Soviet-era repression into the open. But the local religious establishment has supported the government's campaign against non-traditional religions, including Protestant denominations. Uzbekistan's new legislation on religion is the most repressive in the former Soviet Union: as of August 15, any church with fewer than 100 members must close down and stop all activities. Church leaders who fail to comply will be subject to criminal charges. Churches that manage to register are strictly forbidden to engage in any proselytism or missionary activity, and private religious instruction is banned. This law contradicts OSCE commitments, under which freedom of speech applies to religion. But from the perspective of stability, the most worrisome development has been the campaign against Muslims who want to practice their faith outside Uzbekistan's religious establishment, which, like the parliament and judiciary, is under tight government control. Under cover of an attack on ``Wahhabism,'' a conservative form of Islam associated with Saudi Arabia, the authorities have cracked down on all expressions of piety. Men with beards and women covering their heads are subject to repression. Independent mosques have been closed, Imams have been arrested or ``disappeared'' and their followers intimidated. In late 1997, a full-fledged campaign against alleged Islamic radicals and criminals began in the Fergana Valley. Uzbek authorities charged that Islamic radicals beheaded a policeman and committed other crimes. But according to reports by Human Rights Watch/ Helsinki, the ensuing wave of arrests indiscriminately targeted pious Muslims. There is good reason to believe the claims of those arrested that they were tortured in jail, denied food, refused contact with their attorneys and forced to confess to crimes. the conduct of the trial, which Human Rights Watch representatives personally monitored, was appalling, with the judge ignoring the recantations of guilt extorted by torture and other blatant violations of due process. Mr. Speaker, let me be plain. I support freedom of religion, not Islamic fanaticism or criminal behavior. Moreover, I am concerned about reports by Uzbek officials, which knowledgeable Western journalists take seriously, that Islamic groups are training in Tajikistan and Pakistan to destabilize Uzbekistan by force of arms. The environment in the region is indeed worrying, considering that the radical Taliban has taken over most of Afghanistan, Iran remains hostile to western values and Islamic terrorists are threatening the physical security of Americans. But the blanket condemnation of Muslims in Uzbekistan is worse than unfair--it is counterproductive. Such a policy applied in Uzbekistan, where declining living standards are creating desperation in some quarters, could lead to a radicalization that might not have occurred otherwise. If this growing problem is to be addressed, Uzbek authorities must come to an understanding with the Islamic community based on a recognition that the government cannot control all aspects of society and certainly not matters of faith. Room must be found in Uzbekistan's political process for religious and political dissidents. It is not too late for such an initiative and a particularly timely opportunity is approaching: parliamentary elections are scheduled for 1999. As of now, only government-created parties will be allowed to participate, whereas Erk and Birlik, the democratic-nationalist parties that arose in the late 1980s, remain banned. It is high time to readmit them to the political life of Uzbekistan. Mr. Speaker, for Uzbekistan, good relations with the United States are a critical basis of geostrategy. I intend to send this statement to President Karimov, and I hope that he takes to heart these well-meaning suggestions.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--the Helsinki Commission--held a hearing on the latest atrocities in Kosovo. Senator Alfonse D'Amato and I co-chair the Commission and felt it critical to hold a hearing on the crisis in Kosovo. Other Commissioners--Senator Frank Lautenberg and our colleagues Representatives Steny Hoyer and Ben Cardin--joined us at the hearing. Representative Ben Gilman, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Representative Eliot Engel, a longstanding Kosovo advocate, were there as well. The Commission, as most of you know, has a mandate and an obligation to document human rights violations where they occur in Europe. This is especially the case when these violations are, in fact, atrocities and crimes against humanity. Sadly, such violations are still taking place. The hearing focused on the atrocities and the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo today as viewed by two individuals--Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck and Senator Bob Dole--who have just returned from Kosovo and also from Belgrade, where they met with Milosevic himself. We heard what they saw firsthand in Kosovo and also what Belgrade says about what they saw. Both were excellent in their presentations, and their well-known records as public officials and as human rights advocates added to their effectiveness. Secretary Shattuck, who heads the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, spoke in detail about the disturbing accounts of men and boys being separated from women and small children. This is exactly what would precede massacres in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Shattuck spoke about the heavily shelled and sometimes still burning towns which they saw, ``abandoned to packs of wild dogs and heavily armed Serb police and Yugoslav army forces. Among the displaced children * * * there was evidence of the beginning of malnutrition.'' Senator Dole added that many of the children have scabies and other skin ailments and sores in their mouths. He reported that personnel from humanitarian organizations are being harassed and even attacked, noting in particular the killing of three workers for the Mother Theresa Society. As with Bosnia, Mr. Speaker, we must go beyond mere documentation of the tragedy in Kosovo. We must witness, but we must also act. No one can see or hear what has happened in Kosovo this year without asking what can be done to stop it from continuing. Half-measures will not address the central causes of this conflict. They may, in fact, make efforts to address those causes more difficult to undertake. We all learned from the Bosnian conflict that diplomacy alone will not work. Nor will more and more humanitarian assistance, as welcomed as such help might be. Decisive outside intervention is what is required, and NATO is the most likely organization to do this. Of course, NATO intervention has its risks, and we in the Congress and the U.S. Government must assess whether those risks are worth taking. The hearing certainly helped the Commissioners and other Members present understand the situation on the ground. ``What is urgently needed now is American leadership and a firm commitment to a genuine and just peace in Kosovo,'' said Senator Dole. ``Bush gave Milosevic the green light, and it hasn't been turned off.'' ``Yet, if we do not act before winter sets in,'' he added, ``if the Kosovars in the mountains begin to freeze to death, then Milosevic can get away with the claim that he didn't murder them. To do the right thing, we don't have much time.'' Secretary Shattuck added that ``crimes against humanity have been committed. [Thus] the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague is a critical piece of the long-term process of bringing a political solution in Kosovo.'' In conclusion, the attacks on the people of Kosovo are inhumane and brutal beyond comprehension. The intentional displacement of the civilian population, the execution of people held in detention, the destruction of food supplies, and the prevention of aid deliveries all have happened so repeatedly that they cannot be dismissed as anything short of a deliberate policy to destroy. That policy originates in Belgrade, with Slobodan Milosevic at the helm. All the complexities of the Balkans do not erase that simple fact. Both the House and the Senate are on record as believing Milosevic is a war criminal. We would hope that, if we stop Milosevic, the problems in the region could be resolved in a peaceful and democratic way. Bosnia taught us the hard lesson that delayed action results in the loss of more and more lives. Mr. Speaker, I have not been known as someone who readily recommends a military response, but, if we do not act in this case, knowing--as we do know--that many more people will die as a result, we share some responsibility for what does happen. We become, in effect, a partner in the crime. That happened in Bosnia. NATO must act in Kosovo. NATO must act now.