Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, last night I introduced legislation, the ``Safe Facilities Act of 2007,'' H.R. 1574, to promote and protect increased safety measures at chemical security plants. Specifically, my legislation would prohibit any federal law, regulation or agency from preempting any State chemical facility safety stipulation which may be more rigorous then the new federal regulations. As you know, Madam Speaker, last fall Congress passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 which granted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to draft ``interim final regulations'' regarding plant security. While these standards are a necessary baseline for nationwide consideration, the federal regulations must represent a floor, not a ceiling, by which States may structure their own security standards. Federal regulations should not be written in such a way to undermine exiting State statues, which in cases like New Jersey are current and robust. While I agree with some of the implementation provisions outlined in the interim regulations, my legislation repeals the provision allowing the federal law to preempt the state law. It is particularly difficult to find merit in the Department's plan to preempt state standards since the authorizing statute, Public Law 109-295, was intentionally silent on this issue. The very fact that the legislation did not include a specific preemption should be taken as the signal of Congressional intent to allow states to implement stricter standards if they act to do so. Federal laws should provide a framework for state laws, buttressing and enhancing existing state statutes not eradicating or replacing laws which in some cases may be more protective. As you are well aware, September 11, 2001 changed the life of every single American--including the life of every resident in New Jersey. Nearly 700 New Jersey residents lost their lives including many from the 4th Congressional District which I represent in central Jersey. Regrettably, the most densely populated state in the Union is also well acquainted with bio-terror attacks including the subsequent anthrax attack at the U.S. Postal facility in Hamilton, also in my Congressional District. With over 100 major chemical facilities in the State of New Jersey, lawmakers, experts in the field of science, and residents alike are keen to the importance of securing New Jersey's vital infrastructure which could potentially be used as a weapon by a terrorist. Immediately following the attacks in 2001 and in preparation for the ``worst case scenarios'' in the event of another terrorist attack, New Jersey established the Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force to develop the best security practices and encourage each chemical facility in the state to evaluate security threats and plant vulnerabilities as well as the consequences of a chemical release. In 2005, the best practices became mandatory for New Jersey's facilities. All of New Jersey's facilities are now required to prepare a site- specific, risk and vulnerability assessment, emergency incident prevention and response plan and require worker participation in their security assessments. In addition, 43 chemical facilities subject to the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) state program are also required to explore the feasibility of inherently safer technologies as part of state security and preparedness plans. New Jersey is no stranger to danger when it comes to vulnerabilities in a post 9/11 world. We are acutely aware of the terrorist threat and thus we will not be passive in our fight to prevent future catastrophes. The Garden State is the first state in the Nation to implement vigorous plant security practices and continues to research and develop strategies to improve and enhance current standards and regulations. The federal government has no business undermining the efforts of New Jersey, or any State for that matter, in providing the greatest level of protection for our citizens.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act to allow America's workers to make their own free decisions about whether or not they want to freely associate and form unions. H.R. 800 is designed to tighten rules and regulations and close labor law loopholes that have been either manipulated or exploited by those seeking to stifle or defeat organizing efforts through methods other than open and transparent debate. Employers have increasingly hired consultants to file motions and appeals aimed at delaying elections that could be easily certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). These delays have frequently resulted in denial of workers' rights. If the system were not in disrepair; if the NLRB was working as intended, this legislation would not be necessary. Unfortunately, the system is broken and we must act to repair it. Accordingly, H.R. 800 will replace the current two-step process that now requires 30-percent of employees to sign a card followed by an NLRB election, with a simpler, fairer single step process. Under the bill, a majority of employee signatures, 50 percent plus 1, on an authorized card establishes a designated union as the official bargaining unit. My state of New Jersey has already implemented an Employee Free Choice Act for its public employees; H.R. 800 would do so for everyone in the Untied States. Employers utilize union busting consultants more than 80 percent of the time, and use delaying tactics that can prevent any final decision for years. Moreover, the NLRB is less prepared to handle the legal dealings than it was 20 years ago. At last count, the staff is only about one-third the size of what it was in the early '80s. In addition to reforming the process, H.R. 800 would also impose new and increased penalties for unfair labor practices, including higher civil penalties such as a $20,000 fine for each violation of coercion. Recently at Rutgers University in New Jersey attempts were made to discourage the organization process. For example, emails sent from the Human Resources Department for the employees stated in part ``we believe the facts strongly support the conclusion that union representation would not benefit you, and we will be providing important information that supports our belief. Fortunately, a neutrality agreement, currently in force, was signed on January 25, 2007. It forbids all anti-union campaigning on behalf of the University and prevents the University from making disparaging remarks about the union, and discussions on the question of unionization are permitted at work as long as they do not disrupt educational functions. I want to commend President Richard McCormick for signing a comprehensive neutrality agreement. Coercion of any kind is now expressly forbidden by either the University or the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Rutgers is forbidden from holding captive audience meetings, one-on-one meetings, and the University can't question or monitor employees about unionization. The organization process at Rutgers is now working. One study shows that 91 percent of employers force employees to attend anti-union briefings and meetings. This is not expected to happen at Rutgers. Pursuant to the neutrality agreement and relevant law, no employee can be subjected to any intimidation, threats or reprisals, promises of benefits or other offers, or subjected to speech designed to influence his or her decision to join the union. None of these actions, as well as others, are permitted as of the date of the neutrality agreement and mechanisms are also now in place to adjudicate any infractions. These protections are essential, necessary, and justified. Amazingly, it is the research done in part by Rutgers Professor Adrienne Eaton and the Eagleton Institute that has suggested that ``while pro-union workers and union organizers can attempt to make their case persuasively, it is the employers who control the workplace and frequently use their power to hire, fire, and change work schedules to pressure workers during the weeks leading up to an NLRB election.'' Another long labor organizing effort in New Jersey involves nurses and other employees at South Jersey Healthcare. While these healthcare workers finally got their union several weeks ago, organizing was not easy. Michele Silvio, a registered nurse for 13 years, who spent her last eight years in the emergency room, was told ``like it or leave it'' when she and other employees tried to make their concerns known. According to Michele, problems began after the consolidation of several facilities into one large medical center. Up to three times the patient volume was being experienced and Michele and her other co-workers felt they needed a voice to make their concerns about quality patient care known. During the process, however, management used the tools of a captive workforce to try to ``persuade them'' to change their minds. Nurses were forced to sit through mandatory meetings on work time where management gave anti-union presentations. Workers were also interrogated and sometimes intimidated by management during one-on-one meetings. When faced with organizing drives, the research has found that 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers; 49 percent threaten to close a worksite if the union prevails, and 51 percent coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism. This is not free or fair, and the right to associate and form labor unions must be protected. The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field and bring fairness to the organizing process.