Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], chairman of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say again, nobody is holding this policy or family planning hostage to congressional politics. This has everything to do with the deep-seated and very strongly held belief that every human life is precious, born and unborn. We cannot and should never facilitate a policy that puts the unborn at risk of being killed by abortion on demand. Let me also make the point, a clarification: We have heard on the other side how this is somehow a gag rule. The gag rule is a word that was coined during the title X debate dealing with abortion counseling. Abortion counseling is not covered by the Mexico City policy. It was not during the years that it was in effect, and I am amazed how that disinformation continues to persist both in the media as well as by Members who have been offering up positions on the other side of this issue. Let me also point out, we do not concede that Mexico City policy would be unconstitutional if applied to United States domestic organizations. But a decision was made in the Reagan administration years ago, and it was fully litigated, that foreign nongovernmental oganizations would be the ones that would be affected, and it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, let me say that H.R. 581 is pro-life but it is also pro- family planning. One of the speakers on the other side was bemoaning the delay. OK, let us end the delay. Let us get all $385 million plus the 25 million for the UNFPA out the door by March 1. Only the Smith- Oberstar-Hyde bill does that. So if money delayed is money denied, our bill gets the money there sooner rather than later. But it does so in a principled way. It says that we are for family planning but we are not for abortion. Let me also point out again who we subsidize does matter. We should not compartmentalize our view and say if they do this with our money that is OK and who gives a darn what else they do with the rest of their money. Abortion is child abuse. It kills babies. It is a violent act. Let us face that reality. The partial birth abortion ban fight last year at least began forcing all of us to look at abortion for what it truly is and at the methods of abortion for the cruelty that they represent toward children. Who we subsidize does matter. The IPPF based in London, International Planned Parenthood Federation, has a strategic plan. They make no bones about it. It is right here in black and white. They want abortion on demand in every country of the world. They have action plans for every country of the world. Vote yes on H.R. 581.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentleman from Minnesota will continue to yield, the only way, because if language is silent on the Labor-HHS bill or the Federal employees health benefits program or any other program, it pays for abortion. It is incumbent upon us, those of us who do not want our tax dollars being used to subsidize abortion or the performance of it, to offer amendments. Otherwise it is used to pay for it. There is no blanket prohibition.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my very good friend [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly, nobody is holding any funds or money hostage. This is all about fundamental human rights and protecting the precious unborn children while simultaneously providing family planning. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that the House will today consider two diametrically opposed pieces of legislation on family planning. While each is designed to release fiscal year 1997 family planning funds by March 1, that is where the similarity ends. The Clinton resolution, introduced by request by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]--and I would note for the Record that Mr. Armey does not support the resolution--is strongly pro-abortion in its effect. Make no mistake about it, the consequence of approving the Clinton resolution is a fat payday for abortion providers. So please be fully aware of the unavoidable fact that if you vote for House Joint Resolution 36, you further empower, strengthen, and tangibly aid and abet the abortion industry overseas. Know that a ``yes'' vote on House Joint Resolution 36 pours hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into organizations that have made the toppling of pro-life laws and policies in the developing countries their mission and their explicit goal. And know that once that they have succeeded in overturning those laws that protect the unborn child, once they have eviscerated the constitutional protections that are currently in place, these are the same folks who jump in with both feet to set up the abortion mills. Who we subsidize, Mr. Chairman, not just what we subsidize, but who we subsidize does matter. It should matter greatly to each of us not just what an organization does with our specific donation, but the rest of their agenda as well. It is a package deal. This is especially important because money is fungible. What we give to a group immediately frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be used and in this case are used for performing and aggressively promoting abortion. In recent months the Clinton administration has said that it does not promote abortion overseas. Oh, if that were only true. During Mr. Clinton's first term, my colleagues know and I know that his office pushed hard for an international right to abortion. At the 1994 U.N. Population Conference in Cairo, and especially at the preparatory meetings, known as PrepComs, leading up to the conference, the administration mounted a full court press for an international right to abortion. A State Department March 1994 action cable sent to every U.S. ambassador and mission abroad prior to that meeting instructed our envoys to lobby their host governments with these instructions: The United States believes that access to abortion is a fundamental right. The United States delegation will be working for stronger language on the importance of access to abortion services overseas. In a speech at the second PrepCom for the Cairo Conference, Tim Wirth said much the same thing, how they were going to be pushing abortion. And in a keynote address at the 1994 meeting of the Population Cooperating Agencies, Brian Atwood, the administrator of AID, said, and I quote, While obstacles cannot be removed overnight, this administration will continue to stand for the principle of reproductive choice, including access to abortion. I say to my colleagues of the House, those so-called obstacles that Mr. Atwood was referring to are right-to-life laws and constitutional provisions that protect unborn children in approximately 100 countries in the developing world. Virtually all of Central and South America protect their kids from abortion. These are construed by the administration to be obstacles. These abortion power plays, these overt pro-abortion initiatives, so far have been largely repudiated by the developing world, but they have had some successes. Poland and South Africa recently flip-flopped and went from pro-life to pro-abortion. So there is now a dual strategy: When the overt strategy failed, another strategy was employed. For the last 4 years the administration has relied on a parallel track, a more sophisticated covert means designed to accomplish that end. They have used surrogates, nongovernmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London, and the Pathfinder Fund and others to do the lion's share of the dirty work to nullify pro-life laws and to set up abortion mills the world over. This past Tuesday I asked our very distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, an official for whom I have great respect, whether she was aware of the 1992 International Planned Parenthood Federation abortion manifesto called Vision 2000, a global strategic plan that Planned Parenthood adopted and have been implementing ever since to promote abortion in every corner of the world. The Secretary, known for her candor, admitted she never heard of it. IPPF, by the way, has received more than $70 million from the U.S. taxpayers, courtesy