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first let me say, and I think it is unfortunate and unhelpful when my good friend, the gentlewoman from California refers to prolifers as the far right--in this case me. Let me just say that I am conservative and very proud of it, but I take a back seat to no one on human rights. I have been in this body for 18 years. I have been all over the world, very often with my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and other committed leaders in human rights. I have chaired more hearings in my subcommittee--international operations and human rights that have ever been held ever on human rights. I have been to Asia, Africa, Eastern and Central Europe, the Middle East, Central and South America--all on behalf of human rights. Gulag labor abuse and exploitation of child workers. We have worked on religious freedom. When it comes to child survival, going back to the early 1980s, I led the effort and offered amendment after amendment on this floor and in committee to beef up the child survival account. As a matter of fact when Reagan's Administration wanted to zero out the $25 million child survival account, I put $50 million and reauthorized that account to continue immunization, oral rehydration, breast feeding, and growth monitoring. I take a back seat to no one on humanitarianism and on human rights. If that is ``far right,'' I accept the label, but I think the gentlelady's use of the term is to engender ridicule and disgust. Moreover, name calling undermines the caliber of debate and does grave injury to the comity of the House when people make such reference.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, there were no elements. I was the one who was in conference with our leadership on this. Let me just say that mention has been made that somehow this rule is unfair on pro-life issues. Nothing can be further from the truth. Let me state to Members that, in the full Committee on Appropriations, my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), offered to compromised Mexico City policy, which allows the President to waive one of the two mainstays of that pro-life Mexico City policy. It is a clear concession by the pro-life side. It is a compromise. The Committee on Appropriations accepted the Wicker amendment. In order to expedite consideration of that bill, they decided that there would be a voice vote. We would have gladly had the vote and the debate in the committee. There was no mention that a perfecting amendment would be offered or not be offered. But let me remind Members of the history. Every time I have offered this amendment, the Mexico City amendment, it has been second degreed. I accept that. On May 24th, 1995, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) offered the second degree. June 28th, 1995, in the foreign ops bill, Jan Meyers offered the second degree. I accepted that. That is the process. We all live under the same rules. June 11th, 1997 the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) second degreed the underlying amendment that I had offered. Last year, September 4, after the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) offered an amendment, it was a second degree, and that was the second second degree. The first one that had been proffered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), was deemed that it was not good enough. That is what held up that process and we acceded again and allowed a second degree amendment to the Smith amendment to be offered. Now the shoe is on the other foot and some folks are crying foul. Really that does not pass the straight face test. It strains credulity to make that argument on the floor here. Every time the gentlewoman has offered her second degree, I have accepted it. Now I get to offer the second degree and to say foul does not cut it. I hope Members will vote for this rule.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think the membership should know very clearly that an agreement was made to allow the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) to offer an amendment. Nothing whatsoever was stated as to whether or not a second degree amendment to that would be permitted or not permitted; it just was not on the table. Moreover, the agreement was to prevent what might have been an hour or so of debate in the committee. If it were up to me I'd debate it all day. Let me say also that in the committee, because we had whipped on this, we believed that we would have won by more than just a few votes in committee, and that any substitute that would have been offered would have been defeated. I do do reasonably good vote counts when I do work an issue. So not getting a roll call vote in committee was just to expedite the bill. I think that should be made very clear. Nobody has violated an agreement. Let me just say for the record, because this I find very disconcerting, many of my friends on the other side of this issue time and again have demanded and received the ability to second-degree pro- life amendments that this Member and other Members have offered on the floor. Every time we have done it, the second degree amendment comes in, we live with it, that is the way the process goes. The shoe is just on the other foot. I get, for the first time in my 18 years as a Member of Congress, an ability to second-degree an amendment that is being offered on the other side of the issue I see absolutely no unfairness in this whatsoever.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his excellent amendment. Mr. Chairman, volunteerism is not something that is in the eye of the beholder. It needs a definition. We have heard it is voluntary, what goes on in China. It is not. In many countries, including many democracies, there is something far less than a voluntary program for family planning. I had a hearing in my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations last February 25th, and we heard from a doctor, a whistle-blower who actually worked in the program in Peru, and he talked about how coercion and all kinds of games and brinkmanship was used to get women to get tubal ligations against their will. We had two women who were sterilized against their will. One, bottom line, she said, ``They tricked me.'' Now, we want no part of that. It should be voluntary. And I really think the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) sets a great and valuable service and I urge support for it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, for his very eloquent statement. Sometimes there are differences of opinion, Democrats and Republicans. But when it comes to human rights, we do link arm and arm. We have worked very well together over the years, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the Balkans and now with Kosovo being an area under siege. Mr. Speaker, people literally are dying by the thousands. Refugees are in flight across and through Albania and elsewhere. I think we need to send as clear a message. Milosevic is laughing in our face. He has gotten away with it before. He has been, quote, our partner in peace at the Dayton Peace Accords. Regrettably, he gained stature through that and his gross misdeeds have been put under the table. This resolution, and the fact that it has passed on the Senate side as well, I think puts everyone on notice that we will push hard until he is brought to justice. And I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his excellent statement.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter), my good friend, for his excellent remarks and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the newspapers each day report on the brutality and the military attacks on the civilians in Kosovo, and the prospects of a rising death toll are more and more likely unless we press for a cease- fire and make certain that Milosevic understands that we will not allow the situation to drag on and on. The news from the Kosovo front seems like deja vu, reminiscent of the wars in Croatia and Bosnia. The common thread in all of this destruction and war is Slobodan Milosevic. Today, Congress can go on record. Slobodan Milosevic must be held accountable for war crimes against humanity and genocide. The United States leadership must not ignore the compelling case of complicity which has been compiled against Milosevic. In the prima facie case for Milosevic's indictment prepared by Paul Williams and Norman Cigar, they conclude that this, and I quote, ``is a compelling and legal factual case that Slobodan Milosevic, through forces and agencies under his control, is responsible for directing and aiding and abetting war crimes on an extensive scale.'' The prima facie case focuses on evidence from years of both the Croatian war and the Bosnian war. Mr. Williams directs the Public International Law and Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Dr. Cigar, a research fellow at the Balkan Institute, was professor of national security studies at the U.S. Marine Corps School of Advanced Warfighting in Quantico, Virginia, and a senior political-military analyst for the Army Staff at the Pentagon. For the benefit of my colleagues, I submit a summary of their statement for the Record: War Crimes and Individual Responsibility: A Prima Facie Case for the Indictment of Slobodan Milosevic (Prepared by Paul Williams and Norman Cigar, The Balkan Institute) executive summary When queried as to whether Slobodan Milosevic is ultimately responsible for the widespread and systematic atrocities that have been committed in the former Yugoslavia, most policy- makers will readily indicate that of course everyone ``knows'' that Slobodan Milosevic is responsible for the worst atrocities to plague Europe since WWII. They often add, however, that there is simply no ``proof'' that he ordered the commission of these atrocities. Recognizing that it is not possible to orchestrate ethnic cleansing and genocide