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Edmond Burke once said that, ``all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'' Thirty years ago, good men and women came together, and together, they ultimately triumphed over evil. In 1987, I traveled to Czechoslovakia with a Helsinki Commission delegation led by my good friend, Steny Hoyer, who was then Chairman of the Commission. We traveled there just ten years after the Charter 77 movement had been formed and, amazingly, in spite of persecution and imprisonment, they had managed to publish 350 documents during its first ten years. And it was clear during my visit to Prague that this organization was having an impact, especially when the communist authorities went to the trouble of preventing five independent activists, including Vaclav Havel, from meeting with us. In spite of this, our delegation was able to meet with several other Charter 77 signatories and sympathizers: Libuse Silhanova, Josef Vohryzek, Father Vaclav Maly, Zdenek Urbanek, and Rita Klimova. Libuse Silhanova, then serving as a Charter 77 spokesperson, described her fellow Chartists as ``ordinary people who happen to be part of a movement.'' For a group of ``ordinary people,'' they certainly accomplished extraordinary things. One of the most notable of these ``ordinary people'' was the playwright Vaclav Havel, who is today the sole surviving member of Charter 77's first three spokespersons. At a time when most Czechoslovaks preferred to keep their heads low, he held his up. When others dared not speak out, he raised up his voice. While others hid from communism in their apartments and weekend cottages, he faced it down in prison. In 1978, Havel wrote a seminal essay entitled, ``The Power of the Powerless.'' In it, he proposed a remarkably conspiratorial concept: the idea that those repressed by the Communist Lie actually had the power to ``live for truth,'' and that by doing so, they could change the world in which they live. One of the people who read this essay was Zbygniew Bujak, who became a leading Solidarity activist in Poland. Bujak described the impact of Havel's message: This essay reached us in the Ursus factory in 1979 at a point when we felt we were at the end of the road. Inspired by KOR [the Polish Workers' Defense Committee, which preceded Solidarity], we had been speaking on the shop floor, talking to people, participating in public meetings, trying to speak the truth about the factory, the country, and politics. There came a moment when people thought we were crazy. Why were we doing this? Why were we taking such risks? Not seeing any immediate and tangible results, we began to doubt the purposefulness of what we were doing. Shouldn't we be coming up with other methods, other ways? Then came the essay by Havel. Reading it gave us the theoretical underpinnings for our activity. It maintained our spirits; we did not give up, and a year later--in August 1980--it became clear that the party apparatus and the factory management were afraid of us. We mattered. And the rank and file saw us as leaders of the movement. When I look at the victories of Solidarity, and of Charter 77, I see in them an astonishing fulfillment of the prophecies and knowledge contained in Havel's essay. Vaclav Havel's essay was not just the product of clever wordsmithing; it was an act of singular heroism. In fact, shortly after writing ``The Power of the Powerless,'' Vaclav Havel found himself in prison, again. And it should be remembered that others, including philosopher Jan Patocka, Havel's close friend, and Pavel Wonka, paid with their lives for their opposition to the Czechoslovak communist regime. Vaclav Havel is a man who has always been guided by the courage of his convictions. Remarkably, his courage did not fade upon his assumption of the presidency. Indeed, he is all the more heroic for his steadfast commitment to human rights even from the Prague Castle. From the beginning, he was a voice of reason, not revenge, as he addressed his country's communist and totalitarian past. In 1993, he rightly identified the situation of Roma as ``a litmus test for civil society.'' And not only has he raised human rights issues in his own country but reminds the world of the abuses taking place in Cuba and China. Throughout his presidency, he pardoned those faced with criminal charges under communist-era laws that restrict free speech. In 2001, he spoke out against the parliament's regressive religion law, which turned the clock back on religious freedom. And he has reminded other world leaders of our shared responsibility for the poor and less fortunate the world over. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the founding of Charter 77, I want to join my colleagues from the Helsinki Commission in honoring Vaclav Havel and all the men and women who signed the Charter, who supported its goals, and who helped bring democracy to Czechoslovakia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the co-Chairs of the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary of State James Baker and former House Foreign Affairs Chairman Lee Hamilton, wrote late last year: ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests. ``Many Americans are dissatisfied,'' they go on to say, ``not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress,'' Baker and Hamilton go on to say, ``must work together.'' ``The President and Congress must work together.'' ``Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric.'' Good advice, especially when we are in the middle of a war to help a suffering people living in a tortured land striving to matriculate from dictatorship to democracy. Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I too have serious questions about this war, especially its cost in human life. I too am impatient and want our men and women brought safely home as quickly as possible. But with so many Americans and Iraqis and coalition forces at risk, it is important to ask what message a nonbinding surge disapproval resolution with no force of law might have on a troop surge already under way and what message do we send to our troops, our allies, and our enemies. Will it demoralize even a little, maybe a lot, those brave Americans who have put their lives on the line so that others may be free? Will it undermine the resolve, commitment, and solidarity of those nations that have stood with us against the hate and murder of the extremists? And how will our enemies regard passage of this resolution? With celebration? Will they step up their already far too robust campaign of terrorism, murder, and suicide bombing? If the Democratic leadership wants to stop the surge or the war itself, bring a measure to the floor to defund it. The debate on defunding the war and, most certainly, the vote would have predictable clear-cut consequences. The President can't spend money on a war he doesn't first get from Congress. But by offering what is essentially a sense of the House resolution, the weakest, least effective way of driving home a point because it compels nothing, I am concerned that the House this week may, unwittingly, significantly hurt the morale of our warfighters while empowering the hate mongers. Surely no one in this Chamber wants that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me at the outset thank Chairman Lantos for his leadership on this issue in general, human