of this administration, so it seems to me that the Secretary of State and all of us should know what IPPF is all about. Again, it is not just what they do with ``our'' money, it is what their agenda is all about. I urge Members to look at this document. This is their marching orders in the developing world. Do not just say our money is not going to be used. Other money then gets used to bring down these right-to- life laws. Let me just quote briefly from it. The Vision 2000 strategic plan says, and I quote, that they will ``bring pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against abortion.'' Can anything be more clear? Pressure governments. Campaign for abortion on demand. And we are providing many, many millions of dollars to this group. Fred Sai, who is the former chairman of International Planned Parenthood, put it very succinctly when they passed this IPPF strategic plan. He said, Now, for the first time, the IPPF strategic plan, Vision 2000, which was unanimously adopted at the Members' Assembly in Delhi, outlines activities at both the Secretariat and FPA level to further IPPF's explicit goal of increasing the right of access to abortion. Who we support and subsidize does matter. IPPF has an elaborate plan and plans of action, as they call them, to promote abortion in every country of the world, including Central and South America where, again, they protect their unborn children. They have plans to decimate the pro-life laws in Africa, the Muslim countries in the Middle East, and several Asian countries who also legally protect their children from the abortionist's knife. A vote for the Clinton resolution empowers the abortion industry to continue and expand these efforts to eradicate pro-life laws. Eliminate a law in Poland and a whole generation of kids are put at risk. Eliminate a law that protects them in South Africa or any other country, and an entire generation of kids are put at risk of abortion on demand. I would respectfully submit that the only responsible pro-life action today is a ``no'' vote on the Clinton resolution and a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 581, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde bill. I truly believe that if we stand on the human rights principle of safeguarding human life today, the administration will ultimately do the right thing, provide family planning money, but do so with pro-life safeguards. I was very encouraged by the statement made this past December by Phyllis Oakley, assistant secretary for population, when she appeared before my subcommittee. I chair the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee. Secretary Oakley, who is the point person for population for the administration said, and I quote: The United States does not promote abortion and does not support the performance of abortion.'' She said, ``That is clear. We have stated it over and over again. I can assure you that remains our fundamental policy. I therefore respectfully submit that the competing resolutions before the House today put Secretary Oakley's statement concerning this fundamental policy to the test. If the administration persists in promoting abortion by way of surrogates, the Clinton denials of promoting abortion will be exposed as wholly disingenuous and untrue. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 581 as introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and myself. This pro-life, pro-family planning bill releases the entire $385 million appropriated for fiscal year 1997 on March 1 for family planning, but, again, it does it with the pro-life safeguards. As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 1997 the administration will have significantly more to spend on family planning with our bill, not with the bill before you or the resolution, but with our bill. Total cash on hand for population in fiscal year 1997, as this chart shows you, with carryover funds from 1996, will be $713 million with our bill. It will be only $543 million with the Clinton resolution. That is clear; that is undeniable. Yes, the money will be spent eventually, but the issue that the Clinton administration is making is that money delayed is money denied. We will frontload the whole thing, giving you the entire pot of money for family planning, but do so with pro-life safeguards. I think it is very, very significant for Members to know that these safeguards are nothing new; they were in effect. People have talked about the Helms amendment today. The Helms amendment in the 1980's was found to be infirm. Yes, it stopped direct funding, but there were loopholes. The pro-abortion groups simply took their own money, which was freed up by our contributions, and used it for abortion promotion. Let me just again say that the pro-life safeguards of the Mexico City policy were in effect during the Reagan and Bush years as a way to fully fund family planning without promoting abortion. The Mexico City policy is both pro-family planning--and we make it clear in our bill-- and pro-life. Specifically, the safeguards say this: We will condition funds only to those organizations that will not perform abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. We restrict funds to those organizations that will not lobby, that will not become the network in Peru or Brazil or any of these other countries bringing down their pro-life laws. Mr. Chairman, they are extensions of U.S. foreign policy. We give money to them. When they are talking to a legislator in one of these countries they do not say, ``Are you doing that with U.S. money or are you doing that with your own money?'' They are an extension of our policy. Since we are the megacontributors and donators to them, what they do reflects directly upon us here in the United States. If Members want to promote abortions, say it. This Mexico City policy makes it very clear that there ought to be a wall of separation between the two. Let me also point out that during the years that the policy was in place, in excess of 350 family planning organizations, including Planned Parenthood affiliates in 57 States or countries, accepted the conditions. Some of the more extreme pro-abortionists in IPPF went ballistic over that, and even censured IPPF Western Hemisphere for doing that. But I believe they showed that they wanted to do family planning. They did not want to be part of this big push for abortion. Vote ``no'' on the Clinton resolution, and please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 581.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a good friend and great public servant--Monmouth County Clerk Jane Clayton-- who just recently retired from her position after 16 years of dedicated service. Monmouth County, NJ, has had the great benefit of having Mrs. Jane Clayton as our county clerk from 1980 to just a few weeks ago. Jane took that office and transformed it into the fiscally conservative success that it is today--all the while ensuring that our rich history and record of efficient services remains intact for our children, grandchildren, and their children to enjoy. Before serving Monmouth County as clerk, Jane was a county freeholder in the late 1970's. She has held a variety of offices before county clerk--including serving on the boards of the County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the County Detention Center, the County Planning Board, and the Monmouth Museum Board of Trustees. Over the years, Jane and I have worked on countless projects together. Particularly momentous to both Jane and me was the unique effort between the county and Federal levels of government to acquire an absolutely beautiful mural of the Battle of Monmouth for the headquarters of the Monmouth County Library. This project was especially important, as the Federal Government rarely works with an individual county to provide them with such things as the artwork that we now have in Monmouth County. Jane has also been successful in getting modern technology to improve the records system for the county archives. As Monmouth County was host to Revolutionary War Battles--such as the Battle of Monmouth--we have a wealth of history that needs to continue to