Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, beware of false and misleading bill titles. H.R. 2560, rushed to the floor today after only being introduced several hours ago, is misnamed the ``Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007.'' The fact is, this bill doesn't ban any human cloning at all. Absolutely none. Researchers are absolutely free, are given the green light, to clone human life to their heart's content, so long as they kill and destroy the cloned human embryo at some point, perhaps weeks, after its creation. As a matter of fact, the legislation makes it a serious crime to allow a cloned human being to survive pass a certain point. In other words, this bizarre piece of legislation would make it illegal not to kill a cloned human being; and the penalties are stiff, up to 10 years in prison and a $10 million fine. By redefining human cloning as ``implantation'' rather than the creation of a new human being that would be then transferred into a uterus or a functional equivalent, this phony ban sanctions unlimited human cloning for research. Even more bizarre, under the bill, if a woman were to have a cloned human embryo implanted in her womb, she could go to jail for up to 10 years and/or be fined up to $10 million. Is that something we want to vote for? I think not. The plain language in the Weldon-Stupak cloning ban penalizes those who facilitate the creation of the clone--not the woman. My colleagues, I am sure all of us are aware of the fact that a cloned human embryo will be indistinguishable from an embryo created using in-vitro fertilization. Dolly the Sheep looked just like every other sheep. How will this be enforced? If a woman is found carrying a cloned baby, are you willing to fine her and send her to jail for 10 years? Mr. Speaker, the United States should join many countries, including Canada, Germany, Italy and France, in totally banning all cloning. The Democratic leadership should bring the Weldon-Stupak bill to the floor, instead of the DeGette pro-cloning measure. Finally, what a difference a few years makes. In 2003, Ms. DeGette said, ``We are not and we do not support creating embryos for the purpose of research.'' This legislation begs the question. Apparently you do. Why aren't you bringing a total ban before this body? I would point out when a similar bill to H.R. 2560 was brought to the floor as an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Congressman Jim Greenwood we voted it down 174-231. Charles Krauthammer wrote, and I think this is very insightful, that ``Greenwood,'' and read that now DeGette, ``is a nightmare and an abomination. It sanctions, licenses and protects the launching of the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in modern scientific history, the creation of nascent cloned human life for the sole purpose of its exploitation and destruction.'' I urge my colleagues, let's pass a real ban on cloning, not this phony ban.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ms. Lee for introducing H. Res. 422, which calls on the government of the People's Republic of China to use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop the atrocities being committed in Darfur. This measure builds on numerous steps that this Congress and the United States Government, through the White House and the executive branch, have taken over the past several years to call a halt to the relentless killings, rapes and displacement of the innocent men, women and children in that region. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Sudan's soil has been soaked in the blood of innocent people. Sudan has not suffered just one, but two genocides. Everybody will recall that in southern Sudan, some two million people were slaughtered by the Bashir government; another 4 million people were displaced. When President Bush came into office, he announced that Senator Danforth would become our special envoy, and very vigorous and robust efforts were made to try to stop the killing in southern Sudan. We succeeded. But after a short period of time new hostilities broke out in the Darfur region in 2003, in February, and the blood-letting was beginning again. Darfur is now the second genocide that has occurred in Sudan. I think we should note for the record that no other nation on Earth has done as much as the United States to stop the genocide. Most of the food and the medicines at the refugee camps that my colleagues and I have all visited, looked in the eyes of so many people who have suffered so much, has come from the U.S. taxpayer. I think that should give us some sense of meaning that we have played a significant role in alleviating at least some of this suffering. Just last week, President Bush announced the expansion and tightening of economic sanctions against the Sudanese government. These sanctions include the barring of 30 more companies owned and controlled by the government of Sudan from the U.S. financial system, and it is a crime for Americans to knowingly engage in businesses with these companies. It is apparent, Mr. Speaker, that more can and must be done by other members of the international community to address these crimes against humanity. A primary culprit is the complicity in this genocide by the People's Republic of China. Instead of joining the international community in calling an end to the genocide, China has served as enabler-in-chief to the atrocities that continue to take place in Darfur. Not only has the Chinese government provided Bashir with funds and weapons, about over $90 million worth in 2005 alone, but it has lavished him with gifts and a false sense of legitimacy. The money and the weapons that Sudan has received from China has made the Chinese government absolutely complicit in these crimes against humanity. And now we see China's thwarting or attempting to thwart a U.S.-led effort at the U.N. Security Council for a resolution that would impose extended international arms embargo and new sanctions against the Sudanese government. According to Reuters last week, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said, ``New sanctions against Sudan would only complicate the issue. China appeals to all parties to maintain restraint and patience.'' I would urge this spokeswoman and all Chinese officials to go to Darfur and again look into the eyes of those who have suffered, look in the eyes of at least some of the 2 million people who have been displaced from their homes, look into the eyes of some of the families, the survivors of the 450,000 that have been killed and say, ``let's look for patience and restraint.'' China has covered itself in shame. It has enabled two genocides, southern Sudan and now in Darfur. Still, because so many victims are going to be suffering today and tomorrow and the next day, we appeal to the Chinese government, Mr. Speaker, to join us as peacemakers in that troubled region.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, yesterday the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health held a briefing and hearing on the important issue of Africa's water crisis. We tend to take for granted this basic necessity for human existence, and yet we are told by the United Nations Development Programme that over 1.1 billion people in developing countries do not have adequate access to safe water. Access to water is closely correlated to basic sanitation, and there too the world is facing a crisis. Some 2.6 billion people live without this second essential aspect of good health. In its Human Development Report for 2006, the UNDP presents a heavy indictment against the international community, noting that every year 1.8 million children die from causes related to unclean water and poor sanitation. This is equivalent to 4,900 deaths every day, and diarrheal disease is the second highest cause of death in the world for children under 5. This occurs despite the fact that we now have oral rehydration therapy. These numbers dwarf the number of deaths resulting from violent conflict, and yet the UNDP points out that water and sanitation are rarely highlighted as an international concern. In sub-Saharan Africa--the focus of the hearing--over 300 million people lack access to safe water, and some 460 million do not have access to proper sanitation. These overwhelming numbers hide the even deeper tragedy that it is the poor, both poor individuals and poor countries, who carry the greatest burden. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5 percent of its GDP, or about $28.4 billion each year, to the water and sanitation deficit. This figure exceeds the total amount of aid and debt relief provided to the region in 2003. And most of this loss is suffered by those households that are below the poverty line, those who can least afford to pay the cost. The lack of water also unduly affects women and girls, who in many societies have the responsibility of collecting and transporting water, which can occupy their energy and time for several hours each day. Beyond the apparent costs in human suffering and loss of life, there are broader social and economic costs as well. Improper water management impacts agricultural and industrial development, economic growth, and the preservation of land, coastal and marine ecosystems. Equitable access to sufficient quantities of safe water is necessary for a secure, peaceful society, and threats to such access can become a source of conflict and even violence. It is worthwhile to note that, according to the UNDP, the scarcity of water worldwide is not the result of physical availability. The Human Development Report states that household water requirements represent a very small fraction of water use, often less than 5 percent of the total. Instead the UNDP asserts that the source of the problem lies in power, poverty and inequality. Households in high-income urban areas of Asia, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa have access to several hundred liters of water each day through public utilities, while slum dwellers and poor households in the rural areas of those same countries have access to far less than the 20 liters a day per person required to meet the most basic human needs. The same analysis is said to apply to the areas of agriculture and industry. Income levels and access to water and sanitation systems are key elements. UNDP explicitly rejects the notion that the global water shortage is due to population increases. Fortunately, the United States Government is acting to provide more safe water and proper sanitation to the poor of the world. Thanks to the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005, authored by our good friend Congressman Earl Blumenauer who we welcomed as a witness at the hearing, the provision of affordable and equitable access to safe water and sanitation in developing countries is a legislative component of our country's foreign assistance programs. I have learned that the lack of access can be addressed by relatively simple means by an amazingly few but deeply committed people. I learned this first-hand when I was in Uganda last year and met Robert Wright from Living Waters International. I often emphasize the importance of faith-based organizations in meeting the global health needs of the world, and Living Waters is a Christian ministry that implements water development through training, equipping and consulting. Robert was living a comfortable life in my home state of New Jersey when he decided to move himself and his family to the remote regions of Uganda to assist the poor. He went to a school operated by Living Waters to learn how to drill a well to provide water for the hospital he was building. Although he was suffering from a bout of malaria, he drove several hours to Kampala to inform our delegation of the work of Living Waters and to press the need for water for the peoples of Africa. Therefore, I was particularly pleased to welcome Mr. Malcolm Morris, the chairman of Millennium Water Alliance, which represents a number of partners including Living Water International, who informed the Subcommittee of the work being done by faith-based organizations on this issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, after scouting possible targets in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the six members of a terrorist cell arrested in New Jersey last week chose to attack Fort Dix due to the access one member had