rights. But also especially in the case of Patrick Finucane, which so many of us have cared so deeply about for so many years. He has been a great friend of Ireland as well, and I want to thank him for that. I also want to thank the original sponsors of this legislation, including my good friends and colleagues, Mr. Engel, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Neal, Mr. King, Mr. Payne, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Crowley, Mr. McNulty and Mr. Rothman and the many others who cosponsored this truly bipartisan resolution. H. Con. Res. 20, Madam Speaker, calls on the British Government to live up to its commitment as part of the Northern Ireland peace process to implement a public, independent judicial inquiry into the murder of human rights attorney Patrick Finucane. Mr. Finucane, who represented Catholics in Northern Ireland, was gunned down in his home in 1989 in front of his wife and his children. I would note parenthetically his wife was wounded as well. For years, Madam Speaker, nongovernmental human rights organizations, regional and very much renowned international legal experts, have raised serious allegations that Mr. Finucane's murder resulted from collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces. In 2004, retired Canadian Supreme Court judge Peter Cory, who was appointed by the governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom to examine these allegations under the Weston Park Agreement, reported that sufficient evidence of collusion existed to warrant a full, independent and public judiciary inquiry without delay. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the British Government has yet to comply. Many of my colleagues know that as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and as chairman of the Helsinki Commission I have held 11 hearings on the peace process in Northern Ireland. Central to each of these hearings has been the ongoing concern about the human rights abuses by members of the police service in Northern Ireland. The Finucane family has testified. Judge Cory has testified. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers has testified, as well as many numerous human rights leaders. All have advocated for a special investigation into the possibility of collusion in the Finucane murder. Beyond this, Madam Speaker, last year, the Irish Parliament passed a resolution calling for an open and independent investigation. Our special envoy, Ambassador Mitchell Reiss, has testified before our committee that he and the Bush administration have urged for the establishment of a credible investigation into the Finucane murder. And Congress has supported it as well last year with H. Res. 740 and previously as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Madam Speaker, this resolution could not be more timely. Just last week the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, who testified before our committee in 2004, released a devastating report which confirms that police in Northern Ireland have colluded with loyalist paramilitaries in several murders over the last dozen years. The very fact that a police ombudsman exists, and that a report as revealing as hers can be published underscores that policing in Northern Ireland is, in fact, very different, very much improved than it was when the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998. Further testimony to the advancements and improvements in the policing in Northern Ireland is that just this past Sunday, on January 28, Sinn Fein voted overwhelmingly to move to participate in the community policing system that was set up as part of the Good Friday Agreement. Today, the Independent Monitoring Commission set up in 2004 by the British and Irish Governments to report on paramilitary activity has praised Sinn Fein for its new commitment to policing. When referring to the IRA, the IMC concludes that ``terrorism and violence have been abandoned.'' These developments clearly are greatly welcome, and there is a new optimism that elections for a new, devolved power-sharing government will be held this spring. Yet, Madam Speaker, with reconciliation must come full disclosure of the truth. The lack of resolution of charges of official collusion in the murder of a defense attorney such as Mr. Finucane leads people to question the government's commitment to accountability and, above all, to justice. His murder symbolizes the depth and danger of official state-sponsored collusion in Northern Ireland and a disregard for the rule of law. It has left victims who deserve answers. And I know, because many of my colleagues and I have all spoken to them, how they want these answers. There will be no closure and there will be no reconciliation without the truth. As the U.N. Special Rapporteur told us in 1998: ``Harassment and intimidation of defense attorneys goes to the core of the independence of the legal profession and the administration of justice in any society.'' I am also reminded of the riveting testimony offered on this matter at one of my hearings in 1998. Rep. Don Payne, my colleague from NJ, remembers it as well. He was there, when Rosemary Nelson, an attorney for Northern Ireland testified. Mrs. Nelson, who was also a wife and mother, told Congress that defense attorneys in Northern Ireland feared that they could be murdered themselves because no one had been held accountable in the murder of Patrick Finucane. Six months later, after her testimony, Rosemary Nelson was killed, the victim of a car bomb. Madam Speaker, I would like to again express my deepest condolences to the Finucane family, as well as Rosemary Nelson's family, and thank them for their courageous and tireless efforts on behalf of justice, not only for their loved one, but for all others who have been victims of state-sponsored collusion in Northern Ireland. Similarly, I would like to acknowledge the work and support from many human rights activists, including Jane Winter of British Irish Rights Watch; Elisa Massimino from Human Rights First, formerly known as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights; Maggie Beirne, Martin O'Brien and Paul Mageean, who have also testified before Congress on behalf of the Committee of the Administration of Justice and have provided very, very useful and timely insights to our committee. I would again like to thank my cosponsors and again thank Mr. Lantos. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, this past October, Hungary celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Uprising. As President Bush said in his October 18 Presidential Proclamation, ``the story of Hungarian democracy represents the triumph of liberty over tyranny.'' Like the President, I honor the men and women who struggled--not only in 1956 but for many years thereafter--for democracy in Hungary. The following remarks were made by Istvan Gereben, a man who came to this country after the 1956 revolution, but who never forgot his homeland. They were delivered by Mr. Gereben in San Francisco on October 22, 2006, at the Remember Hungary 1956 Commemoration, at the California State Building. Revolution, Rebirth, Freedom: Hungary 1956 From the shadows of blood, iron bars, gallows and simple wooden crosses we step today into the sunshine of remembrance, hope, duty and responsibility. During the past sixteen years the ideas, guiding principles, heroes and martyrs of 1956 gained amends. The moral and political legacy of the Hungarian Revolution, however, still, even today, is misunderstood, misrepresented and waiting to be fully appreciated. We remember . . . our friends, the Kids of Pest, the colleagues, the relatives, the familiar strangers. The brave Hungarians. Let's remember the dead here, thousands of miles away from their graves but close to their soul, grieving woefully, but full with hope. We pray for those who in their defeat became triumphant. ``For what they have done has been to expose the brutal hypocrisy of Communism for all mankind''--declared Archibald McLeish in the Special Report of Life Magazine in 1957. Why did it happen? The best answer can be found in Sandor Marai's poem: Christmas 1956. Angel from Heaven. The whole world is talking about the miracle. Priests talk about bravery in their sermons. A politician says the case is closed. The Pope blesses the Hungarian people. And each group, each class, everybody Asks why it happened this way. Why didn't they die out as expected? Why didn't they meekly accept their fate? Why was the sky torn apart? Because a people said, ``Enough!'' They who were born free do not understand, They do not understand that ``Freedom is so important, so important!'' The fight waged by Hungarians in 1956 was inspired by a burning desire for freedom of the individual and the nation, by want for national independence, by thirst for full national and individual sovereignty and by hunger for inner democracy. This Revolution against the Soviet occupiers was a defining moment in Hungarian history and in the nation's political culture. 