be available for all who wish to learn more about our great area. Jane has been given countless awards for her numerous years of service--including honors from the March of Dimes, the Monmouth County Fireman's Association, and the Monmouth Council of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Jane has a record of excellence that many in central New Jersey are thankful for. Monmouth County is a great area with many different communities and neighborhoods. From our part of the Jersey Shore, to towns like Millstone and Allentown, Jane pleased nearly everyone in her service as county clerk. I'm already missing Jane Clayton, as she retired on December 31, 1996 after many years of hard work. I respect Jane for not only her topnotch performance as county clerk--but also her knowledge and involvement in Monmouth County. We have a lot to be thankful for in Monmouth County: Great little towns, good roads, great services, excellent land management, good businesses, and a county clerk second-to-none. Thanks again, Jane, for everything you've contributed to Monmouth County. I look forward to seeing you back home--because I know that you'll still be a staple of the Fourth District. From all of us in the Fourth District and Monmouth County--Jane--best wishes and know that your hard work is and will always be deeply appreciated.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 15, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. amendment no. 6 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. ensign

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on roll call no. 14, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' amendment no. 5 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. christensen

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on roll call no. 16, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted No.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Helsinki Commission mourns the recent death of its esteemed Director of International Policy, Ambassador Samuel G. Wise, Jr. He faithfully served his country through years in the Marine Corps, the U.S. Foreign Service, and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. I am privileged to have worked alongside him during his many years with the Commission, as he offered sage advice, well-reasoned insight and guidance based on years of experience in the diplomatic community. His appointment as Ambassador when he was Deputy Head of the U.S. Delegation to the 1986-89 Vienna Review Meeting was well deserved. Typical of Ambassador Wise's commitment to the work of the Helsinki Commission and the best national interests of the United States, he most recently served on the U.S. Delegation to the Vienna Review Conference of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe held last November. He attended and offered timely and indispensable advice in drafting the Declaration of the OSCE Lisbon Summit held in early December. Ambassador Wise's participation in these international meetings were tireless and his contributions, highlighting the fundamental importance of human rights throughout the work of the OSCE, were significant and lasting. The numerous letters of condolences which have been received at the Helsinki Commission are indicative of the impact Ambassador Wise has had on the OSCE community. From diplomats, to human rights activists, to friends and colleagues, the effect of this one life has been eloquently chronicled. Some reminisced about their ``fond memories of his personality, professional expertise and intellectual brightness.'' Others recognized his dedication ``to promote the goals of the United States and of the Commission, as stated in the Helsinki Accords and in other documents issued subsequently.'' One noted that ``compassionate and engaged, Sam was the consummate Helsinki expert whose objectivity and capacity to get it right were unrivaled. Highly regarded by the entire OSCE community, his loss is irreplaceable.'' Respected as ``a man of integrity and honored convictions'' and remembered as a ``warm and compassionate human being,'' Ambassador Wise has admirers virtually around the globe. Both as a Commissioner and, most recently, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I sought and appreciated very much the counsel which Sam provided. The combination of Sam's gentle spirit and his winsome manner proved effective in his dealings with Members of Congress and staff, as well as the Department of State and the diplomatic community. His insights, experience, sound advice and friendship will be sorely missed. My prayers are with his family as they grieve the loss of their husband and father.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is unclear.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No, not at all. As a matter of fact, the annual cap negotiated between the administration and Congress is far less than 100,000 in its totality. Mr. Speaker, this act consists of several human rights refugee and education provisions. I am proud to sponsor this legislation along with House International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman and Ranking Democratic Member Lee Hamilton, as well as Tom Lantos, Howard Berman, Henry Hyde, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Bill Goodling. The administration does not oppose the legislation. H.R. 4036 extends the authority of USIA to include Tibetan and Burmese exiles in its scholarship programs, and requires USIA to take appropriate steps to involve prodemocracy and human rights leaders in exchange programs with countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy. It also requires that the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices include reports on each country's votes on resolutions before the U.N. Human Rights Commission, as well as its treatment of refugees. The latter provision is designed to enhance efforts to persuade other countries in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere to accept their fair share of the world's refugee population, rather than leaving the brunt of the burden on the United States and a few other nations. The act extends for 1 year an extremely important policy relating to refugees in certain high-risk categories, such as Jews and evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union and Southeast Asians who have suffered persecution for their wartime associations with the United States. Also, the act provides that the United States should not give foreign assistance, other than humanitarian assistance, to Mauritania unless that country rigorously enforces its laws against human chattel slavery. H.R. 4036 also authorizes the Secretary of Education to make grants for the Pell Institute, the Bush Fellowships, the Muskie Foundation, and the Coolidge Memorial Foundation. A Pell amendment deleted section 102, providing for reports on the Cuban Government's methods of enforcing its 1994 and 1995 immigration agreements with the United States. The administration opposed an earlier version of this provision on the ground that it already provides such reports. We are agreeing to drop this provision only because we have been assured that these reports will continue to be provided. Originally, the agreement negotiated with the Senate was that a reference to the Cuba human rights reports would be placed in report language rather than in the text of the bill itself. Because the procedure under which this law is enacted does not provide for committee reports, it is important to place in the Record the continued expectation of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights that our Government will continue to monitor and report to Congress on the treatment of people against whom the Castro regime enforces these two agreements. The reports are an important manifestation of congressional concern about the human rights of persons against whom enforcement measures are taken. I would like to extend my deep gratitude to Senator Helms and his staff, who shepherded this important human rights bill through the Senate. In particular, Chief Counsel Tom Kleine of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has demonstrated his willingness and ability to work effectively with people representing a wide range of viewpoints in order to ensure that our law reflects the right answers to important questions of public policy. Senator Lott and Senator Nickles and their respective staffs have also been extremely helpful. I also thank the Democratic staff of the Foreign Relations Committee for working with us on this bipartisan effort.