to that installation. As a pizza delivery man, he was able to get on the base, survey the infrastructure and personnel, draw maps, and determine the best locations for the highest kill rate. If not for a citizen's tip and a thorough and aggressive law enforcement team led by U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who through a 16- month surveillance effort dotted every ``i'' and crossed every ``t,'' terrorists could have infiltrated the base with the sole intent of killing as many people as possible. Mr. Chairman, my South Jersey colleagues and I have been arguing for years that easy civilian access to our military bases--across the Nation--could leave them vulnerable to those wishing to do us harm. In 2004, we passed a modified version of my bill, the Military Bases Security Act, H.R. 3695, and mandated a pilot program in which the Department of Defense could test and increase the vetting of civilians who worked on our bases as employees of private contractors. Because the greatest vulnerability exists when contractors are brought in to complete major construction and facility maintenance jobs, my bill also instructed DOD to use the pilot program to test and implement the best value contracting process instead of the lowest bidder process. In the best value process, contractors are given points for their staffing plans and employee training programs--two effective means for vetting and eliminating unqualified and even undocumented workers from construction jobs. The thought is that by rewarding contractors who vet, train, and hire experienced workers, another layer of protection would be put in place as we attempt to secure our bases. Regrettably, DOD has yet to issue its final analysis on the pilot program and an interim report indicates that their implementation of the program has been feckless at best. And despite the insistence by the Department of Defense that they are doing everything possible to ensure our bases are employing qualified and legal workers, we consistently learn of Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel arresting dozens of illegal aliens ``working'' on military bases around the country. In January of this year, the International Herald Tribune ran a story that stated nearly 40 illegal aliens were arrested on military installations in Georgia, Virginia and Nevada. And one arrested in Nevada was a member of MS-13, one of the most dangerous gangs in the U.S. I remain convinced that through best value contracting we can and will do a better job of ensuring that those who obtain contracts on our bases are employing legal and qualified workers. And I am committed to ensuring that DOD gives more than lip service to the pilot program and its provisions to vet unqualified workers and attain the best workmanship and better security at our bases. The amendment offered today by my colleague Jim Saxton also seeks to vet civilians who enter or conduct business on our bases. Specifically, the Saxton amendment, which is part of an en bloc amendment, requires FBI criminal background checks and clearance from the Department of Homeland Security for any ``unescorted civilian seeking access to a military installation or facility or any civilian who is an employee of a contractor or vendor of a military installation.'' Without the background check, these civilians will be blocked from entering a base. Mr. Chairman, we cannot hermetically seal our military bases--many of which have great activities for the general public--but we can and must make every effort to provide greater protection. The Saxton amendment is another positive step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who has been a leader on global human rights for 27 years, and that especially relates to Vietnam.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just yield myself 2 final minutes to close. First of all, let me thank Mr. Wolf, Chairman Wolf for his very eloquent and passionate statement. And I think by injecting China into this debate as well, there is a modus operandi by both of those countries to talk a good game about human rights while doing absolutely nothing, as a matter of fact, by doing just the opposite. It is doublespeak. It is Orwellian, and unfortunately, it is what is happening on the ground today. Let me also say that when I visited dissidents, several of whom were under house arrest in Ho Chi Min City, Hue and Hanoi, I was struck by the heart breaking vulnerability of those individuals and their families, because the secret police don't just go after the individual. They target their families, their kids, their brothers their sisters- in-law, their nephews and nieces. It is widespread. The bullies inflict maximum, they being the communist regime, maximum pain on the individual and his or her family. I'll give you an example of just how it works. One of the individuals who downloaded ``What is Democracy'' from the Internet, which was on the U.S. embassy Web site, translated and then resent it out, got 5 years in prison. He was recently let out. But his wife Vu, who I met in a Hanoi restaurant with at least three bully boys sitting about 5-10 feet away taking her picture, from the secret police, told me again and again how fearful she was that she would be targeted--and hit. She rides a motor bike; she feared that they would run her down. Modus operandi, again, of the secret police. Sure enough, just a few weeks ago, she was hit on the road by the police. Would you say that was an accident? If you think that is an accident, I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Mr. Speaker, human rights abuse is getting worse in Vietnam. It is widespread. It is pervasive. And it has got to be stopped. We need to speak out with one voice. The administration needs to speak out with one voice. This resolution has a number of action clauses in it. I hope it is taken seriously both in Hanoi as well as down at Foggy Bottom. We need to help those suffering individuals. We are their last best hope. Let's work for them because they deserve our--and Vietnam's-- respect and protection.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Vietnam has long been known as a major violator of human rights. The U.S. House of Representatives went on record in the 109th Congress condemning and deploring the violations of human rights in Vietnam and strongly urging the Vietnamese Government to consider the implications of its human rights abuses for the broader relationship between the United States and Vietnam. I point out parenthetically that the House almost a year ago to the day passed a resolution that I sponsored similar to this one, H. Con. Res. 320, on April 6, 2006. There was some initial improvement. Regrettably, there has been a snapback to its original and even worsened situation when it comes to human rights observance. That is why I have sponsored H. Res. 243--calling on Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Fr. Ly, Mr. Dai, Mrs. Whan and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State in its ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices'' notes that the human rights record in Vietnam remains ``unsatisfactory,'' and that government officials continued ``to commit serious abuses.'' The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom stated in its 2006 annual report that Vietnam ``continues to commit systematic and egregious violations of freedom of religion and belief.'' However, in November 2006, pursuant to a boatload of assurances and solemn promises that the human rights situation would improve dramatically, Vietnam became the first country to be removed from the list of Countries of Particular Concern, so designated pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act. Late last year, the U.S. Congress agreed to Vietnam becoming an official member of the World Trade Organization, and a group of Asian countries at the United Nations has nominated Vietnam as the sole regional candidate for a nonpermanent seat on the U.S. Security Council. Despite this flurry of international recognition and tangible economic benefit, despite the hopes of many, including and especially the Vietnamese people, Vietnam has reverted to its repressive practices and has arrested, imprisoned, and imposed lengthy prison sentences on numerous individuals whose only crime has been to seek democratic reform and respect for fundamental human rights in their country. The crackdown in Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, on religious and human rights activists is unconscionable and of course it is unnecessary. I have been to Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, on many human rights trips, and chaired several hearings on it as well. But on one of the most recent trips, I actually met with Father Nguyen Van Ly who recently got 8 years in prison; I also met with Nguyen Van Dai and about 60 other human rights activists and religious leaders and people who are pressing for reform in that country. I was struck by how smart, talented, and kindhearted these people were. I believe they are Vietnam's best and brightest and bravest. I was amazed how they harbor no malice, no hate towards the government; nor do they hate the government leaders. They only want a better future for their country, and each and every one of the people I met with was committed, and is committed, to peaceful nonviolent reform. But just one month ago, on March 30, the government sentenced Father Ly to 8 years imprisonment after subjecting him to a sham trial for distributing ``antigovernment materials.'' When I met with Father Ly he was under house arrest, he sounded just like the activists I had met and spoke to during the dark years of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. During those years of domination by communism, men like Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, and Anatoly Shcharansky--people who, like the folks in Charter 77 in the Czech Republic--only wanted freedom, democracy, and human rights. None of them wanted violence, and yet we see that men like Father Ly now get 8 years imprisonment on top of the 13 years he has previously served in the Gulag on trumped-up charges. Jailing dissidents is a window into the malice and evil of the government of Vietnam. As I mentioned, attorney, Nguyen Van Dai, a tenacious campaigner for human rights who uses the law, international and domestic, to press his cause, nonviolently--he's totally nonviolent, hates violence, abhors it, stands up and tries to use the law to try to get remedies for his clients. He, too, is now awaiting a trial which will be another kangaroo court and a sham deal at that. Another human rights lawyer, Le Thi Cong Nhan, is a labor activist. And according to reports, she too now will undergo another one of these bogus trials. We know that Vietnam, due to our robust trade and recently enacted PNTR and their ascension into the WTO, we know that trade will increase between the United States and Vietnam. So when this lawyer seeks to be an activist for what the ILO and all of us in this room believe to be fundamental freedoms like collective bargaining, the secret police raids her office and drags her away. She is now awaiting another one of these kangaroo trials. Another victim of the crackdown is Le Quoc Quan. Here's a person who just returned to Vietnam in early March after completing a fellowship right here in Washington at the National Endowment for Democracy. He was arrested on March 8, apparently for the crime of engaging in research on civil society development at NED. And all of us who know NED know what a great, completely transparent and human rights rule of law oriented organization NED is, a group funded, by this Congress and by the executive branch. It's a great organization. Quam goes back to victim and is basically arrested soon after his arrival and now he is awaiting a trial as well. Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, a group called Block 8406 devised a statement of human rights principles. It reminds me of Charter 77. Brave men and women banded together united by a statement of principles, human rights concerns. We've seen such expressions in Cuba, we've seen it all over the world in despotic countries. These brave men and women sign on the dotted line, in a way not unlike our own forefathers who signed the Declaration of Independence. In Vietnam's case, they are pertaning for reforms. And openness. And I have read it. It is very, very simple and eloquent and to the point. It's all about human rights and democratization. And for being part of 8406, other activists are now being caught in this dragnet. I would note parenthetically, Father Ly was also a signer of this Block 8406 a manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam. The 8406 stands for April 8, 2006. That's when they founded this courageous organization. H. Res. 243, the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, is intended to send a critical and timely message to the Vietnamese government that these serious violations of basic human rights are absolutely unacceptable and bring profound dishonor on the government of Vietnam. These human rights violations cannot be overlooked. They cannot be trivialized. These human rights violations which are ongoing, and they occur as we meet here today, cannot continue without equally serious consequences. It also urges our Government to make human rights a top priority in our bilateral relations with Vietnam. I do believe this recent snap back to human rights abuse underscores the unwitting naivete on the part of some who think if we just trade, if we just open our pocket books, dictatorships will automatically matriculate into democracies and freedom loving human rights respecting countries. It hasn't happened anywhere. Not in the PRC, it has not happened in Vietnam and it is not happening anywhere where that naive view is embraced. So we've got to send some clear messages. Human rights do matter. And we will stand up for those who are mistreated. We will stand with the oppressed and not with the oppressor. Finally, I've heard it from informed and very reliable sources that some of the recent jailees, the human rights activists that are now behind bars suffering torture and mistreatment, that they are being told that the United States really doesn't care about them; that we've walked away. I have heard this on a couple of occasions from people who have very good inside information. They are actually being taunted with that kind of mantra. I want to tell the presecuted--you are not forgotten. It's a bipartisan expression today, you are no forgotten. We care deeply about these human rights activists and we will not forget you. And we will do all that is humanly possible, God willing, to effectuate your release and hopefully, some day, see a free and democratic Vietnam. At this point in the Record, I would like to include 8406--manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Human Rights. Manifesto 2006 on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam by 118 Democracy Activists Inside Vietnam--April 8, 2006 Dear Compatriots Inside and Outside of Vietnam: We, the undersigned, representing hundreds of Vietnamese democracy activists inside Vietnam and all those Vietnamese citizens yearning for True Democracy for Vietnam, hereby unanimously proclaim the following: I. The Current Realities of Vietnam 1. In the August 1945 Revolution, the entire Vietnamese nation made a choice for national independence and not socialism. Vietnam's Declaration of Independence on September 2, 1945 did not contain a single word about socialism or communism. The two mainsprings behind the success of that Revolution were the Vietnamese people's aspiration for national independence and also the desire to fill the power vacuum that existed after the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945, following their overthrow of the French colonial administration on March 9, 1945. It is thus clear that the Vietnamese communists had abandoned the main objective of the August Revolution. As a result, the Vietnamese peoples' aspiration for self- determination was disregarded. There have been two occasions, one in 1954 in North Vietnam and the other in 1975 in all of Vietnam, when there were good opportunities for the Vietnamese nation to set a new course towards a true democracy. Sadly, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV), failed to take advantage of those opportunities. This failure is due to the well-known fact, as propounded by Lenin, that once a dictatorship of the proletariat has been installed, its very first function is to foster violence and repressive terror! 2. On September 2, 1945 in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, President of the Interim Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declared to the [Vietnamese] nation and the world that: ``All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, among them the Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,'' undying words taken from the U.S. Declaration of Independence of 1776. Interpreted broadly, this sentence can mean that all nations are created equal and that they are entitled to Life, Freedom and Happiness. The 1791 French Declaration on Human and Civil Rights also proclaims: ``All people are born free and have equal rights, and they must remain free and equal in all rights.'' These are undeniable truths . . .'' (This quote is taken directly from the September 2, 1945 Vietnamese Declaration of Independence). Nevertheless, the communist government of Vietnam began to trample upon these sacred rights the moment they came to power. 3. By February 1951, the Vietnam Workers Party (VWP, now rechristened the CPV) proclaimed in a Manifesto at its Second Party Congress that: ``The ideology of the VWP is Marxism- Leninism.'' This was something that was even more clearly expressed in the Party Bylaws, under the rubric of ``Goal and Leading Principles'': ``The Vietnam Workers Party takes the ideology of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin and the thought of Mao Zedong in combination with the revolutionary realities of Vietnam to be its ideological foundation and compass for all Party activities. Since then, especially in the North after 1954, and in the entire country after April 30, 1975, the specter of Communism has been imposed on the Vietnamese nation. For all practical purposes, this specter has been used to deprive the Vietnamese people of all their human rights. And even today, its overwhelming influence is evident in the spiritual as well as the material spheres of the Vietnamese nation. II. Universal Laws Affecting All Societies 1. History has demonstrated that under every totalitarian regime, whether communist or non-communist, all democratic rights and freedoms are mercilessly repressed, the difference being only in the degree of repression. Unfortunately, to this day the Vietnamese nation is still one of the few that is under the rule of a totalitarian communist regime. This fact is unabashedly declared in Article 4 of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) Constitution, which says: ``The CPV. . . follows Marxism-Leninism and the thought of Ho Chi Minh, and it is the leading force of the state and society.'' It is on the basis of this article that democratic rights and freedoms of the Vietnamese people have been extremely curtailed. 2. The power structure in Vietnam rejects competition and totally minimizes the possibility of its replacement by something else. This record has helped accelerate the degeneration of government, and its transformation from what it started out to be. Because there are no rules and principles regarding fair competition in the current political culture of the country, election after election, people have not been allowed to choose the most deserving individuals and political parties to represent them. For that reason the leadership, management and operational set-ups become ever more corrupt, and can now be compared to a creaky piece of equipment from the center down to the localities. As a result, Vietnam is now a nation that has fallen way behind other nations in the region and in the world. In the prevailing environment, this shameful national performance and other nation-wide problems are beyond correction. The problem of all problems, the source of all evils, resides in the fact that the CPV is now the one and only political force leading Vietnam! The realities of history have shown that any country, once it has fallen into the orbit of Communism, ends up in ruin and misery. The Soviet Union itself, the very cradle of world communism, has, together with other former Eastern European countries valiantly overcome its own weaknesses to rediscover the correct path leading them forward. 3. We all understand that no one can remake history, but it is possible to redirect its course. What is even more important is that through history's lessons, one can find the correct orientation for the nation's future. The path chosen by the CPV for the Vietnamese nation was designed in haste, and thoughtlessly imposed. That is why today, it is necessary to choose once again a new path for our nation. And a path chosen by the entire nation must necessarily be better than the one chosen by just one person or one group of persons. Given that the CPV is, after all, only one component of the nation, it should not claim to speak on behalf of the entire nation! Considering that for almost half a century, from 1954 to 2006, the ruling party in Vietnam has usurped the voice of the nation, it is by no means a legitimate government! Why? Because there had simply not been a single free election during all that time in Vietnam. On the basis of the above realities and the stated universal laws, being fully conscious of our responsibilities as citizens, and faced with the nation's fate, we would like to declare the following to our compatriots both inside and outside of Vietnam: III. Objective, Methods and Significance of Our Struggle 1. The highest objective in the struggle to fight for freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese nation today is to make sure that the present political regime in Vietnam is changed in a fundamental way, not through incremental ``renovation'' steps or, even worse, through insignificant touch-ups here and there. Concretely speaking, it must be a change from the monolithic, one-party, non-competitive regime that we have at the present time to a pluralistic and multiparty system; one in which there is healthy competition, in accordance with the legitimate requirements of the nation, including at least a clear separation of powers among the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government. This would be in tune with international criteria and the experiences and lessons Mankind has learned from highly respected and successful democracies. The concrete objective is to re-establish the following fundamental rights of the people: The Freedom of Information and Opinion as defined in the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified on December 16, 1966, and endorsed by Vietnam on September 24, 1982, Article 19.2: ``Everyone shall have the right to freedom of opinion; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.'' This means that political parties, organizations and individuals all have the freedom to express their opinions through the printed media, radio, television and any other mass media without having to wait for prior approval by the government. The Freedom to Assemble, form Associations, Political Parties, Vote and Stand for Elected Offices as defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 25: ``Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity (a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.'' This means that political parties of every orientation are allowed to fairly compete in a genuine pluralistic and multiparty democracy. The Freedom to participate in Independent Labor Unions and the Right to Legitimate Strikes in accordance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ratified by the United Nations on December 16, 1966, Articles 7 and 8: ``The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favorable conditions of work . . ., the right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests . . . [including] the right to strike . . .'' These Labor Unions must be independent of, and in practice, not subservient to the state. The Freedom of Religion as defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18: ``Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include the freedom to have or adopt a Religion or Belief of his choice, and the freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.'' These religions must also operate independently; they cannot be made the instruments of the state. 