1956 was one of the most powerful nails driven into the coffin of an evil and fraudulent tyranny. Then and continuously since we witness the expression of praise, admiration of and support for the aims of this miracle that is called the Hungarian Revolution. Let's refresh our memory with some of the more striking observations by our friends here in America and elsewhere in the World: President John F. Kennedy: ``October 23, 1956 is a day that will forever live in the annals of free men and free nations. It was a day of courage, conscience and triumph. No other day since history began has shown more clearly the eternal unquenchability of man's desire to be free, whatever the odds against success, whatever the sacrifice required.'' (Statement, October 23, 1960) President Ronald Reagan: ``The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a true revolution of, by and for the people. Its motivations were humanity's universal longings to live, worship, and work in peace and to determine one's own destiny. The Hungarian Revolution forever gave the lie to communism's claim to represent the people, and told the world that brave hearts still exist to challenge injustice.'' (Excerpt from the Presidential Proclamation issued on October 20, 1986.) President George W. Bush: ``On the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution, we celebrate the Hungarians who defied an empire to demand their liberty; we recognize the friendship between the United States and Hungary; and we reaffirm our shared desire to spread freedom to people around the world.'' (Excerpt from the Presidential Proclamation issued on October 18, 2006.) Milovan Djilas: ``The changes in Poland mean the triumph of national Communism, which in a different form we have seen in Yugoslavia. The Hungarian uprising is something more, a new phenomenon, perhaps no less meaningful than the French or Russian Revolutions . . . The revolution in Hungary means the beginning of the end of Communism.'' (Excerpt from ``The Storm in Eastern Europe,'' ``The New Leader,'' No. 19, 1956.) The New York Times: ``We accuse the Soviet Government of murder. We accuse it of the foulest treachery and the basest deceit known to man. We accuse it of having committed so monstrous crime against the Hungarian people yesterday that its infamy can never be forgiven or forgotten.'' (In an editorial in the paper's November 1956 issue.) I could continue with Statements made by Albert Camus, President Richard Nixon, Sir Leslie Munroe, Henry Kissinger, Leo Chern, Pablo Picasso, Nehru and I could read hundreds and hundreds of pages from the Congressional Record listing the praising remarks of hundreds and hundreds lawmakers uttered in the past 50 years. All the words were saved for posterity, everyone can find and savor them. October 23, 1956 happened when two powerful ideas-- tyrannical communism and the eternal human principles of democracy--met and clashed in the middle of Europe, in the small and defenseless Hungary. In this inherently uneven conflict blood was shed and lives were lost. Imre Nagy and his colleagues were arrested, tried and most of them along with countless Freedom Fighters were executed on June 16, 1958. Since their death, the political and human challenge has been to find the rationale for their supreme sacrifice. This rationale is the indestructible dignity of every human being. By refusing to beg for his life, Imre Nagy repudiated his personal past for a more hopeful future of Hungary and the world at large. The significance of his and countless other Hungarians' sacrifice is etched onto the political map of the 21st century. The invented hope of the Hungarian Revolution is taking shape in the recent developments throughout the world. That is the real miracle of the events of 1956 and the subsequent human sacrifices of Imre Nagy and his fellow Freedom Fighters. The Revolution was brutally and unavoidably defeated. Why was the fate of the Revolution predetermined? Why did it happen so that when we in the last days of October and the early days of November in 1956 enthusiastically and full with hope sensing victory strolled the streets of Budapest and the cities and villages of Hungary not suspecting that our fate, independently from us, already has been determined. The deadly sentence was delivered by the powers of the world? And if it is so why was the verdict such as it was? Even after 50 years there is still no answer. The questions are not new. The lack of answer frustrated many historians, political scientists but none had the determination, the skill, the objectivity and patience to provide an authentic answer. Robert Murphy, who, in the absence of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles from Washington, attended to the day to day business of the State Department during the Hungarian Revolution, summarized his frustration caused by not being able to find a satisfactory answer to Hungary's demands in his autobiography, Diplomat Among Warriors, published in 1964 this way: ``In retrospect, world acceptance of the Russian aggression in Hungary is still incredible. For sheer perfidy and relentless suppression of a courageous people longing for their liberty, Hungary will always remain a classic symbol. Perhaps history will demonstrate that the free world could have intervened to give the Hungarians the liberty they sought, but none of us in the State Department had the skill or the imagination to devise a way.'' This answer seems to be the most honest one. Hungarians have fallen back in the Soviet yoke. But the nation persevered. There are times when remembrance is the bravest action-- declared Gyula Illyes, the eminent Hungarian poet in the middle of the twentieth century. Today such times are present in Hungary. The time for bravery to remain faithful to the moral and political maxims of the Revolution. Bravery witnessed not against the tanks, soldiers and henchmen of the occupying empire, bravery not contesting a strange, inhuman ideology, but courage to face insensitivity, to confront and solve the problems of humdrum everyday life, the bravery necessary to assume the responsibility and sacrifice of building a truly modern country, which is democratic, committed to observe the rule of law and governed by the constitution. At the present, this kind of bravery does not uniformly characterize all Hungarians. Hungary was redeemed 35 years after the defeated Revolution. During that 35 years her plight to fulfill the demands of 1956 gained respect and support in the West. The courage, the intelligence, the determination and the skill of the Hungarian Democratic Opposition to engage a first bloodthirsty, later, sophisticated dictatorship resulted in recognition of the opposition's leaders as authoritative spokesmen for the fulfillment of the desires of the Hungarian people. They were inspired by the spirit of the Revolution and adopted its maxims. In the United States, Presidents and ordinary citizens lined up in support behind the Democratic Opposition. The United States, by publicly expressing support in words and in action provided protection for individuals and the whole community of the dissidents. The U.S. Government published English translations of selected samizdat literature produced by opposition activists. Many volumes, each with hundreds of pages of these, were printed and distributed in the '70s and the '80s. A collection of these is deposited in the National Szechenyi Library in Budapest. Information provided by the dissidents was used by the Hungarian Freedom Fighters Federation U.S.A. and the Coordinating Committee of Hungarian Organizations in North America in their countless testimonies before Congress, the U.S Commission on Security and Cooperation, and in numerous briefings presented in the White House and in the State and Defense Departments. A longstanding issue between the Hungarian Communist Government and the Opposition, Hungarians abroad and more significantly the United States Government