on the scale that has occurred in the former Yugoslavia without leaving some proof of one's responsibility, this study seeks to examine whether there is sufficient information available in the public domain to establish a prima facie case that Slobodan Milosevic is individually responsible for the commission of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. In order to ascertain Slobodan Milosevic's individual responsibility for war crimes, this study does not seek to develop any creative legal devices for attaching liability, but rather limits itself strictly to legal avenues as set forth in the statute, rules of procedure and evidence, and the previous indictments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Similarly, the study relies upon information that is widely available in the public domain, including accounts from senior Serb paramilitary leaders--such as ``Arkan'' and Vojislav Seselj-- and officials in Slobodan Milosevic's own government, as well as information collected by international organizations and foreign governments. Based upon an examination of the legal precedent of the International Criminal Tribunal and the publicly available evidence, this study concludes that there is a compelling legal and factual case that Slobodan Milosevic, through forces and agencies under his control, is responsible for directing and aiding and abetting war crimes on an extensive scale. Specifically; Yugoslav Federal and Republic of Serbia forces and agencies and their paramilitary agents committed widespread atrocities in Croatia and Bosnia against both civilians and prisoners of war. These atrocities included the criminal acts of killing, expulsion, rape, detention in concentration camps, forced labor, torture, mutilation, and the looting and destruction of property. All of these acts were perpetrated on a large scale, and often with severe brutality. Slobodan Milosevic, by virtue of his formal positions and informal power base, exercised power, influence, and control over the Yugoslav Federal and Republic of Serbia forces and agencies and their paramilitary agents responsible for the commission of war crimes. By virtue of Slobodan Milosevic's official and/or effective control over forces responsible for the commission of war crimes, he may be held individually responsible for ordering, planning, or instigating those crimes. By virtue of Slobodan Milosevic's official and/or effective control over Serbian Republic forces and agencies, such as Serbia's Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Internal Affairs, that were active in the initial organization of Serbian paramilitary agents, including the provision of financial resources and weapons, and that provided their paramilitary agents with access to Croatia and Bosnia, Slobodan Milosevic may properly be held individually responsible for the war crime of aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes. Slobodan Milosevic, as the superior authority over Yugoslav Federal and Republic of Serbia forces and agencies, is individually responsible for failing to prevent or punish their commission of war crimes. This study therefore finds that it is possible and reasonable to construct a prima facie case for the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for the commission of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, the evidence of war crimes, brutal killings, and other atrocities in Kosovo is, as I said, mounting with each and every passing day. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, John Shattuck, just returned in recent days from Kosovo. He makes a compelling case that, and I quote, ``there is substantial evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and violations of international humanitarian law * * * [which are] * * * subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.'' Mr. Shattuck was accompanied by former Senator Bob Dole, head of the International Commission on Missing Persons in the former Yugoslavia. In Mr. Dole's opinion editorial printed in today's Washington Post, he reminds us that ``American officials have pledged not to allow the crimes against humanity that we witnessed in Bosnia to be repeated in Kosovo. From what [Mr. Dole] has seen, such crimes are already occurring,'' as he writes in the op-ed today. In fact, I would like to submit his very moving piece for the Record as well. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dole recounts a scene that is reminiscent of my own experience with Mr. Milosevic when the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I met with him in Belgrade in September of 1991. At that time, Milosevic claimed that Yugoslav forces were not sending military jets to threaten and bomb Croatia, and yet both the gentleman from Virginia and I had personally witnessed overflights by two Yugoslav MIG fighters a couple of days before in the besieged town of Vukovar. In fact, in order to get to that town, we had to go through a corn field because it was surrounded by tanks and artillery and snipers. We saw devastated schools and churches and homes that had been leveled in a ``scorched earth'' policy. A couple of days later when we met with Mr. Milosevic, he denied it all and we had been eyewitnesses to it all. Mr. Dole, in a like fashion, reports that Milosevic denied any Serbian offensives were being planned or undertaken for Kosovo. Not 24 hours after Mr. Dole and Mr. Shattuck departed, Serbian troops began a destructive offensive in the region of Pec. Milosevic thinks he can get away with lying. Certainly to date, the Serbian forces have escaped the scrutiny of the International Criminal Tribunal, and we need to make sure that does not continue to happen. Mr. Speaker, the chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour, has already stated that the ``nature and scale of the fighting [in Kosovo] indicate that an armed conflict, within the meaning of international law, clearly exists in Kosovo.'' As a consequence, she has said she intends to bring charges for crimes against humanity or war crimes if such evidence is established. Mr. Speaker, I believe the case for the commission of war crimes will be made easily when the political will is established to proceed down that path, and so far that has been lacking. While the resolution we are considering today focuses on Milosevic and his culpability, there are a multitude of others who are on the run, some in Serbia. Even in recent weeks the Department of State has publicly admitted the United States has reason to believe that Mladic is in Serbia and the United States continues to pressure Milosevic to surrender the three Yugoslav military members who were indicted by the Tribunal for their involvement in the destruction and crimes in Vukovar. Mr. Speaker, Milosevic needs to get the message loudly and clearly. The resolution calls for the U.S. to collect and provide evidence of Milosevic's culpability to the International War Crimes Tribunal, and to date, to the best of our knowledge, we have not done so. The measure affirms Congress' support for the Tribunal and calls on the U.S. to engage our NATO allies in the provision of evidence helpful in the work of the Tribunal. Mr. Speaker, I would alert Members that we are working to have a hearing on what is going on in Kosovo in the Helsinki Commission on Thursday. We hope to have Mr. Dole and Mr. Shattuck testify. We are working on the details of that right now. This resolution, which I hope will pass unanimously, will put us clearly on record as saying let us collect that evidence and get it to the Tribunal. Let us stop putting the evidence aside, which is what we have been doing for all of these months and years with regard to Milosevic. Mr. Speaker, innocent civilians--women, children, and men--are losing their lives, their livestock, their homes and their hope. We are getting reports that Serbian forces are attacking and killing civilians and then food supplies are being destroyed and crops in the field are being torched. A couple of weeks ago, three members of the Mother Theresa Society who were driving tractors and trailers filled with relief supplies were killed when attacked by a Serbian armored vehicle. Serbian officials had shortly before cleared the relief vehicles at a checkpoint. The relief had been provided by Doctors of the World which has since announced suspension of its assistance in Kosovo. The Christian Science Monitor quoted a Kosovar school teacher, ``First the police destroyed and looted our houses * * * Then they surrounded us with tanks and separated the men from the women and children. They beat the men and took them away.'' With the blockade of humanitarian assistance and the scorched earth policies of the armed forces, food and provisions are being used as weapons of the war. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Dole that Kosovo ``is a political and military crisis, whose most visible symptoms are humanitarian. There should be no doubt that this is a war against civilians for political purposes.'' Just last week, Julia Taft, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration estimated that we will see 100,000 to 200,000 casualties in the next few months if the fighting and attacks are not brought to an abrupt end. With winter approaching, the hundreds of thousands of homeless and the estimated 50,000 or so who are living in the fields and forests will be particularly vulnerable. The numbers will only escalate. I encourage the House to unanimously approve the resolution before us.