2. The method of this struggle must be peaceful and non- violent. The Vietnamese nation must itself be actively engaged in it. Of course, we are extremely thankful for the warm and ever more effective support of all our friends in the world. Using modern information media and through ever larger international exchanges, we will seek in every way to help our compatriot to fully understand the issues involved. Once this has been achieved, they surely will know how to act appropriately and effectively. 3. This struggle is meant to make the Right Cause triumph over the Bad Cause, and, Progress over Backwardness. There are popular movements that are currently trying to use the laws of life and the tendencies of our time in order to defeat those evil forces that are trying to go against these tendencies and laws. Whether the CPV marches hand-in-hand with the Nation or not will depend on whether it is objective, fair, enlightened and modest enough to accept the principle of equality in a fair competition. The one-party political regime must be once and for all buried in the dustbin of history. From such a departing point, the Vietnamese nation will be able to find its best citizens and the most capable political organizations after each election to lead it. The ``total triumph of the right cause'' principle will be established, and one's individual life will become better, our society more humane, and our Compatriots will live together on more friendly terms. We hope that this Manifesto would foster the positive contributions of our compatriots living outside of Vietnam and the support of our international friends. We are sincerely grateful and call on the United Nations, national parliaments, governments, international organizations and our friends all over the world to continue supporting enthusiastically and effectively this fully legitimate struggle. This will soon help bring our Fatherland, Vietnam, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with civilized, moral, prosperous and free countries in today's community of Mankind--Unanimously declared in Vietnam on 8 April 2006. Dr. Nguyen Xuan An, Hue; Teacher Dang Van Anh, Hue; Prof. Nguyen Kim Anh, Hue; Writer Trinh Canh, Vung Tau; Teacher Le Can, Hue; Teacher Tran Thi Minh Cam, Hue; Teacher Nguyen Thi Linh Chi, Can Tho; Teacher Nguyen Viet Cu, Quang Ngai; Writer Nguyen Dac Cuong, Phan Thiet; Teacher Tran Doan, Quang Ngai; Teacher Ho Anh Dung, Hue; Dr. Ha Xuan Duong, Hue; Attorney Nguyen Van Dai, Hanoi; Dr. Ho Dong, Vinh Long; Businessman Tran Van Ha, Da Nang; Dr. Le Thi Ngan Ha, Hue; (Mrs.) Vu Thuy Ha, Hanoi; Teacher Tran Thach Hai, Haiphong; Teacher Dang Hoai Anh, Hue; Dr. Le Hoai Anh, Nha Trang. Prof. Nguyen Ngoc Anh, Da Namg; Rev. F.X. Le Van Cao, Hue; Rev. Giuse Hoang Can, Hue; Rev. Giuse Nguyen Van Chanh, Hue; Prof. Hoang Minh Chinh, Hanoi; Dang Quoc Cuong, MA, Hue; Businessman Ho Ngoc Diep, Da Nang; Ms. Le Thi Phu Dung, Saigon; Prof. Truong Quang Dung, Hue; Ex-Col. Pham Que Duong, Hanoi; Kt (Architect?) Tran Van Don, Phan Thiet; Rev. Phero Nguyen Huu Giai, Hue; Teacher Le Thi Bich Ha, Can Tho; Teacher Le Nguyen Xuan Ha, Hue; Eng. Do Nam Hai, Saigon; Kt (Architect?) Tran Viet Hai, Vung Tau; Eng. Doan Thi Dieu Hanh, Vung Tau; Teacher Phan Thi Minh Hanh, Hue; Writer Tran Hao, Vung Tau; Teacher Le Le Hang, Hue. Nurse Che Minh Hoang, Nha Trang; Teacher Le Thu Minh Hung, Saigon; Rev. Gk Nguyen Van Hung, Hue; Teacher Le Thi Thanh Huyenh, Hue; Mai Thu Huong, MA, Haiphong; Candidate Nguyen Ngoc Ke, Hue; Nguyen Quoc Khanh, MA, Hue; Prof. Tran Khue, Saigon; Writer Bui Lang, Phan Thiet; Mr. Le Quang Liem, Head, Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhist'' Church, Saigon; Rev. G.B. Nguyen Cao Loc, Hue; Teacher Ma Van Luu, Haiphong; Rev. Tadeo Nguyen Van Ly, Hue; Teacher Cao Thi Xuan Mai, Hue; Writer Ha Van Mau, Can Tho; Writer Le Thi Thu Minh, Can Tho; Teacher Nguyen Anh Minh, Saigon; (Mrs.) Bui Kim Ngan, Hanoi; Rev. G.B. Le Van Nghiem, Hue; Rev. Dominic Phan Phuoc, Hue. Rev. Giuse Cai Hong Phuong, Hue; Eng. Ta Minh Quan, Can Tho; Rev. Giuse Tran Van Quy, Hue; Dr. Tran Thi Sen, Nha Trang; Eng. Hoang Son, Haiphong; Prof. Nguyen Anh Tai, Da Nang; Dr. Ta Minh Tam, Can Tho; Pastor Pham Ngoc Thach, Saigon; Teacher Van Ba Thanh, Hue; Tran Manh Thu, MA, Haiphong; Writer Hoang Tien, Hanoi; Rev. Tephano Chan Tin, Saigon; Writer Ton Nu Minh Trang, Phan Thiet; Dr. Nguyen Anh Tu, Da Nang; Teacher Le Tri Tue, Haiphong; Businesswoman Nguyen Thi Hanh, DaNang; Prof. Dang Minh Hao, Hue; Writer Tran Manh Hao, Saigon; Rev. Giuse Nguyen Duc Hieu, Bac Ninh; Teacher Van Dinh Hoang, Hue. Prof. Nguyen Minh Hung, Hue; Teacher Phan Ngoc Huy, Hue; Teacher Do Thi Minh Huong, Hue; Nurse Tran Thu Huong, Da Nang; Prof. Nguyen Chinh Ket, Saigon; Teacher Nguyen Dang Khoa, Hue; Ex-Major Vu Kinh, Hanoi; Teacher Ton That Hoang Lan, Saigon; Dr. Vu Thi Hoa Linh, Saigon; Rev. Phero Phan Van Loi, Hue; Teacher Nguyen Van Ly, Haiphong; Teacher Cai Thi Mai, Haiphong; Teacher Nguyen Van Mai, Saigon; Teacher Phan Van Mau, Hue; Teacher Ma Van Minh, Hue; Dr. Huyen Ton Nu Phuong Nhien, Da Nang; Dang Hoai Ngan, MA, Hue; Teacher Le Hong Phuc, Haiphong; Eng. Vo Lam Phuoc, Saigon; Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang, Saigon. Rev. Augustino Ho Van Quy, Hue; Dr. Vo Van Quyen, Vinh Long; Hoa Hao Lay preacher Le Van Soc, Vinh Long; Rev. Phao Lo Ngo Thanh Son, Hue; Eng. Do Hong Tam, Haiphong; Prof. Nguyen Thanh Tam, Hue; Teacher Nguyen binh Thanh, Hue; Hoa Hao Lay preacher Nguyen Van Tho, Dong Thap; Prof. Dr. Tran Hong Thu, Saigon; Ex-Officer Tran Dung Tien, Hanoi; Teacher Nguyen Khac Toan, Hanoi; Teacher Che Thi Hong Trinh, Hue; Dr. Doan Minh Tuan, Saigon; Nurse Tran Thi Hoai Van, Nha,Trang; Teacher Ngo Thi Tuong Vi, Quang Ngai; Ho Ngoc Vinh, MA, Da Nang; Teacher Nguyen Le Xuan Vinh, Can Tho; Eng. Lam Dinh Vinh, Saigon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, for authoring this important resolution recognizing the abolishment of the inhumane, grossly immoral and ubiquitous British slave trade 200 years ago, and the highly principled member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce, who poured his life into that noble cause. One man can--and did--make a difference. H. Res. 158 also links the abolition issue to today's modern-day slave trade, human trafficking, and I appreciate that the gentleman from Pennsylvania recognized that there are lessons learned that need to be applied to our current battle against modern-day slavery. Madam Speaker, William Wilberforce was 21 years old when he was elected to the House of Commons in 1780. And perhaps like some of us, later said, ``The first years in Parliament I did nothing, nothing to any purpose. My own distinction was my darling object.'' But that all changed, Madam Speaker, after a profound conversion to Christianity and a serious rethinking as to whether politics, with all of its diversions, distractions, vanity, lies, and deception, was compatible with his ever-deepening religious faith. He even thought of quitting politics and entering into a ministry. John Newton, the former slave captain turned convert to Christ, among others, encouraged him to fight the battle against slavery where it could be won, in Parliament. The Commons is the place where you can stop slavery. Wilberforce agreed, and then poured his life into that battle. William Wilberforce once said: ``Never, never will we desist until we extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic to which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long to disgrace and dishonor this country.'' He also said: ``So enormous, so dreadful, so remediable did the trade's wickedness quickly appear that my own mind was completely made up for its abolition.'' Madam Speaker, 200 years ago the slave trade was abolished, and he went on for the rest of his life with a group of prayer warriors, men and women who prayed every day for the abolishment of the slave trade, who believed it was a blight not just against man and woman, but against God himself. And it was through prayer and action that they came up with a number of very interesting and creative legislative ways of trying to stop it. Wilberforce was also tenacious. Time and time again, he would offer his bill to abolish the slave trade, only to have all kinds of shenanigans, filibusters and misinformation, diversions, and threats including physical threats to himself, used as a way of deferring action, but he nevertheless persisted and in the end, he prevailed. We need to learn from that example, Madam Speaker, because we have a slave trade today. In 1990s, the phenomenon of human trafficking, ever present in all of history, exploded in prevalence, sophistication and cruelty. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations, suddenly new mobsters, many of them former KBG operatives, were all of a sudden on the scene buying and selling young women as commodities. Additionally, the Internet suddenly brought pornography, including child porn, into homes all over the world, furthering the demand for victims. The sleazy X-rated theater went mainstream. Organized crime in countries all over the world, including the United States, made profits seemingly without limit while incurring next to no risk of prosecution. As Mr. Pitts pointed out earlier, today the United States is the net importer of upwards of 18,000 people, mostly women or children, who are trafficked into this country to be exploited. That is an abomination. We also have our own interstate slave trade where young girls who are runaways are quickly picked up by pimps and bought and sold like commodities. That, too, must stop. Madam Speaker, I believe that because too much evil is involved here and because the prospect of making billions of dollars has enticed some of the most unsavory and cruel individuals, including and especially organized crime, into this nefarious trade we have to beef up our efforts to stop this slavery. Because too much demand enabled by crass indifference, unbridled hedonism and misogynistic attitudes has turned people, especially women, into objects valued only for their utility in the brothel or in the sweat shop we have to accelerate and expand our fight, and because of the relative lack of visibility, all of this makes the task of combating trafficking in modern day slavery all the more difficult. But trafficking, like germs, infection and disease, thrives only in the shadows and in the murky places and cannot survive when brought to the light. Light remains a very, very powerful disinfectant. So my challenge to all of us is that we have to bring the light, the bright light of scrutiny, of criminal investigations, the disinfecting of investigations and convictions, probing legislative inquiry, having the students, as Mr. Pitts in this bill encourages them to do, to form student groups to look into slavery. We need to use every tool, best practice and well-honed strategy to win the freedom of the slaves and to spare others the agony, especially through prevention measures, the agony of slavery. Together, we can make the pimps and the exploiters pay by doing serious jail time, as well as the forfeiture of their assets. The boats, the villas and the fat-cat bank accounts must go. Together we can end this barbaric and utterly cruel modern day slavery, just as William Wilberforce and other great men and women did so in antiquity. Make no mistake about it; the abolition of modern day slavery is a winnable war. We need to fight in ways so as to win. We need to pray. I believe we need to fast, and we need to have good, well-developed strategies, and we need to work as a bipartisan team, to end this cruelty.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, last week the House Committee on Foreign Relations held an important hearing on the current situation in Darfur. I am grateful to Chairman Tom Lantos for keeping this critical issue in the spotlight of the committee. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has proven that he considers the people of Darfur to be merely pawns in a game that he is playing with the international community. Even as his representative is sending a letter to the UN Secretary General accepting the Heavy Support Package that is supposed to lead to a joint UN-AU protective force in the region, we are receiving news reports that his government is flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur under the disguise of UN and AU aircraft in order to fuel the conflict. The gulf between Bashir's actions and his words is as wide as the callous attitude I encountered when I met with him personally in Khartoum and the desperate, deeply grieved look on the faces of the refugees I met in the camps of Darfur. It is time for the global community to stop considering Bashir as a legitimate negotiating partner and to start treating him as he is--the despotic tyrant responsible for more than 400,000 deaths and 2 million people displaced from their homes in Darfur. That is in addition to the 2 million dead and 4 million who were displaced during the war in the south. I welcome President Bush's announcement last week that our government will be taking several new steps if the Sudanese Government does not meet its commitments. I strongly urge the President to make that window of opportunity for Bashir to finally follow through on his word extremely short. Bashir has long since lost any entitlement to one day more than is absolutely necessary to establish peace in Darfur. In order to be effective, however, the efforts of the United States must be joined by those of the international community. We must ALL decide that NOW is the time to end this crisis. Our partners on the UN Security Council should agree immediately to the resolution that will be introduced by the United States applying new sanctions against the Sudanese Government and any individual that violates human rights or obstructs the peace process. Particularly given the revelations of the government's continued military support to the Arab militias, the Security Council must also impose an expanded embargo on arms sales to the government of Sudan, prohibit Sudan's government from conducting any offensive military flights over Darfur, and strengthen the international community's ability to monitor and report any violations. The Government of the People's Republic of China, in particular, should take a leadership role in ending the Darfur conflict. Instead of lending money to Bashir for a new presidential palace, the Chinese Government should be pressuring him to enable the people of Darfur to live in their own homes in peace and security. I have long exhorted the Chinese Government to stop the reprehensible violation of the human rights of its own people, and I have signaled the upcoming 2008 Olympics in Beijing as a singular opportunity for the international community to insist on the respect of those rights. I applaud the outstanding efforts of Ms. Mia Farrow, one of our distinguished witnesses at the hearing, to galvanize the world to object to China's hosting of the Olympics at the same time it is ignoring the plight of our brothers and sisters suffering in Darfur. I would encourage my colleagues here in Congress to join these efforts with respect to the Olympics and to seek other measures to end the genocide.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 7, and congratulate Congresswoman Jackson-Lee for authoring this important measure. It sends a very clear and nonambiguous message to the Arab League to recognize the killing fields of Darfur as ``genocide'' and to support the deployment of the hybrid U.N. peacekeeping force pursuant to U.N. Resolution 1706. It is timely that we consider this resolution today as leaders and activists around the world unite to raise awareness and urge action to stop the genocide during this week's Global Days for Darfur. Madam Speaker, no other people on Earth have suffered more than the people of Sudan. Tragically, they have been victimized by not one, but two genocides. In the south, over the course of 2 decades, some 2 million people were murdered by the Khartoum regime, and only a robust peacemaking effort, backed by the military efforts on the ground by Dr. Garang, resulted in a comprehensive peace agreement that was very ably brokered by Senator Danforth as the Special Envoy appointed by President Bush. Indeed, President Bush, I think, made the crucial difference in bringing peace to southern Sudan. But just as that peace was breaking out, in February of 2003, hostilities began in Darfur, and now we have, regrettably, another genocide, in excess of 400,000 people dead and 2 million people displaced. Several months ago, Madam Speaker, I traveled to Darfur and met some of the heroic survivors of genocide at two camps, at Mukjar and at Kalma camp. When our old Soviet era helicopter landed at the remote Mukjar camp, thousands of women and children danced, clapped and sang beautiful traditional African songs. The people of Darfur, as we all know, have a remarkable generosity and spirit. And it was awe inspiring and heart breaking at the same time. At first glance most of the people had a superficial glow of physical wellness, thanks in large part to the brave NGOs bearing food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However, even those necessities are now at risk due to the insecurity in Darfur caused by a lack of protection of humanitarian aid workers. As the H. Con. Res. 7 points out, Khartoum is now targeting relief agencies and NGOs, and at least 12 humanitarian workers have been killed in Darfur. It profoundly troubles me, and troubled me especially on the trip, to look at the appalling fear and trepidation. It is ever-present. Trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder is everywhere. I spoke with many women who told me personal stories of rape, senseless beatings and massacres by the Janjaweed and the Sudanese militias. Among the refugees and IDPs, emotional woundedness and brokenness is everywhere. Like you and me, Madam Speaker, all that the wonderful people of Darfur really want is to love God and their families and their friends and to earn a living and to live in peace, and yet they have had atrocities imposed upon them that no human should have to bear. On that same trip, Madam Speaker, I also had a lengthy meeting with President Bashir at his presidential suite in Khartoum. All Bashir wanted to talk about was ending United States trade sanctions, not the horrific loss of life in Darfur. For me the exchange was eerily reminiscent of a conversation I had had in Serbia with the late Slobodan Milosevic after he invaded Croatia, then Bosnia, and unleashed the Balkan genocide. He too, like Bashir, was unmoved by the plight of suffering people. On October 5 of 2006, I wrote a letter, cosigned by 175 Members of Congress, to the Secretary General of The League of Arab States, asking him to use his authority to employ all diplomatic means available to encourage Bashir to halt Sudan's military offensive in North Darfur, to withdraw Sudanese troops from the area, and to reverse the Arab League's opposition to the U.N. deployment of peacekeepers. I believe, and this resolution makes absolutely clear, that the UN-AU hybrid force is today the best option to enforce a cease-fire, protect civilians, ensure access to humanitarian assistance, and begin the path to reconstruction and reconciliation in Darfur. We pointed out in the October letter that the collective voice of the Arab League could clearly help save thousands of lives and bring peace and security to Darfur. Right now they are part of the problem. It is time the Arab League became part of the solution. Finally, this legislation strongly urges the League of Arab States to declare that the systematic torture, rape, and displacement of Darfurians is a genocide, and strongly urges the Arab League to agree and pass a resolution to accept and support the U.N. peacekeepers, again, as the best option to enforce that cease-fire and to give the people of Darfur what they so desperately need: peace and reconciliation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), and that he may control that time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. First, let me say to the distinguished majority leader, I want to thank him for his leadership on a broad range of human rights issues. And I think it speaks volumes that the first trip as majority leader that you put together was to Darfur to try to promote peace and reconciliation. So I very much want to commend you for that. I also thank you for your compliments to Frank Wolf and I; but I would add to that, when you talk about going to remote places, that also applies to you. I think Members should know that there were a number of trips that we undertook during the dark days of the Soviet Union when human rights were being crushed daily. I will never forget a trip we took to Lithuania, led by then Chairman Hoyer when Lansbergis, the President, was under siege, was literally surrounded by Soviet Black Berets. And we went there, to be a presence, to be a deterrent. Just prior to our arrival, more than a dozen people were murdered at TV tower, the gentleman will recall, but he nevertheless led our delegation to Vilnius and I do believe it had an impact in trying to mitigate further bloodshed. That's just one example. So I want to commend the distinguished majority leader for his leadership on Darfur. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lantos for his very strong support for the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2007. His long-standing concern about torture victims is legendary, and I want to thank him for that. And I want to thank Mr. Ackerman for his leadership as well, and for presenting the bill before the House today. Madam Speaker, an estimated 400,000 foreign torture survivors reside in the United States today. Worldwide it is virtually impossible to count the numbers, although we know it is very high. As witnesses have repeatedly testified before Congress, the paralyzing scars from the physical and psychological wounds of torture can and do remain for years. Torture impacts not only on individual victims, especially as it relates to post-traumatic stress disorder, but their families and society as well. I would note parenthetically, Madam Speaker, that we don't have to look very far to know there are torture victims in our own Congress. Sam Johnson, a very brave and dedicated soldier of the Vietnam war, suffered terrible hardship and torture when he was incarcerated in Hanoi. Because of his faith and courage, Sam overcame unspeakable torture and abuse and is today an inspiration to us all. The same goes for Senator John McCain, who also suffered horrible torture, survived and overcame. But they are really the exception. They are not the norm. So many people who do suffer never recover--unless they get significant help. They suffer irreparable psychological damage and live a life of real misery, pain and flashback, unless they get help. My own involvement in torture victims relief began in 1981 when I read a book titled ``Tortured for Christ,'' written by Pastor Richard Wurmbrand in Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania. That book detailed despicable tortures that were routinely imposed upon Pastor Wurmbrand and other religious prisoners in Romania by the securatate. Pastor Wurmbrand appealed to all to help the persecuted. I also read Solzhenitsyn's book, ``The Gulag Archipelago,'' and another book called ``Against All Hope'' by Armando Valladares in which he chronicled what Castro does routinely to people in his gulags--it is sickening and pathetic. I would encourage Members and the listening public to pick up one of those books or others like them and read what really happens in dictatorships--and Castro's abuses continue to this day--where torture is used as a weapon against dissidents. Sadly, torture is used with impunity in China and North Korea. Armando Valladares tells us in his book in one particular chapter how the political prisoners were marched into a huge vat of human excrement, and submerged. Many of the men got permanent disabilities and infection from it. The beatings were unceasing. Torture is horrible. It is degrading and inhumane. It also constitutes grave violations of U.N. treaties and U.S. law and must be stopped wherever it rears its ugly head. In the 1990s, Frank Wolf and I visited the infamous Perm Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains--1,000 miles outside of Moscow--the place where Natan Sharansky spent years of his life, and met with many torture victims while they were still incarcerated and saw the mix of anger and hopelessness in their eyes and in their faces. In 1998, Madam Speaker, Congress took a historic step towards repairing the broken lives of torture victims with the passage of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998. I sponsored that legislation and three reauthorizations that followed. As important as these congressional measures have been, there continues to be an enormous unmet need for us to try to reach out and robustly address, and that is what this legislation at least attempts to do. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this. This helps us to help those who have been hurt. The domestic provision of H.R. 1678 is designed to ensure that particular attention is given to torture victims in regions with significant immigrant and refugee populations. The measure authorizes $25 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to the Department of Health and Human Services to assist domestic treatment centers. This maintains the current $25 million authorization level for those centers. Currently, 20 torture treatment centers in 15 States are assisted by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. These programs include treatment for the physical and psychological effects of torture as well as social and legal services for torture victims. In addition to direct assistance, many of these centers also provide training in the specialized treatment of torture victims to mainstream providers in the health care, education and social service fields. H.R. 1678 also authorizes $12 million for both fiscal year 2008 and 2009 for foreign treatment centers and programs administered by the USAID Victims of Torture Fund. In fiscal year 2006, the Victims of Torture Fund supported treatment programs in 28 countries throughout the regions of Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Near East and Europe and Eurasia. Treatment centers often provide services beyond rehab, to include forensic documentation, written and verbal testimony to courts and legislatures, and advocacy for the rights of brutalized religious, ethnic and minority groups. This is the expertise Congress sought to foster when we first adopted the TVRA back in 1998. Lastly, the measure increases current authorization levels of $7 million for fiscal year 2007 to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture to $12 million for both 2008 and 2009. Through this U.N. mechanism, the voluntary fund supports 175 projects in 64 countries in 2006, including within the United States. The type of humanitarian assistance provided by organizations which receive those grants from the fund consists mainly of psychological, medical, social, legal and economic assistance. Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, due to an event at the White House on malaria, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and that he be able to control the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, this morning the Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing in anticipation of the reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. I concur on the importance of examining the extraordinary successes of this program, as well as the means by which we can ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those impacted by the pandemic. In my travels abroad, particularly in Africa and Vietnam, I have seen for myself how the intervention has transformed lives and infused hope in individuals, families and communities affected by HIV/AIDS. One experience that struck me, in particular, was in Uganda when I visited there last year. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. John Robert Ongole, who is 29 years old and the first person to benefit from the first treatment program funded by PEPFAR. I was told that when he first started receiving the anti-retroviral therapy, he looked like a walking skeleton. When I met him, he was healthy and energetic, leading an active life and caring for his family. I have recently learned that he has almost completed his bachelor's degree in teaching. He and countless others have expressed their profound gratitude to President Bush and the American people for giving them a new lease on life in the face of this devastating disease. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of PEPFAR here in Congress is the requirement that one-third of prevention funding be expended on abstinence and fidelity programs, known as the A and B aspects of the ABC (abstinence, be faithful and condoms) prevention model. Some have called for the removal of this requirement in favor of an evidence- based approach, free from legislative constraints, that takes into account the particular situation of the individual country. What these people fail to take into account is that the ABC model is evidence- based, and those countries with generalized epidemics that have experienced declines in prevalence have emphasized behaviors of abstinence, and fidelity in relationships between un-infected partners. In a statement published in 2004 in the prestigious scientific journal, The Lancet, over 160 scientists and the President of Uganda noted that ``when targeting young people, for those who have not started sexual activity, the first priority should be to encourage abstinence or delay of sexual onset, hence emphasizing risk avoidance as the best way to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections as well as unwanted pregnancies. After sexual debut, returning to abstinence or being mutually faithful with an uninfected partner are the most effective ways of avoiding infection.'' In the past, even those considered ``experts'' on the ground have resisted implementing the ABC strategy with the proper emphasis on A and B, and so the spending requirement was necessary. I have met representatives of USAID who acknowledged that they were initially skeptical of the possibility of changing people's behavior as a key element of HIV/AIDS prevention, but due to their experience of implementing the PEPFAR abstinence and fidelity programs they had become convinced of their efficacy. I would strongly encourage my fellow Members to examine the growing evidence regarding the success of the ABC model in HIV/AIDS prevention. It is, fundamentally, a matter of life and death.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to express my strongest support for the ``Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007,'' H.R. 1881, and I was very pleased to join my friend and colleague Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania this week in introducing this important legislation. H.R. 1881 addresses a very critical need--to provide assistance to the 1.5 million Americans with autism who are in desperate need of treatments and services throughout their lives. From my first session in Congress in 1981, I have been a consistent advocate for individuals with developmental disorders, including autism. But autism came into a particularly strong focus in 1998, when two of my constituents, Bobbie and Billie Gallagher of Brick, NJ, contacted me with concerns about an elevated level of autism cases in the township of Brick. The concerns of the Gallaghers--parents of two autistic children themselves--led me to request that the Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, conduct an investigation into a possible autism cluster in Brick. The results of this investigation, one of the first federal studies on autism, were quite alarming. Higher rates of autistic disorder and autism spectrum disorders, ASDs, were found in Brick Township relative to rates from previously published studies. However, we have now come to learn that the high rate of autism found in Brick Township was not an isolated incident; it was the window to a nationwide phenomenon. Earlier this year--on February 8, 2007, the CDC released groundbreaking data documenting the high prevalence of autism around the country. As a result of this landmark study, it is now believed that 1 out of every 150 children born in the United States suffers from a form of autism. The numbers are even more shocking when you examine the results from New Jersey. Autism was shown to affect 1 in every 94 New Jersey children analyzed in the recent federally funded study. That same study, based on 2002 data, showed that 1 in every 60 boys in New Jersey is afflicted with a form of autism. While the numbers are profound, it is the reality of the lives behind the numbers which call for our compassion, dedication, and legislative action. The physical, emotional, and financial impacts of autism on individuals, families, and society are staggering. Autism can overwhelm families, as their lives become consumed with the considerable challenges of identifying appropriate biomedical and psychosocial treatments, schooling and other needed support systems for their autistic child--and eventually for an autistic adult. Most of the parents of an autistic child whom I have met express a high level of fear and apprehension about services--such as housing and employment assistance--that will be available when their child becomes an adult. That is why I joined forces with my friend Mike Doyle to launch in January 2001 the Congressional Coalition for Autism Research & Education, C.A.R.E., which currently includes over 160 Members of Congress. The goals of the bipartisan Coalition for Autism Research and Education are straightforward, to: increase general awareness of autism and autism spectrum disorders among Members of Congress and policy analysts in Federal government; educate Members of Congress on current and future initiatives and developments regarding autism; serve as a forum where autism-related policy issues can be exchanged, debated, and discussed; bring together public, private, and government entities to pursue legislative initiatives that will help improve the lives of individuals with autism and their families; and promote all means to assist with the challenges of families and loved ones affected by autism. Although it is still not sufficient, we have had significant success in advocating for increased funding for autism programs--funding that has increased by nearly 10 times the amount it was in the mid-1990s. In 1995, NIH invested about $10.5 million into autism research. The estimated budget for autism research in fiscal year 06 is nearly 10 times that amount--$108 million. At the CDC, autism funding has increased from $287,000 in 1995 to an estimated $15.1 million in 2006. By introducing the ``Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act,'' EPIAA, we are building on our progress over the past decade and particularly on some legislative accomplishments during the last Congress. Many members of the C.A.R.E. caucus joined in supporting and passing last December the ``Combating Autism Act,'' important legislation which focused on improving autism-related research funded through the National Institutes of Health, autism surveillance, and early screening and diagnosis. Also last year, the caucus was successful in securing in the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations bill $7.5 million in an Army research account for the purpose of improving treatment of individuals with autism. Notably, these successful efforts to date have focused primarily on surveillance and biomedical research. While these efforts are absolutely critical, the reality is that we have approximately 1.5 million individuals in the U.S. with autism, and they and their families are in desperate need of services to assist them in their daily lives and to help individuals with autism to realize their full potential as members of our communities. Today, we are focusing our efforts on providing services to aid families facing the challenges of providing lifetime care for their autistic children from first diagnosis through adulthood. The ``Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007,'' which was earlier introduced in the Senate and which we introduced this week in the House, is comprehensive legislation which authorizes approximately $350 million over 5 years to provide treatments and services across the lifespan. It is incumbent upon us to act now to pass this legislation that will facilitate the provision of treatments and services for autistic individuals throughout their lives. As provided for in this legislation, assistance needs to be largely community-based and needs to address early intervention, education, employment, transportation, housing, health, and recreation. Also, very