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No, there is not.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the language of the bill extends to Russian Jews, evangelicals, and to some of the people in Southeast Asia a very basic amount of protection for 1 year. As a matter of fact, this too mirrors exactly the human rights and refugee provisions in the CR, and because this had broad bipartisan support, it was kept in.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the language in this legislation that dealt with coercive abortion was stripped in the Senate. The issue was already covered by the CR, which had an identical provision. We are concurring with the Senate in taking that language out of the bill, so there is nothing in the bill on that subject.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4036) making certain provisions with respect to internationally recognized human rights, refugees, and foreign relations, with Senate amendments, thereto and concur in the Senate amendments.

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 Senate amendments to H.R. 4036.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, in a major policy speech delivered in Stuttgart, Germany, Secretary of State Christopher presented his vision for the future of a ``New Atlantic Community'' and called for the elaboration of a formal charter between NATO and Russia as an integral aspect of the alliance's process of enlargement. The headstrong determination of the Clinton administration to forge ahead with some form of formal partnership between Russia and NATO should give cause for concern. I am not convinced that such an initiative--which is fraught with risks--is warranted. In his address, Secretary Christopher boldly proclaimed that ``a Democratic Russia can participate in the construction of an integrated, Democratic Europe.'' Frankly, Mr. Speaker, Russia's Democratic credentials are not yet firmly established. One need look no further than the killing fields of Chechnya to see the limits of the Kremlin's commitment to genuine democracy. Let us not forget that President Yeltsin signed the decrees, later made public, that launched the large- scale Russian military operations which laid waste to Grozny, leveled scores of towns and villages, led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Russian and Chechen civilians, and resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am particularly disturbed by Secretary Christopher's attempts to gloss over Moscow's campaign of death and destruction in Chechnya. ``Though their [the Russian people's] struggle is far from complete,'' Christopher acknowledged, ``as the 20-month assault on Chechnya demonstrated, the Russian people have rejected a return to the past and vindicated our confidence in democracy.'' In keeping with the tendency of the Clinton administration to turn a blind eye toward Chechnya, the Secretary's remark papers over the Chechnya's negative consequences for democracy in Russia. Instead of heeding the Kremlin's brutality in Chechnya as a wakeup call of the threat to Russia's fledgling democracy, Secretary Christopher and others in the administration seemed content to push the snooze button and roll over while thousands of innocent men, women, and children were killed and those truly committed to Democratic principles increasingly came under fire for their opposition to Yeltsin's Chechen policy. Russia must consolidate democracy, human rights, and rule of law at home, Mr. Speaker, before she can ever be considered a credible partner in constructing an integrated, Democratic Europe, envisioned by Mr. Christopher. Welcoming the Russians as full partners in building a new Europe that is free of tyranny, division, and war, as the Secretary has done, is premature at best. A fundamentally new relationship with Russia can only be built on a firm foundation of trust and confidence based on concrete deeds. Secretary Christopher's smug assertion that no power in Europe now poses a threat to any other belies the fact that Russian missiles, once targeted at the United States, can be reprogrammed within a matter of minutes. His claim is also easier made in Stuttgart than in places like Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius, or for that matter, Kiev. While the United States should continue to encourage cooperation among countries in the Baltic region, Mr. Speaker, it is important to keep in mind that such cooperation cannot substitute for NATO membership. We cannot ignore that historical relationship between Russia and her neighbors, many of whom have understandable concerns for their sovereignty and independence, given decades of brutal domination and suppression by Moscow. Such apprehension can only be heightened by the current leadership crisis in the Kremlin and by the fact that some Russians yearn for the recreation of their empire. All the while, Russia's neighbors continue to seek normal relations with the Russian Federation based on mutual respect and sovereign equality. I would remind Mr. Christopher that Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who earlier headed the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, has been one of the chief proponents of the reestablishment of a Russian sphere of influence in the newly independent States of the former Soviet Union, the so-called ``near abroad.'' Should the United States decide to pursue a formal charter between NATO and Russia several key issues must be addressed. First, the Russian Federation must not be given a veto, or implied veto, over the timing or conditions for the admission of new members into the alliance. Second, such an accord must firmly oppose any moves by Moscow to establish ``spheres of influence'' in East Central Europe. Third, the charter must in no way impede the development of enhanced relations between NATO and nonmembers, such as Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, let us now lose sight of the fact that an essential element of any partnership is, and must be, trust. The reality is that much time is needed to heal the wounds inflicted by the war in Chechnya and establish Moscow's credentials as a trustworthy partner. In the meantime, the single greatest contribution Russia can make to the construction of an integrated and Democratic Europe would be to consolidate democracy, human rights, and rule of law at home.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today the Helsinki Commission, which I Chair, is releasing its staff election observer report on one of the most important international events of the year--the September 14 elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Among their conclusions, the Commission staff state the following: The elections cannot be considered free and fair, and were held prematurely because of limited international support for existing peacekeeping burdens. The campaign period detracted the most from the election process, due to a lack of freedom of movement, association and expression, as well as the continued political activity of persons indicted for war crimes. The provisional results, challenged by allegations of more ballots than voters, showed clear victories for the ethnically based parties originally brought to power in 1990. Whether the elections have set the stage for Bosnia's partition along ethnic lines, or for movement toward its effective reunification remains an open question. The election administration was extremely complex and required significant outside help from the OSCE, which performed considerably well given the political and logistical circumstances in which it had to work. Voter registration was also controversial, including on election day. Balloting nevertheless went relatively smoothly. There was some