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) the chairman of the full committee, for yielding this time to me, and I also want to thank him for being one of the principal cosponsors, as well as my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). We have had literally dozens of hearings in the subcommittee over the last several years when he was chair, and now that I chair the committee and we have heard from a myriad of victims of torture, from Indonesia, from Cuba, from countries in Africa, Central America, and the Eastern Bloc countries, including the former Soviet Union and Russia itself. The issue over and over again is horrific mistreatment designed to destroy the will and the body and the spirit of the individuals involved and to destroy whole communities when it is done systematically to achieve an end. This legislation, H.R. 4309, the Torture Victims Relief Act has 30 cosponsors. Again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I link arm in arm to fight to help those who have been hurt by despotic governments. In 1996, Madam Speaker, our subcommittee held a hearing on an earlier version of this legislation and we heard testimony on the continued and widespread persistence of torture in the world today, and on what steps the United States and other free countries should take to do something about it. Three of our witnesses at that hearing--and, as has been said, we heard from people from all over the world, and the issue is always the same, the terrible mistreatment--but three of those people who were there that day: a native of Uganda who suffered at the hands of Idi Amin, a Tibetan physician who was tortured by the Chinese Communists, and an American who became a torture victim in Saudi Arabia, our ally, after he had a falling out with his employer, the Saudi government. They told us stories that brought tears to our eyes about how they were mistreated and how they bear the scars long after their ordeal. Those who suffer horrific cruelty at the hands of despotic governments, military and/or police, do bear those scars; they are physical, they are emotional, they are spiritual, they are psychological, and they carry them for the rest of their lives. For many, if not most, the ordeal of torture certainly does not end when they are released from the gulag or the prison. These victims, and there are millions of them around the world--there are an estimated 400,000 survivors of torture living right here 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, it authorizes grants for rehabilitation services for victims of torture and for related purposes in both foreign and domestic centers. The bill authorizes such sums as may be needed, subject to the Department of Health and Human Services, for contributions to centers for treatment of torture victims here in the U.S., and there are currently approximately 15 such centers. The precise amount of any contribution to these centers will be decided each year in the appropriation process. The ``such sums'' authorization language is contained in an amendment which is part of this bill today. It was suggested by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) of the Committee on Commerce which has jurisdiction over HHS, and I do want to thank Chairman Bliley for his help on this legislation. The legislation also authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 1999 and $7.5 million in fiscal year 2000 for international torture victim centers, and there are currently approximately 175 of those around the world. Regrettably, all of these centers, domestic and international, are seriously underfunded. As a matter of fact, the Denmark-based International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), estimates the worldwide need for assisting victims to be $28 million, a significant portion of which is totally unmet. H.R. 4309 also authorizes a voluntary contribution for the United States to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for victims of torture in the amount of $3 million in fiscal year 1999 and $3 million in fiscal year 2000. I am proud to say that our efforts--and it has been bipartisan with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)--have already had an effect on the U.S. contributions to the Voluntary Fund. The U.S. contribution to this fund in 1995 was $1.5 million. At the time when we introduced the bill in the 104th Congress, the administration had proposed to cut the fiscal year 1996 contribution to $500,000. Eventually, in response to our efforts by the supporters of this bill, the administration restored the full $1.5 million. The bill would bring it up to $3 million. 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 U.S. shall use its voice and vote in the United Nations to support the investigation and elimination of these heinous practices which are prohibited by the Convention Against Torture. It is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill, and I hope it gets unanimous support.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, first of all I want to thank and congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for introducing H. Con. Res. 185 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a magnificent document. I am very proud to be one of the cosponsors of the resolution. I do hope it will get the full support of our colleagues today. Madam Speaker, I believe that rights come from God, not from governments, not from international organizations. Nevertheless, it was a great step forward when, without a dissenting vote, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the existence of the rights to life, liberty, freedom of religion and expression, self-government through elections, and other important rights that are inherent in our nature as human beings and children of God. I am very proud to join my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I want to thank him again for bringing this important resolution before the body today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 415, to promote independent radio broadcasting in Africa. I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors of this resolution introduced by my friend, Mr. Royce, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa. Radio is probably the most important mass communications medium in Africa, a continent plagued by numerous conflicts and crises. Radio is the primary means of transmitting vital information between African populations. It has the potential to do much good--both as a source of independent, accurate news, and as a catalyst for humanitarian, democratic, and economic progress. Unfortunately, it also has been subject to abuse. As many here will recall, ethnic ``hate radio'' fanned the flames of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, which claimed upwards of half a million lives. The freedom, independence, and professionalism of African radio are becoming increasingly important to the future prospects of that continent. Thus, House Resolution 415 makes clear that this House supports surrogate broadcasting and the training of African journalists through the Voice of America's ``Radio Democracy for Africa'' project; urges the expansion of USIA's economic, political, and human rights programming in Africa to support indigenous programming in those areas; urges the Agency for International Development to adopt a comprehensive strategy to promote free and independent African media; and urges the United States Government to support freedom and independence for African radio journalists through several means, such as foreign investment and inter-governmental dialogue. I encourage all my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on October 11, presidential elections will take place in Azerbaijan. At the moment, the leading opposition parties are boycotting the election, largely because of continuing disagreements with the government over the composition of the Central Election Commission. They have embarked on a series of rallies and demonstrations, and the atmosphere in Baku has become quite tense. In fact, Reuters has reported from the opposition that about 100 people were hurt on Saturday during a long rally in the capital's city center. The National Democratic Institute (NDI) has observers in Azerbaijan in preparation for the October election. According to NDI's statement, ``NDI representatives witnessed the attempts of political parties to conduct a publicly-announced rally. The rally was obstructed by police and others who used violence against the demonstrators to prevent a public gathering and disperse them . . . NDI condemns the use of violence by police and others against demonstrators. Such actions violate the Azerbaijani Constitution's guarantees of the rights of free assembly and expression. They raise substantial doubts about whether the official respect for law and dissent that are indispensable for democratic elections exist in Azerbaijan.'' Against this background, five Members of the Helsinki Commission, of which I am Co-Chairman, recently sent a letter to President Aliev, urging him to continue talks with the opposition and find a formula that would permit broad participation in the election. I would like to enter the full text of that letter into the Record. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Washington, DC, August 25, 1998. His Excellency Heydar Aliev President, Republic of Azerbaijan, Baku, Azerbaijan Dear Mr. President: The Helsinki Commission has been closely monitoring the preparations for the October 11 presidential election in Azerbaijan. This election is particularly significant and will have major ramifications both on your country's democratization and on the prospects for peace in the Caucasus region. After years of mutual suspicion and recriminations between the government and the opposition, the upcoming election offers a chance for reconciliation and the establishment of much-needed consensus within Azerbaijani society. An election deemed free and fair by Azerbaijanis and international observers will endow the government with unquestioned legitimacy and help to undo the consequences of the flawed parliamentary election of November 1995. Moreover, a process of government-opposition reconciliation in Azerbaijan is essential to facilitate a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Though the 1994 cease fire remains in effect, the peace process, unfortunately, has bogged down. In order to restart the negotiations, the parties to the conflict will have to make difficult choices, which will not be politically feasible without strong backing from their electorates. It is therefore all the more regrettable that major Azerbaijani opposition parties have not found it possible to take part in the election. We recognize that the election law originally passed by parliament, which the opposition found unacceptable, has been substantially modified over the last few months, with input from experts at the OSCE/ODIHR and the National Democratic Institute. Various demands put forward by the opposition have been met. Particularly important was the recent announcement of the abolition of censorship, which, we hope, will be consistently implemented, and will, in fact, signal the end of all political censorship in Azerbaijan. We commend your willingness to make these changes in the law, and your pledge to hold free and fair elections, in accord with OSCE commitments. Nevertheless, the opposition boycott remains in effect, primarily because of continued differences over the composition of the Central Election Commission. A presidential election without the leading opposition parties--no matter how many other candidates take part--will not promote stability to resolve the most pressing issues facing Azerbaijan at this historic juncture. With the election now less than two months away, very little time remains to reach agreement. We urge you to redouble your efforts and continue the negotiations which your representatives have already begun with opposition leaders to find a mutually acceptable formula that will permit broad participation in the election. Sincerely, Christopher H. Smith, M.C., Co-Chairman. Frank R. Wolf, M.C., Commissioner. Benjamin L. Cardin, M.C., Commissioner. Alfonse D'Amato, U.S.S., Chairman. Steny H. Hoyer, M.C., Ranking Member.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am very proud to be one of the cosponsors of H. Con. Res. 254, which condemns the government of Cuba for harboring Joanne Chesimard and other fugitives who have committed brutal crimes in the United States. I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) for introducing this important resolution and working for its passage. As most of us here know, Joanne Chesimard was convicted in 1977 of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for her brutal execution style murder of trooper Foerster. She escaped from jail in 1979 and subsequently fled to Cuba where she was given political asylum. This escaped murderer now lives a very comfortable life in Cuba and has launched a public relations campaign in which she attempts to portray herself as an innocent victim rather than a cold-blooded murderer. The protection Chesimard and others enjoy in Cuba is yet another example of the lawlessness of the Castro dictatorship. The only truly satisfactory solution is democracy and self-determination for the people of Cuba. In the meantime, however, I believe it is shameful that the Clinton administration has made deal after deal with the Castro government, giving concession after concession, while Chesimard and other felons are living the high life in Havana. I would like to thank members of the Committee on International Relations. They backed some amendments that I had offered during markup which changed some of the wording. The bottom line is we need to make sure that we bring these murderers and felons, and there are many of them, to justice. For the family, the Foerster family, that lost its loved one, we will not rest until she is behind bars where she belongs for the rest of her life. I want to thank, again, my good friend, the gentleman from Jersey (Mr. Franks) for offering this. I hope that it will get the full support of the body.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the long and brutal campaign of terror against the Baha'i in Iran is unfortunately not a new issue to this House. Congress has passed resolutions on any number of occasions condemning the vicious persecution of the Baha'i at the hands of the Teheran regime, but the persecution continues. In the last month the persecution has intensified, resulting in the death by execution of at least one man, Ruhollah Rowhani. The law under which he was convicted--which makes it a crime to convert a Muslim to the Baha'i faith or any other faith--is a clear and flagrant violation of the God-given and internationally recognized right to freedom of religion. Other Baha'i prisoners, who like Mr. Rowhani are guilty of nothing other than the nonviolent exercise of their faith, are now believed to be in grave and imminent danger. Since the current regime took power in 1981, over 200 Baha'is have been executed on account of their religion. Many were executed for the spurious and absurd crime of ``Zionist Baha'i activities,'' others for apostasy, conversion, or various charges that boil down to ``disagreement with the regime.'' The Baha'i are a peace-loving community, members of a religion that had its origin in Iran but that has adherents the world over, including many Americans. The extremist regime in Iran considers the Baha'i religion to be a kind of heresy or group apostasy, and so it persecutes them even more severely than it persecutes Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are not in accord with the views of the extremists. Baha'is cannot elect institutional leaders, organize schools, or conduct other religious activities. The elected assemblies which had governed the religious community were disbanded by government order in 1983. All Baha'i cemeteries and holy places were seized soon after the 1979 revolution. Under the law now in force in Iran, Baha'is may not hold government jobs, Baha'i students may not attend universities or even graduate from high school. Baha'i marriages and divorces are not recognized, the right to inherit is denied, and contracts with Baha'is are not legally enforceable. And now the government has gone back to murdering them. Ironically, the latest crackdown comes at a time when Western government officials had been prematurely congratulating themselves on the emergence of an ostensibly ``moderate'' regime in Iran. As often turns out to be the case in such instances, we have now learned either that the moderates are not really in charge or that they are not really so very moderate after all. Mr. Speaker, the White House reacted to the execution of Mr. Rowhani with a statement noting that ``[t]he world ha[d] been encouraged by the recent statements from Iranian leaders about the need for rule of law and the rights of individuals.'' The White House statement correctly noted that ``[s]uch words have little meaning so long as the rights of the Iranian people, including the right to worship freely, are not upheld.'' Our government must take care, however, to head its own advice. The best words in the world can be rendered meaningless by inconsistent actions. A government that commits such gross forms of persecution on account of religious belief and practice as have been perpetrated against the Baha'i must not be accorded the privileges of membership in the community of civilized nations. The United States must bring all of its dealings with Iran into conformity with this principle, and must encourage other nations, international organizations, financial institutions, and other public and private entities to do likewise.