importantly, the mechanisms authorized in this legislation are designed to provide treatments and services effectively and efficiently. Those mechanisms include a broad-based Task Force to evaluate evidence-based treatments and services, demonstration grants to enable states to provide evidence-based treatments and services, one-time planning grants and follow-on demonstration grants for states to provide services to adults, and supplemental grants to University Centers of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Research, Education, and Services to allow the centers to train professionals who treat or serve individuals with autism, as well as the creation of four new University Centers of Excellence. To complement and further enhance the grant programs established under this Act, this legislation also provides assistance to a national nonprofit organization for establishment of a national technical assistance center and provides assistance for protection and advocacy systems. Additionally, to fill an information gap important to almost all affected families, service providers, and government organizations, the legislation calls for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study and release a report on the ways in which autism treatments and services are currently financed, including policies for public and private health insurance. This is truly bipartisan, bicameral legislation, and I am gratified that Representatives Eliot Engel of New York and Chip Pickering of Mississippi joined Representative Doyle and myself in introducing this legislation. We are all most appreciative that critically acclaimed actor and star of the ``West Wing'' Bradley Whitford, co-founder of Cure Autism Now and board member of Autism Speaks Jonathan Shestack, and President of the Autism Society of America Lee Grossman joined us this week in announcing the introduction of the EPIAA. Their support, along with that of other advocates for individuals with autism, will be critical as this legislation advances in the House and Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding. I rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 100. I want to thank Chairman Lantos for sponsoring it. I think it sends a very clear and nonambiguous message to all parties, including the barbaric Mugabe regime. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago almost to this date, April 21, I chaired a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations entitled ``Zimbabwe: Prospects for Democracy after the March, 2005, Elections.'' At that time, I noted that ``Robert Mugabe was a hero to his people and to his fellow Africans for successfully standing up to racism and oppression. More than two decades later, however, he has so tarnished his image that it must now resemble the fictional portrait of Dorian Gray, showing an increasingly repugnant picture of a hero who has gone astray.'' During the Mugabe reign, approximately 2.4 million people have been literally thrown out of their homes, and their homes have been bulldozed. There have been a number of killings and politically motivated kidnappings and torture. The government has relied on repressive laws to suppress freedom of speech, press, assembly, movement, association, and academic freedom. The Zimbabwean people have suffered greatly as a result of the government's extremely misguided economic policies, and many have died from preventable diseases. The U.S. Department of State concluded in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006 that Zimbabwe and its government have ``engaged in pervasive and systematic abuse of human rights.'' Unfortunately, the situation has only worsened in 2007. The world community was shocked by the photos of beaten members of the political opposition who gathered on March 11 for a peaceful prayer meeting. Mugabe has continued to crack down on any political opposition and even threatened foreign diplomats who offered food and water to jailed opposition leaders. It is essential that the entire international community raise its voice in support of those seeking democratic reforms in Zimbabwe. Among other measures, this resolution calls upon the Southern African Development Community, or SADC, and the African Union to consult urgently with all Zimbabwe stakeholders to intervene with the Government of Zimbabwe while applying appropriate pressures to resolve the economic and political crisis. I must express my deep disappointment that SADC has failed to take decisive action with regard to Zimbabwe. Following consultations in Zimbabwe earlier this month, the executive director of SADC stated, ``What's good for Zimbabwe is good for the region. What's bad for Zimbabwe is bad for the region. I think it's time we did less talk and do the work.'' On that point, I could not agree more. Unfortunately, rather than getting to work and pressing Mugabe to undertake meaningful reforms and halt his latest assault on human beings, on political and human rights, this statement was followed by a plea of support for the Mugabe regime by the International Monetary Fund. Is the complete retraction of political and human rights and the beating to death of innocent civilians not bad for Zimbabwe? Are Mugabe's disastrous economic policies, which have resulted in inflation rates of up to 3,000 percent, unemployment rates of 80 percent, and the flight of thousands of economic and political refugees from Zimbabwe into other SADC countries not bad for the region? And what does the continued coddling of Mugabe say about the SADC members' commitment to a ``new vision'' of responsible governance under the New Economic Partnership for Africa Development, which was championed by South Africa? Madam Speaker, the Mugabe government has used every means of suppression, every tool that they could muster, to crush those who disagree with that regime. I urge the passage of this resolution in order to send an urgent message to SADC and to the rest of the international community to do everything necessary to resolve this crisis currently crippling Zimbabwe and provide any and all assistance that the Zimbabwean people so desperately need to achieve democratic reform, peace, and economic prosperity. Again, I thank the author, Mr. Lantos, and the ranking member for bringing to the floor this timely and extremely important piece of legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, this morning the Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing on the recently-released 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices prepared by the Department of State. Over the past three decades, we have seen a steady increase in the quality, candor, and scope of the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In fighting the plague of human rights abuse, sunlight is often the best disinfectant. On the whole, the Country Reports shine brightly into some very dark corners. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Department of State who work so hard to compile them. Although we do not claim to be perfect and are ourselves subject to the universal ideals we espouse, the United States continues to be the world's most prominent champion of fundamental human rights. This Congress, I have re-introduced the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 which seeks to promote and defend human rights related to this increasingly influential communication medium. I am pleased to note that the State Department has already implemented one of the action items of this proposed legislation by including important additional information in the Country Reports, such as the domestic legal authority for internet restrictions and penalties imposed for the exercise of free speech via the Internet. This information is critical to efforts to address Internet repression in countries like Vietnam, China, Tunisia, and Belarus, and to convince governments that free speech restrictions are contrary to their national interests. It is worth noting that most of the major human rights efforts undertaken by the United States Government in recent decades--including the Country Reports themselves--have been the result of Congressional mandates: The Jackson-Vanik Amendment; The International Religious Freedom Act; the Torture Victims Relief Act; the Lautenberg Amendment; the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; the North Korean Human Rights Act. These were Congressional initiatives undertaken in the face of skepticism--and sometimes outright opposition--by the Executive branch. For example, I recall when then-Assistant Secretary Shattuck appeared before my subcommittee 10 years ago to oppose the International Religious Freedom Act. He argued that he was ``particularly concerned'' that the bill would ``harm the very people it seeks to help'' because it would ``legislate a hierarchy of human rights into our laws'' that could ``severely damage our efforts to ensure that all aspects of basic civil and political rights . . . are protected.'' Not surprisingly, this doomsday prophecy did not come to pass. To the contrary, once such issues have been forced by legislation, the Executive branch eventually internalizes, and sometimes embraces, those human rights priorities. For example, religious freedom and trafficking are now mainstream policy priorities that receive far more international attention and action than they did before the laws were on the books. Other mandates are embraced more slowly, such as the refugee title of the North Korean Human Rights Act, which has not yet been adequately implemented. There are many countries where the seriousness of human rights violations deserves condemnation, including Zimbabwe with its recent horrific crackdown on the political opposition, North Korea, Eritrea, Belarus, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Ethiopia and Iran. The Report provides disturbing details about how these countries in particular-- though not exclusively--continue to thwart universal principles of respect for fundamental human rights. However, I will limit myself to focusing the spotlight on three human rights violators in particular-- China, Sudan, and Vietnam. This year's report repeats the assessment of prior years that the Chinese Government's human rights record ``remained poor,'' but even when many of us thought the situation could not get much worse, it adds that the Chinese record ``in certain areas deteriorated.'' One of those areas often ignored or downplayed by the international community is the appalling lengths to which the government will go to enforce its one- child per couple limit. The Chinese government has a long record of oppressing its people, especially women, through its population control program. Beijing does not deny levying huge fines against people who have children the State deems illegal. In fact, at a hearing that I chaired several years ago, Secretary Dewey testified that ``couples who give birth to an unapproved child are likely to be assessed a social compensation fee, which can range from one-half the local average annual household income to as much as ten times that level.'' Indeed this is a horrific government that decides which children are legal and which are illegal--that is, which children will be allowed to live and which will not. These acts are truly a crime against humanity executed in conjunction with the UNFPA. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes against humanity of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered--their mothers robbed of their children by the State. This barbaric policy makes brothers and sisters illegal, and makes women the pawns of the population control cadres. This barbaric policy has now given rise to a new problem for China. An article published in the Guardian several years ago, stated that China could find itself dealing with as many as 40 million single men by the year 2020 because of the one child policy. According to the article Li Weixiong, a population advisor to the Chinese government, said a cultural preference for boys was creating an artificial disparity between the number of boys and girls representing ``a serious threat to building a well-off society.'' He also said that the lack of women in China will lead to a dramatic rise in prostitution and the trafficking of women. ``This is by no means a sensational prediction,'' he stated. On that point Mr. Li is right. In fact, the combined effect of the birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female unborn children at a rate of 116.9 to 100 overall, and a shocking 151.9 to 100 for second pregnancies. As a direct result of these ongoing crimes against humanity, China today is missing millions of girls--girls who were murdered in the womb simply because they are girls. A couple of years ago, the State Department suggested that as many as 100 million girls of all ages are missing--that is to say, they should be alive and well and are not, a direct consequence of the government's one-child policy. This gendercide constitutes one of humanity's worst blights, and a far greater peril to peace and security than is being credited at this time. The world is all too aware of the continuing genocide in Sudan, appropriately identified as such in the Country Reports. Current reports estimate that the conflicts in Darfur and in Southern Sudan have resulted in the deaths of close to 2.4 million people and left over 4 million others either internally displaced or as refugees. When confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, extensive trafficking in persons, and the acts of torture and violence against women. Just two weeks ago, on March 14th, I introduced a House resolution calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release several political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who have been arrested in a recent wave of government oppression. One of those individuals specifically mentioned in the resolution is Father Nguyen Van Ly, who has already spent over 13 years in prison since 1983 for his advocacy of religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam. Tomorrow, Fr. Ly will be given a kangaroo trial for exercising his fundamental human rights, and he faces 20 years in prison in the likely event that he is convicted. This is a case worthy of our particular attention as the Vietnamese Government audaciously resumed its past oppression of human rights after Congress agreed to Vietnam becoming an official member of the World Trade Organization in December 2006. A focus of to day's hearing was the promotion of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, and it is important to keep in mind that those of us in Congress play an important role in our country's foreign policy. While substantial criticism was leveled during the hearing at the Administration for its shortcomings in promoting and defending human rights, those of us in Congress should also look in the mirror and ask what priority we give to human rights, both individually and as an institution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, last week the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health held a hearing on the important and timely global health issue of drug-resistant tuberculosis. It is shocking that this disease which is curable continues to kill about 2 million people each year. Perhaps the reason for this apparent contradiction is that the vast majority of those who die from TB--98 percent--live in the developing world, and are from the poorest and most marginalized sectors of society. TB is particularly pernicious in that it targets young adults who are just starting to form their families and who are the producers and sustainers of their societies. The emergence in recent years of drug-resistant TB has raised the specter of higher death rates, more children who will lose their parents, and communities that will fall deeper into poverty and despair. Combined with the fact that TB is the leading cause of death of persons with HIV/AIDS, this disease is having a particularly devastating impact on Africa. However, it is important to note that no region--indeed no country, including our own--is immune from the effects of tuberculosis. We should all be alarmed that strains that are resistant to a single drug have been documented in every country surveyed by the World Health Organization. Given the ease with which TB can be spread, TB is truly a disease without borders, and it is in our national as well as humanitarian interest to seek its eradication. Therefore, it was highly appropriate that the subcommittee on global health commemorated World TB Day 2007 with the rest of the world, and raised our voices with that of others for an emergency response to this increasingly dangerous threat to global health. I agree with my colleagues here in Congress who are advocating for significantly more resources to be directed towards TB prevention, detection and treatment, and research for new drugs. In addition, the hearing provided us with the opportunity to examine the best means for directing our resources. The World Health Organization recently came out with an interesting study entitled: ``Appreciating Assets: The Contribution of Religion to Universal Access in Africa.'' The study was focused on the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and utilized Zambia and Lesotho as the two study sites, but the findings provide useful indications for addressing other health issues, including tuberculosis, throughout Africa. The study found that approximately 30-40 percent of national health services were provided by faith-based organizations. In some areas, those percentages went as high as 65-70 percent. The benefits of a faith-based infrastructure for addressing HIV/AIDS would seem to apply also to tuberculosis. For example, assisting and monitoring adherence to the drug regimen could be overseen by the volunteer community, as well as education of the general public. Since churches, mosques and synagogues are being encouraged to undertake HIV/ AIDS initiatives, TB can readily be included. It is well-known that the Global Fund is a major contributor to TB detection and treatment programs around the world. The United States has given over $2 billion to the Global Fund, or just over 30 percent of the Fund's revenues. I was disturbed to read reports earlier this month that the Global Fund has permanently terminated two grants to Uganda for malaria and tuberculosis. When I visited Uganda in January 2006, a suspension of 5 Global Fund grants due to gross mismanagement had just been lifted and I was informed that the problems appeared to have been resolved. The fact that this now turns out not to have been the case, and that several other countries have also had Global Fund grants terminated, raises serious questions about how the Global Fund is operating. I know from my visits to Africa and from the numerous reports we receive in Congress how well our bilaterally-funded PEPFAR programs are performing. The information and accountability that Congress has come to take for granted through these bilateral programs are not available through the Global Fund. And yet many of the primary recipients of Global Fund grants are governments with a history of corruption and fraud, and/or limited capacity to properly manage large sums of money in their health sectors. One could argue that the absence in the Global Fund of a robust reporting and monitoring mechanism at both the primary and sub-recipient levels is an open invitation for waste in these countries, and a tragic loss of opportunity to save lives. The implementation of a system that provides accountability and transparency would seem vital to continued and expanded donor support of the Global Fund in the future.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, with so many important and often vexing challenges competing for our attention throughout the world, it seems that the tendency in Congress is to focus our attention on a crisis only after it has evolved into an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, that was not the case last week, when the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health held a hearing on prospects for peace in Guinea. This hearing presented us with an opportunity to discuss not only our strategic, humanitarian, human rights, and economic interests in Guinea--particularly as speculation about President Lansana Conte's political future and the potential for even greater conflict mounts-- but also to consider how the United States Government has positioned itself to respond to threats and mitigate crises before they have spun out of control. The stakes are high. Western Africa historically has been beset by political instability and violence, where conflict in one country spills across borders and threatens the region as a whole. This has led to massive displacements, refugee flows, the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and the perpetration of some of the most heinous human rights atrocities known to man. If we fail to capitalize on the opportunity to address transformative, stabilization and reconstruction needs in support of a democratic transition in Guinea today, I fear that we may be headed for a much wider regional crisis down the road. Experts have been warning for years that the ``ground was quaking'' in Guinea. Widespread dissatisfaction with the autocratic rule of an aged and ailing Conte, coupled with economic decline, high inflation, political cronyism and corruption, has led to periodic episodes of unrest in Conakry. However, the union-led strikes of December 2006 through February 2007 took on a new dimension. For the first time since the country obtained independence in 1958, Guineans across the nation have taken to the streets en mass, demanding change and refusing to accept half measures. Through solidarity, the unions, opposition parties and civil society gained strength, and in the end, they succeeded in exacting critical concessions from the government. But while this symbolizes a significant victory, the hardest part is yet to come. While the naming of the new consensus prime minister, Lansana Kouyate on February 27th is a significant step forward, the office of the Prime Minster is not constitutionally protected and Conte has a record of breaking agreements. In addition, substantial resources are urgently needed for economic and social programs that will address the root causes of social unrest and shore-up popular support for the Prime Minster. History has shown that Conte is unlikely to share power in a meaningful way, and the longer he keeps his hand on the tiller in his authoritarian style, the more likely a renewed and destructive political crisis will emerge. That said, it is widely speculated that--one way or another--Conte will not finish his term in office. His health is extremely poor and his power appears to be waning. Even the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States, which typically shy away from criticizing one of their own in public, have condemned Conte's violent response to protests and have suggested that this may be the appropriate time for him to step down. Experts are no longer talking about IF Conte will leave office, but WHEN and under what conditions he will leave. Still, Conte has not designated a successor and, in fact, has sidelined a number of individuals who appeared poised to succeed him. The President of the National Assembly, who would be the successor to the President under the terms of the Constitution, is widely unpopular. It has been widely suggested that a military takeover may be the only option for a ``soft landing'' should Conte die in office or retire to his farm. However, I would strongly contend that a military takeover in Guinea, no matter how ``temporary'' it is intended to be, should NOT be considered an appealing option. The military is divided along generational and ethnic lines. Neither Guineans nor the international community should assume that the military is a cohesive group capable or willing to deliver a smooth transition to a democratic, civilian-led government. While the responsibility for fostering an environment of peace and security in Guinea rests with Guineans, the United States is in a unique position to help facilitate a non-violent, democratic resolution to this crisis. Guineans remember the fact that it was the United States who came to their aid when Guinea was attacked by the Revolutionary United Front rebels from Sierra Leone, with the support of former Liberian President Charles Taylor. We also have invested heavily in peace in Liberia, and have credibility in the region. Guinea is a predominantly Muslim country which is favorably disposed to the United States. The time to help is now . . . before the crisis spirals out of control.