was the unwillingness of the Communist Government to identify the secret location of the graves in which the executed Freedom Fighters were buried. A campaign covering several decades by U.S. Presidents, Congressman, the Commission on Security and Cooperation, hundreds of leading public figures and civic organizations culminated in a letter sent on June 20, 1988, by Congressman Frank Horton, along with 43 other Representatives urging Prime Minister Karoly Grosz of Hungary to comply with the many requests filed with the Hungarian Government in the past and allow the family members of the executed to have access to the body of their relatives. Responding in letter dated July 18, 1988 the Prime Minister wrote: ``My Government has the intention to settle this problem in a humane spirit in the near future, enabling the families to rebury the dead and to pay their tribute at the graves.'' The public ceremony of the reburial took place on June 16, 1989 in the presence of 200,000 grieving Hungarians. With this act the road opened to free parliamentary and local elections in 1990 and the formation of a free Government. The demands of the Hungarian people were fulfilled. The building of a constitutional parliamentary democracy is under way. In these days worrisome news comes from Hungary indicating that the road is not smooth. The diamond of twentieth century Hungarian history that was formed in 1956 under the stresses of the circumstances and in the fire burning in every Hungarian's heart is being tested today in Hungary. False prophets, eager mouths, zealous hands driven by dark emotions attempt to pulverize this gem into powder of coal and then burn it into ashes and dross. They will not succeed. History and we will not let them to succeed. On this 50th Anniversary when we remember and pay tribute to the ideals and heroes of 1956, we also affirm our deeply felt conviction that lasting freedom and democracy will not take hold in Hungary unless the precepts of the Revolution regarding resolute unity, sacrifice, human and political wisdom are practically and fully implemented. We call upon those who are responsible for Hungary's welfare to heed to the principles for which so many died in 1956 and to whose memory we pay tribute today. We pray that it will be so! Lord Hear our prayer . . . God bless Hungary . . . Isten aldd meg a magyart!

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, by now, most of my colleagues know that, on Sunday, a team of scientists from Wake Forest University and Harvard Medical School announced the stunning news that they had discovered a new, readily available source of potentially lifesaving stem cells derived exclusively from amniotic fluid. For those of us who passionately support extending ethical stem cell research to effectuate cures and mitigate disease, news of this breakthrough was particularly encouraging. News media around the world seemed to appreciate the enormity and the historical significance of the findings. ABC News said, ``Stem cells discovered in amniotic fluid: Researchers say stem cells can be taken from amniotic fluid with no harm to mother or fetus.'' They pointed out that stem cells they drew from the amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. The L.A. Times said, ``Stem cells in amniotic fluid show great promise, a study finds they offer key therapeutic benefits but avoid controversy.'' Mr. Speaker, for those of us who strongly support taxpayer funding for ethical stem cell research, and I would note parenthetically that the Bush administration spent over $600 million on stem cell research at NIH in 2006 alone, the news of this breakthrough suggests that we can and must do more to finance this kind of ethical research. And for those of us who oppose taxpayer subsidies to facilitate the destruction of human embryos, this latest breakthrough is yet another vindication and underscores the fact that ethical alternatives to embryo-destroying research are available now, and they are likely to expand. Let me reiterate one more time, especially for the press, that we on the pro-life side strongly support stem cell research as long as it does not require the killing of human embryos. In that vein, let me remind my colleagues that I was the prime sponsor of the bipartisan Stem Cell Therapeutic Research Act of 2005, a law that authorized $265 million for cord blood and bone marrow stem cell programs, including a new nationwide program to collect, research and help disseminate these vital stem cells. By way of update, last fall, pursuant to the new law, the Bush administration issued contracts to establish a national inventory of umbilical cord blood. Contracts totaling $12 million were awarded and more contracts are expected this year. The establishing of this national cord blood inventory marks the beginning of the effort to increase the total number of available umbilical cord blood units, making lifesaving cord blood stem cells available to Americans in need of a transplant. I believe that is really good news to patients suffering from a myriad of diseases such as sickle cell anemia and leukemia. Mr. Speaker, it was just 6 months ago, in July, on this floor that opponents of Roscoe Bartlett's alternative pluripotent stem cell legislation belittled and scoffed that adult and cord blood stem cells were capable of pluripotency, the ability of stem cells to grow into any cell in the body. Despite the fact that numerous scientists had published findings of pluripotency in cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells, Ms. DeGette dismissed alternative sources for pluripotent stem cells as ``fake.'' She called it ``fake research that doesn't really exist'' and that ``alternative methods for creating pluripotent stem cells are not a real scientific prospect at this time.'' Mr. Speaker, that statement was false then, and it is false now. The scientific evidence clearly refutes it. In 2005, researchers from the University of Minnesota Medical School verified that umbilical cord blood stem cells expressed pluripotency genes and can repair neurological damage. In like manner, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh demonstrated that placental stem cells express pluripotency genes and potentially form any tissue with no signs of tumor formation. As I think my colleagues know by now, tumor formation is a catastrophic problem with embryonic stem cells. Recently, researchers in France and Switzerland discovered that they could turn pluripotent bone marrow stem cells into insulin-secreting cells, an important step in curing diabetes, and the list goes on. And now Wake Forest has come to this same conclusion, this time about amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells. And I will quote from the report. This is their report issued this weekend: ``We conclude,'' the authors say, ``that amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells are pluripotent stem cells capable of giving rise to multiple lineages including representatives of all three embryonic germ layers. Newsweek got it, and they also talked about it as well: ``A New Era Begins: Stem Cells derived from amiotic fluid show great promise in the lab and may end the divisive ethical debate once and for all.'' Let me just finally say, where will this all take us if this bill were to be passed and signed into law? We would see the demise, the destruction over time, if it worked, of millions of embryos. Let me just quote Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology, an advocate of embryonic stem cell research, who said that because of the likelihood of immune rejection, it may require, his words, ``millions'' of embryos to be destroyed. Is that the future you want to promote with the DeGette bill? Millions of embryos killed? Let's adopt them, as we are seeing now. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006, contains several important provisions that will positively impact upon the safety of our country and our citizens and promote good governance. The legislation has been worked out in a bipartisan way with my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) and enjoys, I believe, very strong support on both sides of the aisle. One provision, Mr. Speaker, would give the Secretary of State needed flexibility in spending fraud prevention and detection fund moneys to permit investigation of a broader array of fraud, including fraud in connection with terrorist activity. Another would allow for the waiver of fees for passports when U.S. citizens are caught in difficult situations abroad, such as those who were victims of the 2004 tsunami. A criminal provision provides for penalties when an individual interferes with a Secret Service agent protecting a foreign dignitary. And passage of the bill would give the President authorization to extend privileges and immunities to the Holy See's Observer Mission to the United Nations and to the African Union's newly established diplomatic mission to the United States. Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment would also establish the outlines of two programs under the Foreign Assistance Act. One would provide for greater international cooperation with friendly foreign governments with respect to the interdiction of dangerous cargo. The second would authorize an accelerated program to secure and eliminate particularly dangerous conventional weapons, such as man-portable air defense systems, commonly referred to as MANPADS. I would point out parenthetically that it was Colin Powell in one speech who said that the largest danger, the most acute danger to aviation, whether it be criminal or whether it be military or civilian, are these stinger-like MANPADS. They are very, very dangerous and there are hundreds of thousands of those out. They are very much in the black market. If terrorists get their hands on those, we are in serious trouble. Under the bill's provisions, sanctions could be imposed on foreign governments who knowingly transfer such weapons to terrorists. Finally, the bill would extend the duration of certain types of assistance we have been providing to Israel for a number of years. Specifically, the bill would extend for an additional 2 years the authorization provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2005 for the United States to transfer to Israel obsolete or surplus stocks in the war reserve stockpile located in Israel. Similarly, the bill would extend for an additional 4 years a provision in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 to provide loan guarantees to Israel, the authorization of which is scheduled to expire. Mr. Speaker, let me just say briefly, I do regret that the bill does not contain an important provision for the reform of the Foreign Service compensation system, a very, very well-worked-out piece of legislation, but regrettably that was dropped from the bill. I include an exchange of correspondence relating to this bill. December 8, 2006. Hon. Tom Davis, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill, H.R. 6060, the ``Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.'' The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill reported favorably on September 13, 2006. There are certain provisions within the bill that will be considered by the House today that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. In the interest of permitting the Committee on International Relations to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this bill, I request that your Committee waive its right to sequential referral on this matter. I understand that such a waiver only applies to this language in the bill and not to the underlying subject matter. I appreciate your willingness to allow us to proceed. I will insert this exchange of letters into the Congressional Record during the debate on this bill. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back, this is one of the last bills, if not the last bill, that the IR committee will consider tonight. I would just like to say as the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global, Human Rights and International Relations, I would just say a brief word about our distinguished chairman, Chairman Hyde. Mr. Speaker, the House just isn't going to be the same without Henry Hyde, one of the rarest, most accomplished and most distinguished Members of Congress ever to serve. Henry Hyde is a class act. He is a man of deep and abiding faith. He is generous to a fault, and he has an incisive mind that works seamlessly with his incredible sense of humor. He is a speaker of truth in a society that all too often is willing to accept cheap sophism, the plausible and the fraudulent. He is a man who inspires and challenges all of us to look beyond surface appeal arguments, and Henry Hyde compels us to take seriously the admonitions of holy scripture to care for the downtrodden, the vulnerable and least of our brethren. The ``Almanac of American Policy'' has written that Henry Hyde is one of the most respected and intellectually honest Members of the House and has proven himself as one of the most eloquent Members as well. His speeches, they point out, and I agree, are classics. Mr. Speaker, in abortion debates Henry Hyde remains the great defender of children and their moms, the champion of the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life. Because of the Hyde amendment, countless young children and adults walk on this Earth. They have had an opportunity to prosper now, and they were spared the destruction when they were most at risk. With malice towards none, Henry Hyde took to this microphone to politely asked us to show compassion and respect, even love for the innocent and inconvenient baby who was about to be annihilated. In one speech on the floor he pointed out how important it was to be inclusive to welcome the stranger. As we all know, Congressman Hyde was a Congressman and is a Congressman for 32 years, chairman for 6 of Judiciary, chairman of the IR for 6 years as well. He has been a prodigious lawmaker, with uncanny skill, determination and grace. He has crafted numerous bipartisan laws and commonsense policies that have lifted people out of poverty, helped obliterate disease, criminals off the street and has been magnificent in the defense of democracy and freedom both here and overseas. Finally, one of his many legislative accomplishments includes his authorship of the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief, PEPFAR, a 5-year $15 billion plan to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. During those committees and debates on the floor, Chairman Hyde was persuasive and highly incisive as he compared the HIV/AIDS crisis to the bubonic plague of the 14th century, the Black Death, and challenged us to enact a comprehensive program, which we did, to rescue the sick, assist the dying and prevent the contagion spreading. Having served with this brilliant one-of-a-kind lawmaker for the past 26 years, I hope Henry Hyde knows that I and so many others will truly miss him. He is as irreplaceable as irreplaceable can get. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6060) to authorize certain activities by the Department of State, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge passage of H.R. 5948, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, to provide sustained support for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Belarus, as well as encourage the consolidation and strengthening of Belarus' sovereignty and independence. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank you for your commitment to bring this legislation before this Congress. Your deep personal interest in the cause of freedom in Belarus, as demonstrated by your recent meetings in Vilnius with the leaders of the democratic opposition, has been particularly appreciated by those struggling for the rule of law and basic human freedoms. This legislation enjoys bipartisan support, and I want to recognize and thank the tremendous collaboration of Rep. Tom Lantos, an original cosponsor of this bill. As one who has followed developments in Belarus over many years through my work on the Helsinki Commission, I remain deeply concerned that the Belarusian people continue to be subjected to the arbitrary and self-serving whims of a corrupt and anti-democratic regime headed by Aleksandr Lukashenka. Since the blatantly fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, which the OSCE condemned as having failed to meet international democratic standards, the pattern of repression and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. While those who would dare oppose the regime are especially targeted, the reality is that all in Belarus outside Lukashenka's inner circle pay a price. recent news regarding lukashenka's regime Last week in Riga, President Bush pledged to help the people of Belarus in the face of the ``cruel regime'' led by President Lukashenka. ``The existence of such oppression in our midst offends the conscience of