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to thank Mr. Taylor for his courage and leadership, and especially his compassion, in including this very important amendment that will prevent the use of all public funds, taxpayer funds, whether they be Federal or locally-raised, but all of which are under the jurisdiction of the Congress and so under the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the lead in ensuring that the legislation you have brought to the floor will in no way put unborn children at risk. It will save lives. Let me remind Members, when this provision was not in effect, the District of Columbia used to perform, with public funds, taxpayer funds, something on the order of over 3,000 abortions every year. All you have to do is open up the phone book and you see that many of the organizations, like Planned Parenthood and others, are doing abortions right up to the 24th week, 24 weeks! These are precious babies, worthy of respect. Rather than killing children, our debate ought to be how we can best mitigate disease or do microsurgery, to treat that baby as a patient rather than something that is to be destroyed like a tumor or something that is unwanted. Unwantedness makes children objects--throwaways. Let me remind my colleagues, I think it cannot be said enough, abortion is child abuse. One of these days my friends on the other side of this issue are going to take the time, and I think for a few that has already begun, at least to some extent, with the partial-birth abortion debate. For the first time, Americans--Members of Congress-- are taking the time to recognize that it is the deed that we are talking about. Abortion is a violent act. Dismembering an unborn child by literally taking off and hacking off the arms and the legs and even the head, that is not a benign or a compassionate act. It is child abuse. It is violence. If you dismembered a child after he or she were born, you would rightfully be brought up on charges of abusing children. A child before birth is no less human and no less alive. Yes, he or she happens to be dependent and they are less mature than a newborn infant or toddler, but they are no less human. I truly believe that the abortion issue, the respect for unborn children is the ultimate human rights issue. I have been in Congress for 18 years. I work day and night, my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights is the lead committee in Congress on human rights. We have had about 70 or more hearings since I assumed the chair on Indonesia, China, Cuba, Turkey, Iraq to name a few, promoting human rights. Human rights are dear to my heart. Respect for life is of surpassing importance. The right to life is the most elemental of all human rights. And to arbitrarily say that birth, which is only an event that happens to each and every one of us, it is not the beginning of life, and to say that just because the baby is in utero, just because the baby is seemingly out of sight, although even that has changed with ultrasound and sonograms. Now we can see. My wife and I have four children. We saw our children before birth moving, doing somersaults. That is a common occurrence now. So anyone who clings to the dark ages myth that somehow an unborn child is not a human being really needs to update their sources and undergo a reality check. Let me also focus for a moment on some other abortion methods, which are also acts of violence against children. These are used in the District of Columbia because they are used elsewhere in the later term. Consider the abomination called salting out, injecting high concentrated salt solutions or other poisons into later term babies so as to procure their death, a very silent but painful death, I would add, it usually takes about two hours. I say to my friends on the other side of the issue, once that salt is pumped into the amniotic fluid and the baby breathes it in, because babies do breathe in the amniotic fluid to develop the organs of respiration, that salt has a corrosive effect and chemically poisons and ultimately kills the infant. The salt solution goes to the brain and other parts of the body, stops the heart and badly burns the skin of the baby. Without the Taylor amendment, without what the distinguished chairman has done in his committee, we will subsidize these violent acts against children. Abortion on demand would be subsidized by the public, by the taxpayers, by monies over which this Congress has a right and, I would argue, a duty to manifest a concern about. If we have an opportunity to stand up and save just one child, it is worth it. No one should so callously mistreat and murder kids. When you realize that abortion methods are routinely employed that destroy and maim yet are sanitized by the men and women in white coats, good people on the other side of this issue who I think will get it some day. Some day they are going to wake up and say, my God, what kind of Holocaust have we participated in. Why did we fail to see? Nationwide the body count is over 36 million and counting. When you subsidize abortion, the predictable consequence is that more children do end up dying. The United States and other countries that are part of the abortion culture are missing kids. They are the lost generation--kids who will never play soccer or baseball or even take a first step. When this prohibition on funding went into effect, we went from over 3000 subsidized abortions per year in the district down to 1. This amendment has been in effect almost continuously since the early 1980s--thanks to Bob Dornan and now, Mr. Taylor--and it has saved children's lives. I just strongly urge a no vote on the Norton amendment. It is a pro- abortion anti-life amendment. It will subsidize the slaughter of unborn children.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the very good gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence against children and in no way could be construed to be humane or compassionate. A child's worth and inherent dignity is not determined by who his or her mother happens to be. And the value of a baby is not diminished one iota because Mom happens to be an inmate. As a matter of fact, the woman's God-given value is not diminished, either. Yet the pending DeGette amendment would force taxpayers to subsidize violence against children, in this case the child of an inmate. Mr. Chairman, I truly believe that many Americans are either uninformed or living in a state of denial on the issue of abortion, especially as it relates to the gruesome reality of abortion methods. Abortion methods are violence against children and include dismembering innocent children with razor blade tip suction devices that turn kids into a bloody pulp, or injections of chemical poisons designed to kill the baby, or the kids are executed by partial-birth abortion, a gruesome method that many Members are now familiar with. Peel away the euphemisms that sanitize abortion and the cruelty to children and, yes, the cruelty to their mothers as well becomes readily apparent. The entire smoke screen of choice turns the baby into property, a thing, a commodity and not a someone. Truly a person is a person no matter how small. Thus the whole rhetoric of choice dehumanizes our brothers and sisters in the womb and puts them in the same category as junk cars, broken TV sets and busted stereos. They are throwaways. The whole rhetoric of choice reduces unborn babies to objects. The early feminists had it right: Do not treat women as objects. Unborn girls and boys are not objects, either. Mr. Chairman, if you have ever watched an unborn child's image on an ultrasound or sonogram screen, you cannot help but be awed by the miracle of human life, by the preciousness of a child's being, and then be moved to pity by the helplessness and the vulnerability of that child, by the fragility of those tiny fingers and toes. To see an unborn child turning and kicking and sucking his or her thumb while still in utero shatters the myth that abortion merely removes tissue or the products of conception. Mr. Chairman, abortion violence treats pregnancy as a sexually transmitted disease. The growing child is viewed as a tumor, a wart, as I said, as garbage. During the debate in 1995, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was then the sponsor of this amendment, asked, ``Who will speak for these children? We must speak for these children.'' Then the distinguished gentlewoman urged government subsidized abortion. Mr. Chairman, it turns logic on its head to suggest that subsidizing violent acts of dismemberment and chemical poisoning to be somehow pro- child. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Mother Teresa was right when she said, ``The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence to get what they want. That is why it is the greatest destroyer of love and peace.'' ``Please don't kill the baby,'' she admonished. Mr. Chairman, finally, the baby of an inmate is just as important as any other child on Earth. Reject government funding of violence against children. I urge the membership to vote ``no'' on the DeGette amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the Skaggs amendment which would zero out all funding for TV Marti. The Skaggs amendment is aimed at the heart of what is sometimes called surrogate broadcasting. An even better term is freedom broadcasting, sending the message of freedom to people who live in countries where this message is not permitted to be carried on domestic radio and television stations. The Skaggs amendment would deprive the many thousands of Cubans who are now able to see TV Marti, despite the Castro regime's jamming of vital information about the free world. This would not be the only effects of the amendment. If the United States concedes defeat to Castro, we will also be depriving millions of Cubans of the hope that comes with knowing that the free world cares. Eliminating freedom television broadcasting to Cuba, as the Skaggs amendment will do, would send exactly the wrong message at exactly the wrong