confusion in the transport and counting of ballots. Mr. Speaker, holding the municipal elections in November as tentatively planned by OSCE would be a mistake. Not only would the administrative problems associated with the September 14 elections unlikely be corrected, the newly elected national institutions which must now begin to function should be free from the tensions and partisanship of another campaign period. And, a delay would allow time for Bosnian local leaders who support a unified, multiethnic Bosnia to compete fairly, and then help Bosnia build its democracy from the bottom up. The Commission has, since 1992, taken the lead in the Congress in trying to shape a response to the war in Bosnia. Actively following and reporting on developments in the region, the Commission also has a particular interest in the effectiveness of the OSCE's organization of the Bosnian elections. The Commission held several briefings and hearings leading up to these elections, including hearing testimony from Bosnian elections officials, representatives of Bosnian political parties, OSCE mission chief Robert Frowick, special United States envory William Montgomery, and other experts. The Commission staff which compiled the election report benefited from being in various parts of Bosnia on election day, contributing to the large and important task of observing the voting and counting of ballots. Bosnia-Herzegovina and most every country emerging from the former Yugoslavia will remain high on the United States foreign policy agenda through the end of this year and into 1997. I therefore encourage my colleagues to read the conclusions of the staff report, which I am submitting for the record, and contact the Commission should you wish a copy of the full report. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--Conclusions of Staff Report on September 1996 Elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina On September 14, 1996, Bosnia-Herzegovina held its second multi-party elections since the collapse of the one-party Communist political system in the former Yugoslavia in 1989. These elections, however, were the first for that country since the break-up of the old Yugoslav federation and the warfare from 1992 to 1995 which accompanied Bosnia's emergency as an independent state. This fighting, largely directed against the civilian population, left an estimated quarter of a million people dead or unaccounted for, and half the original population of about 4.4 million displaced, internally or abroad as refugees. The warfare ended in December 1995 with the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina (hereinafter the ``Dayton Agreement''), which divided the single Bosnian state into two entities with significant powers of their own. Even for those who survived the conflict in their own homes and villages, the economic, social and political upheaval associated with the war--let alone the almost universal personal loss of friend and/or family in it--made the holding of free and fair elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina virtually impossible, and filled any attempt to do so with risk. Elections were held at the national and lower levels but did not include municipal elections, which were postponed. The election administration was extremely complex and required significant outside help from the OSCE, which performed well given the political and logistical circumstances. The campaign period detracted the most from the election process, due to insufficient freedom of movement, association and expression, as well as the continued political activity of persons indicted for war crimes. Voter registration was also controversial in preparing for elections, and remained a problem on election day itself. Balloting nevertheless went relatively smoothly, although the subsequent transport of counting of ballots was confusing and difficult. Few have dared to characterize the September 14 elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina as free and fair. Voters generally had a free choice which could be secretly made when they stepped into the voting booth, but disenfranchisement and an intimidating atmosphere at certain locations detracted from this positive characterization. Moreover, on the basis of the campaign period alone, there was no doubt that the elections were not fair. Opposition parties had little chance to make their views known, let alone to counter aggressively the effects of years of war and propaganda on Bosnian voters from all ethnic groups. And, after the elections, questions regarding the total number of eligible voters make certification of the elections difficult. The question, therefore, is not whether these elections were free and fair; they obviously were not. The question is whether the international community was wise to go forward with the elections within the timeframe mandated by Dayton. Based on the overwhelming nature of the victories for the ruling parties in the September 14 elections, there is little doubt that the results probably reflect the general will of the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. With more time, during which more substantial efforts could have been undertaken to increase freedom of movement, of speech and of association, as well as to sideline more effectively those indicted for war crimes or otherwise responsible for the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the result might have been different. Some who argued for holding the elections on schedule suggested that surprises may result, but they did not. They claimed that the situation might actually worsen unless elections were held soon rather than later, but little evidence of that possibility has surfaced. They argued that parties to the Dayton Agreement must adhere to the deadlines, but, in doing so, Dayton's own prerequisites for effective elections were not sufficiently met. They pointed out that all parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina wanted the elections to proceed, but this argument ignored the fact that the ruling parties wanted the elections because they knew they would win; that some other nationalist parties believed the elections could facilitate partition; and that moderate parties were hesitant but felt helpless in countering the larger forces dominating their country's politics. Those who prepared for the administration of the elections deserve credit for their hard work, but additional time would have enabled them to sort out the problems that caused so much confusion around election day. Therefore, the main argument for holding the elections by the Dayton deadline seems driven mostly by the international community's limited desire to continue to provide Bosnia's peace and security through IFOR. The current IFOR mandate expires at the end of 1996, and the elections were considered a prerequisite to any withdrawal. Indeed, OSCE Mission Head Robert Frowick succeeded in delaying the initial withdrawal process until after the elections were held. If this influenced the decision on when to hold the elections, then U.S. Government pressure on the OSCE to hold elections prematurely deserves criticism. However, the European critics who wish to place full responsibility with the United States should recognize that, for all its faults, only the U.S.