time. The silencing of TV Marti would provide new hope for the Castro dictatorship and a fresh dose of despair for the Cuban people. The argument that TV Marti is technologically inadequate and that we should, therefore, not fund it is designed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, has examined this question in public hearings over the last 3 years. We discovered, in effect, that it is too soon to evaluate the success of TV Marti because, frankly, the Clinton administration has never really tried to make TV Marti work. The reasons TV Marti does reach some Cubans have nothing to do with technology. They have more to do with administrative timidity. Right now, because of jamming by the Castro regime, TV Marti admittedly has an audience in Havana that is probably limited to about 40,000 people. But it could also be received by many more people outside of the Havana area, as well as by government officials and the Communist Party elite who have access to satellite television. It is important to let these officials know that the world is watching them, but there is no question we can do better. I am informed that Castro has devoted 15 to 20 powerful transmitters to jamming TV Marti, while we employ only one transmitter to send the signal. In the past when tyrannical regimes have jammed the Voice of America or Radio Free Europe or Radio Liberty, we have responded to the jamming with more powerful transmitters and multiple transmission sites. When it comes to jamming and finding solutions to jamming, we regularly defeated the Soviet Union in its heyday. I believe we can defeat the Castro regime, at least getting information in. The only question is whether we have the political will. I remind my colleagues that when the authorizing bill came up on the floor for the foreign relations reform bill, H.R. 1757, I offered the amendment on Radio Free Asia that would make it a 24-hour service. It is about a third of that right now. Twenty-four hours, despite the fact that Radio Free Asia was being jammed routinely by the Beijing dictatorship as well as by the Hanoi dictatorship. But we made the decision that we were going to try to overcome the obstacles and get the message through. I happen to believe that that can be the case if there is the political will to do so. Where there is a will there is a way. Unfortunately, right now we are allowing this not to get through, because we do not have that want, that ability to push hard. Really, it is the old Washington two-step. You cripple it, you do not do everything that you could possibly do, and then you say it is not working. We have yet to really try, and I remember when Radio Marti, when Members would stand up and many of the opponents who are against it would stand up and say it is not getting through. It is getting through now in many instances, and I think the same will happen with TV Marti. We have got to have the political will, and hopefully the administration will get that soon.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Rogers, as well as my good friend Mr. Mollohan, the distinguished ranking minority member, and other members of the subcommittee for reporting a bill that protects the American taxpayer while allowing the State Department and our other foreign policy institutions to conduct a foreign policy that promotes American interests and American values around the world. As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the principal authorizing subcommittee for the Department of State and our other foreign policy agencies, I am particularly pleased that the appropriation for resolution of the dispute over United Nations arrearages is made expressly conditional on enactment of an authorization bill. This ensures that we will not write a blank check to the United Nations without insisting on the reform conditions contained in H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act--reforms which will save the American taxpayer many millions of dollars in the long run. The bill also provides adequate funding for our public diplomacy programs--the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the international information programs, exchanges, and freedom broadcasting services conducted by the United States Information Agency. I am pleased that the Committee report expressly supports the Tibet Scholarships, the East Timor Scholarships, and the South Pacific Scholarships. This list should certainly not be read to exclude the scholarship and fellowship programs for students and academics from Burma who have been forced into exile by the military dictatorship in that country. These are all small programs targeted at people who particularly need them. They not only promote American values, but do so efficiently, at far less cost per participant than larger programs. The funding provided in the bill for international broadcasting is unfortunately somewhat lower than the amount authorized in H.R. 1757. Each of our broadcasting services--the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti, and WorldNet--works in its own way to promote freedom and democracy. I want to call particular attention to our ``surrogate'' services--those which supply people who do not enjoy freedom of expression with the kinds of broadcasting they themselves would conduct if their governments would only allow it. The surrogate broadcasting service with the longest and most glorious history is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). It is now generally acknowledged that FRE/RL was an important part of the reason the free world won the Cold War. By providing the peoples of the Soviet Union and occupied eastern and central Europe with information and ideas to which their governments tried to deny them access, we kept hope alive. The end of the Cold War in Europe, however, did not make these services obsolete. On the contrary, they are still desperately needed in countries such as Serbia and Byelorussia, whose governments still deny fundamental freedoms. Even in countries whose press has become free during the last decade, RFE/RL continues to set the standard for professional journalism. And RFE/RL is uniquely suited to fill the needs of the people of Iraq and Iran for freedom broadcasting. As both Houses of Congress have acknowledged by passing the conference report to H.R. 1757, the world still needs RFE/RL, and there is no particular reason to believe that this need will suddenly disappear in the year 2000. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is not a relic but a treasure. Radio Free Asia and Radio/TV Marti also provide the message of freedom to people whose governments deny freedom of expression. The bill provides $22 million for Radio Free Asia (RFA), the amount we provided in H.R. 1757. This should be sufficient not only to provide 24-hour broadcasting to China in Mandarin, Cantonese, and Wu, but also to initiate the important Uighur service as recommended in the Committee report. I also urge RFA to find a solution--more powerful transmitters, new transmission sites, whatever it takes--to the systematic jamming undertaken by the government of Viet Nam. And it is terribly important that we take similar action in order to bring TV Marti to a wider audience, rather than concede defeat to the Castro regime as some would suggest. Finally, I want to express my disappointment that the bill does not fund the East-West Center or the North-South Center. Each of these institutions promotes understanding with an area of the world to which other U.S. institutions give inadequate attention, and both the East- West Center and the North-South Center operate at very lost cost compared to these other institutions. I particularly want to commend the East-West Center for its efforts to keep the line of communication and understanding open between policy makers in the United States and the Pacific Island nations. Too many ``Asia-Pacific'' institutions and programs seem to regard the Pacific as a place you have to fly over in order to get to Asia. The East-West Center is a happy exception to this rule. The nations of the Pacific, like those of Latin America, are our historic allies. They share our values. They need us, and we need them. I urge the funding for the East-West Center and the North-South Center to restored in conference.