- brokered initiatives for peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina--both the Federation and the Dayton Agreement--have actually brought peace and produced some results. Also, not one government spoke within OSCE in opposition to holding the elections on September 14. Indeed, probably the greatest opposition came from non-government organizations based in the United States, which might have had greater success in achieving a postponement had some influential countries supported a delay. Moreover, the peace process created by the Dayton Agreement may have largely run its course by September 1996, and this process needed something--the elections--to move to a new level. Pressure now rests on those elected to work together to resolve their problems, with less reliance on international involvement. If the international community at least maintains the resolve to prevent any party from resorting again to the use of force to achieve political ends, economic and other social forces may erode the political power of those now taking office and result in a more open, pluralistic society. This could even happen among Serbs, despite their present intention to become independent. Bosniacs, who have been the overwhelming victims, may actually become less willing to reconcile differences as a result. Bosnia's Croats can be expected generally to join with whichever side seems to have the upper hand. For all three, the pervasive fears and prejudices brought about by war and propaganda must be replaced by trust and tolerance if there is to be any hope of long-term success. Unfortunately, the OSCE decided within days of the national and entity elections--and before finalizing and certifying the results of these elections--to proceed tentatively with more complex municipal elections in late November 1996. OSCE Coordinator for International Monitoring has personally expressed reservations about this decision. Some of the problems encountered with the national and entity-level elections can be corrected by that date, but the root cause of the original postponement--the registration of persons in specific localities--will be especially difficult to remedy. In the rush to organize the elections, other administrative mistakes are to be expected. Moreover, fledging Bosnian and entity institutions must now try to begin work in the context of a new campaign that will only encourage intransigence. Finally, postponing the local elections for six months or longer provides the best chance for opposition parties to score victories and build democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina from the bottom up. Comfortable with ethnically oriented leaders offering protection from the top, or reacting to the inability of these leaders to move the country forward, voters could be prepared by that time to vote on the basis of interests other than the need for ethnic cohesion. The ruling parties will be able to ride the wave of victory into local elections held in November 1996, reenforcing splits along ethnic lines. Bosnia's future remains uncertain. A genuinely unified state could still emerge, or the state could be partitioned by its neighbors. To some degree, at least, further action by the international community could influence the direction in which Bosnia will head. The OSCE's performance in organizing and conducting the elections has come under considerable criticism. While some of the criticism might be warranted, the OSCE deserves credit for having undertaken an extremely difficult task. Its leadership resisted those governments which sought to pressure it to act one way or another, and was relatively candid in assessing the situation leading up to the elections. In this respect, OSCE was a considerable improvement on the United Nations in its political work in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Finally, the OSCE can no longer remain on the sidelines for the sake of its reputation. Perhaps the OSCE should have been given a larger role to play earlier. Considering the organization's direct involvement in restoring peace and stability to Bosnia-Herzegovina today, its effectiveness in bringing positive results to Bosnia- Herzegovina will depend largely on its ability to avoid repeating past mistakes and, like all international organizations, on the political will of its participating States.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution that takes up the difficult, complex, and challenging issue of property claims arising from Fascist and Communist era confiscations. Joining me as original cosponsors are Representatives Porter, Wolf, Funderburk, Salmon, Hoyer, Markey, and Cardin and we welcome others who would want to cosponsor the measure. The resolution brings focus to points long raised by Americans who have unresolved property claims and particular issues which were the subject of a hearing on property claims in Central and Eastern Europe held in July by the Helsinki Commission, which I chair. In convening that hearing, Mr. Speaker, the Helsinki Commission sought to address two specific questions. First, as Central and East European countries privatize and, in some cases, make restitution of, or compensation for, property that had been wrongly confiscated in the past, are the interests of American citizens being adequated protected? Second, we sought to examine the situation of Holocaust survivors in Central and Eastern Europe. While survivors in the West and in Israel were, in general, able to receive some compensation--primarily from Germany--at the end of World War II, survivors in the East found themselves twice victimized: first by the Nazis, and then by Communist regimes which prevented them from pursuing compensation claims and often prevented them from regaining lands expropriated by the Nazis. Our second question, therefore, was this: Can compensation now be made available to these survivors--in time to help them live their remaining days in dignity? The Commission received expert testimony from two individuals who lead our Government's efforts in this area: Stuart E. Eizenstat, Undersecretary of Commerce and Special Envoy for Property Claims in Central and Eastern Europe, and Delissa A. Ridgway, Chair of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Mr. Speaker, our witnesses' testimony, augmented by significant information provided by nongovernmental sources, provided clear answers to our questions. While some progress has been made in every country in Central and East Europe, more progress is needed. Our resolution seeks to send that message to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and, in particular, calls for the urgent return of property formerly belonging to Jewish communities as a means of redressing the especially compelling problems of aging and often destitute survivors of the Holocaust. Also, in some countries, the rights of Americans are clearly not being adequately protected. I understand, of course, that property restitution or compensation is a very complex subject, and I commend those countries that have sought to address it and sought to correct the past wrongs of Fascist and Communist regimes. But those efforts will fall far short of their mark if they perpetuate a new form of discrimination--discrimination against individuals who dared flee communism and sought refuge here in the United States. Accordingly, this resolution calls for countries to remove from their books restrictions which require claimants seeking compensation or restitution to have the citizenship of, or residency in, the country from which they seek compensation or restitution. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this resolution would be incomplete if it did not also address the related problem of those financial institutions, notably Swiss banks, which are known to have converted for their own use, financial assets rightly belonging to Holocaust victims. The measure I introduce today calls on such financial institutions to restore this property to it rightful owners. A resolution of this inexcusable wrong is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, on October 23, 1956, students in Hungary protested against the Russian and Marxist- Leninist classes which had been imposed by the Soviet Union. The Hungarian Revolution had begun. Students and the Writers' Union then publicly supported the Polish anti-Soviet movement, and workers joined them in calling to reinstate as Premier the Communist Party reformer Imre Nagy. Within days, despite hard-liner Premier Hegedus' plea to the Soviet Union for assistance, the Communist Party reinstated Nagy and his reform efforts were allowed to resume. The Hungarian people wanted more, and pushed for an end to the dominance of the Communist system itself. With Soviet troops and tanks entering Budapest, a new government was formed as fighting spread across the country. Revolutionary workers' councils and local national committees demanded attention be given to political and economic demands, including calls for free elections, free