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to commemorate the tragic events of fifty-four years ago when, on the night of August 2nd and 3rd, the Romani camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau was liquidated. In that single evening, 2,897 Romani men, woman and children were killed in gas chambers. Although the Roma were among those targeted for complete annihilation by the Nazis, relatively little is known of their horrible suffering before and during World War II. In fact, institutionalized discrimination against Roma in Germany began well before the Nazi regime. During the 1920's and 1930's, these practices took on an increasingly virulent form and policies similar to those instituted against Germany's Jews were also implemented against Roma: race-based denial of the right to vote, selection for forced sterilization, loss of citizenship, incarceration in work or concentration camps, and, ultimately, deportation to and mass murder at death camps. During the war itself, at least 23,000 Roma were brought to Auschwitz and almost all of them perished in the gas chambers or from starvation, exhaustion, or disease. Some also died at the hands of sadistic SS doctors, like Joseph Mengele. Elsewhere in German-occupied territory, Roma were killed by special SS squads or even regular army units or police, often simply shot at the village's edge and dumped into mass graves. Although it has been very difficult to estimate both the size of the pre-war European Romani population and war-time losses, some scholars put the size of the Romani population in Germany and German- occupied territories at 942,000 and the number of Roma killed during the Holocaust at half a million. Unfortunately, after World War II, the post-Nazi German Government strongly resisted redressing past wrongs committed against Roma, seeking to limit its accountability. In addition, Roma have been discriminated against in court proceedings and their testimony has often been viewed as, a priori, unreliable. The first German trial decision to recognize that Roma were the victims of genocide during the Third Reich was not held until 1991, and Roma faced discrimination in seeking to re-establish German citizenship after the war. Moreover, since the war Roma have continued to face discrimination throughout the European continent and, in the post-Communist period, their plight was worsened. In light of this deteriorating situation, I chaired a hearing, convened by the Helsinki Commission, on Romani human rights on July 21. I asked one of our witnesses, Dr. David Crowe, why so little is known about the Romani experience during the Holocaust. In answering, he noted several things. First, he said the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has devoted some attention to this issue. He said that the lack of attention to this issue reflects the ingrained prejudice throughout the Western world toward the Roma, and he said Roma scholarship on this subject is just beginning. But how much attention can Roma themselves give to writing about yesterday's tragedies, when every day continues to be a struggle for survival? One writer has described the efforts of Emilian Nicholae, a Rom who painstakingly compiled the oral history of Roma Holocaust survivors in his Romanian village--only to have those handwritten testimonies destroyed during an anti-Roma pogrom in Romania in 1991. Not surprisingly, Dr. Ian Hancock, a Romani representative who also presented expert testimony before the Commission, asserted, ``What do Roma want? The top of the list is security.'' Fifty years after the end of World War II, it is long overdue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the aging of the Baby Boom generation has been extensively discussed in Congress and among the American people, with particular attention to the impact on Social Security and Medicare. What has not been widely discussed, however, is a related but very distinct trend: the rapid expansion of the group of Americans defined by the Bureau of the Census as ``the oldest old''--those senior citizens aged 85 and above. Often lost during discussions of the Baby Boom generation is the fact that the fastest growing demographic age group in the United States is the ``oldest old.'' That is why I am introducing legislation, joined by my colleagues Phil English (PA), Ron Paul (TX), John Ensign (NV), and Chris Shays (CT) to help Americans better prepare themselves and their families for their long term health care needs of the future. The tax breaks contained in this legislation will go a long way towards providing families with peace and security against the massive costs of professionally provided long term care, including nursing home care, home health care, and adult day care services. I am pleased that this legislation has already secured the support of the 60 Plus Association and the Home Health Assembly of New Jersey. The Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) has also endorsed the concept behind the bill. Our Nation will soon be grappling with a long term care crisis unless Congress acts now to prevent it. From 1960 through 1994, the senior citizen population (age 85+) increased by 274 percent. And the number of Americans in the 85+ age cohort is expected to double in size by the year 2020, reaching 7 million. The number of senior citizens between the ages of 75 and 84 will reach nearly 15.5 million by 2020. The sixty four thousand dollar question is: how will we as a nation meet our parents' and grandparents' long-term care need? This demographic change will put an enormous strain on our nation's fragmented system of long-term care. Already, our Medicaid program has demonstrated its financial shortcomings when providing long-term care services to increasing numbers of the frail elderly. The Medicaid program already spends over $40 billion on long term care services for senior citizens. These expenditures are projected to double over the next 10 years. A vital part of any comprehensive response to these trends must be the promotion of private long term care insurance (LTC) for Americans. Although the number of persons insured under LTC policies has nearly doubled between 1992 and 1996, this growth is from a very low base. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Americans still do not have any private LTC insurance coverage at all. This needs to change, and soon. Mr. Speaker, the Long Term Care Advancement Act of 1998 will assist Americans prepare for their future long term care needs. My bill will allow penalty-free withdrawal from IRAs and 401 (k) plans when the funds are used to pay for `qualified' LTC insurance premiums (as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). In addition, a certain portion of the IRA/401 (k) withdrawals used for LTC will be excluded from taxable income. Depending on one's tax bracket, age, and type of policy purchased, the savings on a long term care insurance policy under my bill are considerable, and could range from 15 to 25 percent. Lastly, the Long Term Care Advancement Act will provide a refundable $500 tax credit for families caring for a dependent elderly spouse or parent in the home. This tax credit is important because most of the long term care provided in America is provided by families in the home, and these families desperately need and deserve tax relief. By encouraging more Americans to plan for their future care needs I believe we can improve the medical, social, and financial well being of families, as well as provide substantial future savings to the Medicaid and Medicare programs. According to the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, there is a 48% chance of any given individual of needing long term care in one's lifetime. And the costs of nursing home care for one year is approximately $40,000. The potential for savings to American families, as well as the Medicaid and Medicare programs, by encouraging families to purchase LTC insurance is simply enormous. I look forward to working on and discussing long term care issues with my colleagues during the remainder of the 105th Congress, and urge all of my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Military Construction Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 1999 (H.R. 4059). I am particularly pleased the House and Senate authorizing and appropriating committees have listened closely to the case I have been making for many years on behalf of funding the P-208 Lakehurst Aircraft Platform Interface (API) laboratory, and they are now responding. I also want to extend my thanks to the support extended to the API lab by the Chairman of the Military Appropriations Subcommittee, Ron Packard, and on the Senate side, by my New Jersey colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg. It is very encouraging to see that the report language contained in the House and Senate versions of H.R. 4059 have survived and are included in the final product tonight. As a result, H.R. 4059 includes directive report language that earmarks $1.65 million in planning and design funds to be used to begin designing the P-208 Lakehurst API lab project. At my urging, the House reaffirmed its support for the P-208 project in the report accompanying H.R. 3616, the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act, and now Congress is specifically appropriating the funds to adequately finance the planning and design of the P-208 API lab. I also want to commend the Navy for moving forward with this vital project in an expeditious manner. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), in response to one of my inquiries, has informed me that on May 22, 1998, the Navy issued the necessary authorization to begin the planning and design of those military construction projects listed for fiscal year 2000, which includes the Lakehurst API lab. The only questions remaining now are how many square feet the facility will have and what it will look like. Mr. Speaker, today is a very good day for America, for naval aviation, and for the people of the 4th Congressional District. It has been a long, grueling fight to successfully get the Lakehurst API consolidation project to this point, and the battle is by no means over. However, in the end, our Navy pilots and carrier crew will be able to operate more safely, more efficiently, and more effectively because of the improvements that will be brought about by the P-208 API lab project.