speech, press, assembly, and worship. Imre Nagy, siding with the people, announced the end of the one-party system, and called for free elections. He even criticized the Warsaw Pact and indicated his intention to make Hungary a neutral state. The Soviet Union quickly reacted to this secession with a crushing military advance on strategic locations throughout Hungary in mid-November. Imre Nagy was ousted from office. For his loyalty to his people and to their revolution, he was executed by the Soviets in 1958. Mr. Speaker, despite courageous efforts, the revolutionaries were ruthlessly and bloodily suppressed while a sympathetic but ineffective international community stood by. In the end thousands were killed in the fighting, and hundreds of thousands fled the country to avoid imprisonment and repression after the revolution. Many settled in the United States. The 40th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution is an appropriate time to reflect upon the historical contribution made by those who valiantly fought for freedom. Although the revolution did not succeed in freeing the Hungarian people, its influence on Hungarian life has been strong. To Hungarians, East and Central Europeans, and the rest of the world, the Revolution served as a reminder that the Soviet Communist bloc was an artificial edifice which would crumble without the support of Soviet military strength. Hungary and Poland led the way in 1989 to cast off Communist rule, and Hungary remains in the forefront of those East European nations working to consolidate democracy and build market economies. In 1990, Hungary was the first East European country to become a member of the Council of Europe, reflecting Hungary's advances in human rights. Indicative of the country's progress in establishing a democracy, Hungary is currently among the first-tier countries to be considered for membership in an expanded NATO. In fact, acknowledging the need for security and cooperation with their European neighbors, the Hungarian Government--led by Gyula Horn-- made a significant step toward historic reconciliation with Romania by signing a bilateral treaty just a few weeks ago. Hopefully this treaty will be a useful mechanism for handling future concerns peacefully and in a constructive manner. In its ongoing transition, Hungary continues to face the complex tasks of sustaining newly-developed democratic institutions, furthering the growth of civil society, and managing the hardships associated with privatization and economic reforms following decades of Soviet domination and centralization. Hungary's commitment to a free and democratic system are deeply rooted in the legacy of those who valiantly fought in 1956. With history as a measure, Hungary has great staying power. This year, Hungary commemorates not only the 40th anniversary of the 1956 Revolution, but also the 1100th anniversary of Hungary as a nation. Mr. Speaker, in this 40th anniversary year we honor Hungary's legacy of a love for freedom.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Louis Pulcrano, coach of a unique group of students from Monmouth and Ocean Counties, NJ. These outstanding young women are members of ShoreCheer International, dedicated to excellence in cheerleading and service to their communities. Not only have these athletes earned prestige for themselves in national and international cheerleading competitions, the young women have demonstrated great virtue and devotion in caring for those in need around them. I was particularly moved by a special visit the young women of ShoreCheer made recently to Montoursville, PA, in a effort to help comfort those mourning the loss of family and friends who perished in the TWA Flight #800 tragedy. The cheerleaders spent time with their peers at the Montoursville High School and delivered messages of support and love. Once again, in a moment of sadness and need, these young women offered their time and energy to brighten the lives of others. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit for the Record, an article written by the girls' coach, which outlines their numerous achievements and contributions to the community. I would first like to include a list of the names of the young women of ShoreCheer, so that we can all applaud their notable athletic distinction and, most importantly, the great kindness they show to others--something that impacts us all. Senior All-Stars: Beth Allen; Wendy Dailey, Traci Mayer, Jill Balinski, Beth Hager, Heidi Farnham, Shannon O'Malley, Lauren Petty, Suzanne Heyniger, Kelly MacDonald, Melissa Lennon, Erin Lacey, Kristi Pilgrim, Brittany Larkin. Junior Prep All-Stars: Laura Stogdill, Jenifer Vienna, Lauren Rogers, Anna Norcia, Danielle Berkely, Kristine Triola, Charolette Yorgenger, Nicole Gashlin, Kyle Allen, Rachelle Rose, Meghan Ward. Junior All-Stars: Krystle Berryman, Jenny Biancella, Julie Biancella, Caitlin Bilotta, Gina Cifelli, Brianna Dwyer, Amanda Foderaro, Megan Jakubowski, Lauren Krueger, Tara Luchetti, Nicole Masiero, Kristen McCormick, Lauren McCrossan, Melissa Millen, Krissie Previte, Amber Tempsick, Lauren McCormick.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him for his help and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], in bringing House Concurrent Resolution 145 which calls upon the Russian Government to remove its armed forces from the sovereign nation of Moldova. The Government of the Russian Federation is being called upon to adhere to its agreement of October 21, 1994, with the Moldovan Government and withdraw its military forces and equipment from Moldova within a 3-year timeframe. The resolution further urges the Secretary of State to use every appropriate opportunity and means to secure such removal, urges all of the Moldovan neighbors to recognize the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Moldova and urges the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to continue its efforts in resolving the differences between that country and its neighbors to welcome the offer of the Government of Ukraine to assist in those efforts. Mr. Speaker, very simply, Moldova, a nation which recently celebrated its fifth year of independence, is the last of the New Independent States in which Russian military forces are stationed without a specific agreement with the host government for their deployment. These forces, estimated at between 5,000 to 6,000 soldiers, are the remnants of the Soviet 14th Army stationed exclusively in the eastern region of Moldova. While some Russian equipment has reportedly been moved out and some ammunition has been destroyed, there has been little progress in the removal of the military personnel, as called for in the 1994 agreement. Mr. Speaker, the administration has indicated its support for this resolution and, hopefully, this pressure, this push, combined with statements by the Council of Europe and others will let the Russians know that we are very serious. This vestige of Russian troops who remain there needs to leave. They are not wanted, they are not welcome and they are certainly not needed. This resolution puts us on record in that regard. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 145, which calls upon the Russian Government to remove its armed forces from the sovereign nation of Moldova. I thank Mr. Gilman, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Mr. Hamilton, the ranking minority member of the committee, for their support for this resolution. The Government of the Russian Federation is being called upon to adhere to its agreement of October 21, 1994, with the Moldovan Government and withdraw its military forces and equipment from Moldova within a 3-year timeframe. The resolution further urges the Secretary of State to use every appropriate opportunity and means to secure such removal; urges all of Moldova's neighbors to recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova; urges the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] to continue its efforts in resolving differences between the Government of Moldova and the authorities of the Transdniestria region; and welcomes the offer by the Government of Ukraine to assist in these efforts. Mr. Speaker, Moldova, a nation which recently celebrated its fifth year of independence, is the last of the New Independent States in which Russian military forces are stationed without a specific agreement with the host government for their deployment. These forces, estimated at between 5,000 and 6,000, are the remnants of the Soviet 14th Army, stationed exclusively in the eastern Transdniestria region of Moldova. While some Russian equipment has reportedly been moved out, and some ammunition has been destroyed, there has been little progress in the removal of military personnel, as called for in the 1994 agreement. Mr. Speaker, the administration has indicated its support for this resolution. During his meeting with Moldovan President Snegur in February 1995, President Clinton stated that the United States expects the 1994 agreement to be implemented on time. The State Department has reported that it ``intends to continue to take advantage of every opportunity to encourage the removal of Russian military forces from Moldova in accordance with the terms of the troop withdrawal agreement.'' The Moldovan Government supports this resolution. Our European friends are also concerned about this issue. Both the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe have passed resolutions calling for the removal of the Russian military forces from Moldova. Although the Russian Duma has yet to approve the 1994 treaty, the Russian Government is on record as saying it expects to abide by the agreement. Moreover, when the Russian Federation was admitted into the Council of Europe earlier this year, one of the stipulations for admission was that Russia would, and I quote: * * * ratify, in a period of sic months after the accessions of Russia to the Council of Europe, the Agreement of 21 October 1994 between the Russian and Moldovan Governments to continue the withdrawal of the 14th Army and its equipment from the territory of Moldova, within a time- limit of three years from the date of signature of the agreement. Having agreed to this, and several other stipulations for membership, the Russian Federation became a member of the Council of Europe on February 28, 1996. Mr. Speaker, the pending resolution does not attempt to dictate foreign policy to the Russian Federation, but merely asks the Russian Government to fulfill the agreement it made in 1994. In an era when NATO is exploring establishment of a special security relationship with Russia, I believe we should go on record expressing our concern that Moscow should act in good faith and remove its military forces from a sovereign state which poses no threat to Russian security. Simply put, Russian armed forces are neither wanted nor needed in Moldova. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for allowing us to sandwich our bill because of a scheduling conflict in between his other bills that are scheduled and to especially thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for graciously agreeing to be here tonight and to join us in hopefully passing this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this legislation is nine provisions, human rights and refugee related. It is a bipartisan bill. It is cosponsored, I am happy to say, by our committee chairman, full committee chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], who is ranking on my subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and others. It is a consensus bill about what needs to be done in a number of important human rights areas. It also provides some authorities that the State Department would like to have, one especially dealing with machine readable fees to finance border security programs at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer and an authority of the United States to stabilize the channel of the Rio Grande River in accordance with international agreements, and there are also some provisions dealing with USIA. Mr. Speaker, I do think it is a good bill, and again I ask to put my full statement into the Record. The statement referred to is as follows: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin this discussion of the Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996. This act, which I am proud to sponsor along with Ben Gilman, Lee Hamilton, Tom Lantos, Howard Berman, Henry Hyde, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Bill Goodling, consists of nine provisions that were originally included in H.R 1561, the Foreign Relations Act for Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997, which was passed by the House and Senate last year. Several provisions of the act extend or enhance authority to conduct important programs that are already underway. Two of these authorities relate to the security of our Nation's borders: The State Department's authority to use machine-readable fees to finance its Border Security Program at no cost to U.S. taxpayers, and the authority of the United States to stabilize the channel of the Rio Grande River in accordance with international agreements. The act extends the authority of USIA to include Tibetan and Burmese exiles in its scholarship programs, and requires USIA to take appropriate steps to involve pro-democracy and human rights leaders in exchange programs with countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy. It also requires that the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices include reports on each country's votes on resolutions before the U.N. Human Rights Commission, as well as its treatment of refugees. The latter provision is designed to enhance efforts to persuade other countries in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere to accept their fair share of the world's refugee population, rather than leaving the brunt of the burden on the United States and a few other nations. The act extends for 1 year the current law relating to refugees in certain high-risk categories, such as Jews and evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union and Southeast Asians who have suffered persecution for their wartime associations with the United States. It also clarifies the law with respect to forced abortion, forced sterilization, and persecution on account of resistance to such forced procedures. It requires periodic reports on the Castro government's methods of enforcing its immigration agreements with the United States and its treatment of people returned to Cuba in accordance with these agreements. Finally, the act provides that the United States should not give foreign assistance, other than humanitarian assistance, to Mauritania unless that country rigorously enforces its laws against human chattel slavery. This is a vicious form of persecution--it involves racial discrimination against blacks, religious persecution of Christians, and the worst forms of degradation of women and children. The policies of our Government toward Mauritania must be calculated to put a speedy end to this heinous practice. None of these sections was a source of controversy in the conference or on the House or Senate floor, and none was alluded to in the statement accompanying the President's veto of H.R. 1561. Several sections have been modified slightly to address concerns expressed by the administration. The act does not authorize expenditures for foreign assistance. We have worked with the administration and with Democrats on the International Relations Committee to meet their concerns. I have been assured that the administration does not oppose this bill and that it actively supports several important provisions of the legislation. Major provisions of this bill are also supported by a broad range of human rights organizations and other groups including the Council of Jewish Federations, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Union of Councils for Soviet Jewry, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the U.S. Committee for Refugees, the United States Catholic Conference, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the International Campaign for Tibet. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important human rights bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.