Europe and the conscience of America,'' Bush said, adding that ``we have a message for the people of Belarus: the vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace includes you, and we stand with you in your struggle for freedom.'' Mr. Speaker, this legislation would be a concrete expression of Congress' commitment to the Belarusian people and would show that we stand as one in supporting freedom for Belarus. Just within the last few months, we have witnessed a series of patently political trials designed to further stifle peaceful, democratic opposition. In October, 60-year-old human rights activist Katerina Sadouskaya was sentenced to 2 years in a penal colony. Her ``crime''? ``insulting the honor and dignity of the Belarusian leader.'' Mr. Speaker, if this isn't reminiscent of the Soviet Union, I don't know what is. And just a few weeks ago, in a closed trial, Belarusian youth activist Zmitser Dashkevich received a 1\1/2\ year sentence for ``activities on behalf of an unregistered organization.'' A report mandated by the Belarus Democracy Act and finally issued this past March reveals Lukashenka's links with rogue regimes such as Iran, Sudan and Syria, and his cronies' corrupt activities. According to an October 9, 2006, International Herald Tribune op-ed: ``Alarmingly, over the last 6 years, Belarus has intensified its illegal arms shipment activities to the point of becoming the leading supplier of lethal military equipment to Islamic state sponsors of terrorism.'' I guess we shouldn't be all that surprised that in July, Lukashenka warmly welcomed to Minsk Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. In keeping with their bent, both pledged cooperation and denounced the West. More recently, Belarusian Foreign Minister Martynov traveled to Iran where President Ahmadinejad pledged further cooperation in the energy and defense industries. Not long ago, a member of Belarus' bogus parliament asserted on state-controlled radio that Belarus has the right to develop its own nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, Belarus is truly an anomaly in Europe, swimming against the rising tide of greater freedom, democracy and economic prosperity. the legislation Three years ago, I introduced the Belarus Democracy Act which passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bush in October 2004. At that time, the situation in Belarus with respect to democracy and human rights was already abysmal. The need for a sustained U.S. commitment to foster democracy and respect for human rights and to sanction Aleksandr Lukashenka and his cronies, is clear from the intensified anti- democratic policies pursued by the current leadership in Minsk. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that countries throughout Europe have joined in a truly trans-Atlantic effort to bring the promise of freedom to the beleaguered people of Belarus. Prompt passage of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help maintain this momentum aimed at upholding the democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people. With the continuing decline on the ground in Belarus since the fraudulent March elections, this bill is needed now more than ever. This reauthorization bill demonstrates the sustained U.S. support for Belarus' independence. We seek to encourage those struggling for democracy and respect for human rights in the face of the formidable pressures and personal risks from the anti-democratic regime. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary in assistance for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008 for democracy-building activities such as support for non-governmental organizations, including youth groups, independent trade unions and entrepreneurs, human rights defenders, independent media, democratic political parties, and international exchanges. The bill further authorizes monies for both radio and television broadcasting to the people of Belarus. While I am encouraged by the recent U.S. and EU initiatives with respect to radio broadcasting, much more needs to be done to penetrate Lukashenka's stifling information blockade. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Administration will make this a priority. In addition, H.R. 5948 calls for selective sanctions against the Lukashenka regime, and the denial of entry into the United States for senior officials of the regime--as well as those engaged in human rights and electoral abuses. In this context, I welcome the punitive sanctions imposed by both the Administration and the EU which are targeted against officials--including judges and prosecutors--involved in electoral fraud and other human rights abuses. The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that strategic exports to the Government of Belarus should be prohibited, except for those intended for democracy building or humanitarian purposes, as well as U.S. Government financing and other foreign assistance. Of course, we would not want the exports to affect humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions are encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs. Furthermore, we would encourage the blocking of the assets (in the United States) of members of the Belarus Government as well as the senior leadership and their surrogates. To this end, I welcome the Treasury Department's April 10 advisory to U.S. financial institutions to guard against potential money laundering by Lukashenka and his cronies and strongly applaud President Bush's June 19 ``Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to make it crystal clear that these sanctions are aimed not at the people of Belarus, but at a regime that displays contempt for the dignity and rights of its citizens even as the corrupt leadership moves to further enrich itself at the expense of all Belarusians. ongoing anti-democratic behavior To chronicle the full litany of repression over the course of Lukashenka's 12-year misrule would go well beyond the bounds of time available here. Let me cite several more recent illustrations of anti- democratic behavior which testify to the true nature of the regime. Belarus' March 19 presidential elections can only be described as a farce, and were met with condemnation by the United States, the OSCE, the European Union and others. The Lukashenka regime's wholesale arrests of more than one thousand opposition activists and dozens of Belarusian and foreign journalists, before and after the elections, and violent suppression of peaceful post-election protests underscore the contempt of the Belarusian authorities toward their countrymen. Illegitimate parliamentary elections in 2004 and the recently held presidential ``elections'' in Belarus brazenly flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self-imposed isolation. Albeit safely ensconced in power, Lukashenka has not let up on the democratic opposition. Almost daily repressions constitute a profound abuse of power by a regime that has blatantly manipulated the system to remain in power. In the last few months, the regime continues to show its true colors, punishing those who would dare to challenge the tinpot dictator. Former presidential candidate Aleksandr Kozulin was sentenced to a politically-motivated 5\1/2\ years' term of imprisonment for alleged ``hooliganism'' and disturbing the peace. His health is precarious as he is now well into his second month of a hunger strike. In early August, authorities sentenced four activists of the non- partisan domestic election monitoring initiative ``Partnerstva''. In a patent attempt to discourage domestic observation of the fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, the four had been kept in custody since February 21. Two were released, having served their 6-month sentences. Two others--Tsimafei Dranchuk and Mikalay Astreyka--received stiffer sentences, although Astreyka has been released from a medium security colony and is now in ``correctional labor''. Other political prisoners, including Artur Finkevich, Mikalay Autukhovich, Andrey Klimau, Ivan Kruk, Yury Lyavonau, Mikalay Razumau, Pavel Sevyarynets, Mikalay Statkevich also continue to have their freedom denied, languishing in prison or in so-called correctional labor camps. Administrative detentions of 10 or 15 days against democratic opposition activists are almost a daily occurence. Moreover, the Lukashenka regime continued to stifle religious expression. It refuses to register churches, temporarily detains pastors, threatens to expel foreign clergy, and refuses religious groups the use of premises to hold services. Despite the repressions, Protestant and Catholic congregations have increasingly become more active in their pursuit of religious freedom. I am also concerned about the recent explosion at a Holocaust memorial in western Belarus, the sixth act of vandalism against the monument in 14 years. Unfortunately, the local authorities have reportedly refused to open a criminal investigation. Lukashenka's minions have closed down independent think tanks, further tightened the noose around what remains of the independent media, suspended the activities of a political party, shut down the prominent literary journal Arche, and evicted the Union of Belarusian Writers from its headquarters. Of course, Lukashenka's pattern of contempt for human rights is nothing new--it has merely intensified with the passage of time. Moreover, we have seen no progress on the investigation of the disappearances of political opponents--perhaps not surprisingly, as credible evidence points at the involvement of the Lukashenka regime in their murders. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help end to the pattern of violations of OSCE human rights and democracy commitments by the Lukashenka regime and loosen its unhealthy monopoly on political and economic power. I hope our efforts here today will facilitate independent Belarus' integration into democratic Europe in which the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law are respected. The beleaguered Belarusian people have suffered so much over the course of the last century and deserve better than to live under a regime frighteningly reminiscent of the Soviet Union. The struggle of the people of Belarus for dignity and freedom deserves our unyielding and consistent support. This legislation is important and timely because Belarus, which now borders on NATO and the EU, continues to have the worst human rights and democracy record of any European state--bar none.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I express my deep concern about the destruction of thirteen homes in a Hare Krishna commune outside of Almaty, Kazakhstan. It is a saddening development considering that Kazakhstan is a participating state in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and has been vigorously pursuing a bid to chair the OSCE in 2009. I am greatly troubled by the actions taken against this peaceful religious community, which is reminiscent of the ``bad old days.'' On November 21, 13 Hare Krishna homes were destroyed in the Sri Vrindavan Dham commune in the village of Seleksia, 25 miles from Almaty. Orders to bulldoze the homes reportedly came from the Karasai District Court, giving the residents only 24-hours notice to gather all their possessions. When the bulldozers arrived, they came under the escort and supervision of riot police. The belongings of some who refused to leave were thrown out in the snow, and their furniture and larger household items taken away to be destroyed. Families were left without a home and many others left without water and electricity in the cold of winter. More damage could still be done--53 more homes (one of which houses a temple) could be demolished and their 116-acre communal farm could be seized. Making this outrage all the more disturbing, the Karasai District Court reportedly announced that it will charge the community for the demolition expenses! I appreciate the strong statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Astana urging Karasai district authorities to ``refrain from any further aggressive actions.'' The conflict over the commune has steadily intensified since a regional court ruled in March to confiscate the farm without compensation. A special government commission was established in response to international criticism to negotiate with the Hare Krishnas, but this process was short-circuited when the bulldozers revved up. Authorities justify these heartless actions by citing legal problems with the purchase of the farm by Hare Krishnas in 1999, but most observers believe this is nothing more than a land grab dressed up as a legal proceeding. Despite Kazakhstan's positive reputation for religious tolerance, I have been concerned by governmental actions against minority religious communities, such as the heavy fines (and sometimes arrests) during the past six months against Baptist ministers representing unregistered congregations. Also worrisome are increasingly harsh government policies toward Muslims who practice their faith independent of the government-controlled Muftiate. While President Nazarbayev's initiative to bring world religions together to promote tolerance is laudable, his government's harsh treatment of small and independent groups displays a sad absence of tolerance. In short, I do not believe these actions befit a country that would be a leader of nations. I urge President Nazarbayev and the Government of Kazakhstan to end these practices, withdraw the court cases to seize the Hare Krishnas' land, and ensure that all individuals are compensated for their lost property.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as this Congress comes to a conclusion, I rise to make some remarks on the state of democratic development in Central Asia. I am inspired to do this by the very significant recent events in Kyrgyzstan, where last month, a new constitution was adopted that limits the power of the presidency and enhances the authority of the legislative branch. The Kyrgyz should be congratulated for peacefully negotiating a delicate political situation that could have turned violent. The outcome resulted in the strengthening of Kyrgyzstan's democracy at a time when its neighbors are moving in the opposite direction. Throughout post-Soviet Central Asia--and all over the former USSR-- the defining feature of political development has been the emergence of super-presidents, while parliaments and courts languish under executive control. As a result, the balance of powers, though constitutionally mandated, has remained a dead letter, and corruption has become endemic. But Kyrgyzstan has always differed from other regional states by virtue of its strong civil society and relatively combative legislature; former President Askar Akaev was never as powerful as his counterparts in Central Asia. Moreover, there is a well-established tradition of ``people power'' in Kyrgyzstan--Akaev was almost forced from office by a countrywide protest movement in 2002. He managed to keep his seat, however, until last year's ``Tulip Revolution'' of 2005, which led to his ouster and his replacement in July by Kurmanbek Bakiev. By all accounts, the presidential election of July 2005 marked a real improvement in elections held in Kyrgyzstan, and particularly in Central Asia. Since then, however, Kyrgyzstan has struggled with major problems, among them: uncontrolled criminality, high-level corruption, economic decline and a general sense of disappointment at unfulfilled promises. By this fall, discontent had risen to such a degree that a political movement, ``For Reforms'' led largely by President Bakiev's former associates, was able to mobilize protesters to pursue their agenda by peaceful rallies. Though the demonstrators originally called for Bakiev's resignation, in the end a compromise was reached in the form of a new constitution. The document represents a real achievement, primarily for limiting the executive's powers--a first in Central Asia. Bakiev will remain in office until 2010 but his successor will not appoint the government, Prosecutor-General, the head of the Central Election Commission and the holders of other important posts. Whichever political party gains 51 percent in elections has that responsibility--an incentive for traditionally fractious political parties to align themselves in coalitions and work together. Naturally, the heads of neighboring states have been displeased. State-controlled media in those countries have portrayed these events in the worst possible light, emphasizing ``chaos and anarchy,'' and hoping thereby to discredit the Kyrgyz experiment by linking popular demonstrations with instability. But while crowds gathered in the streets of the capital Bishkek, the new constitution was adopted almost without violence, solidifying a tradition of politically effective peaceful protest. Most important, a framework has been created for developing all branches of power and resolving political disagreements. I believe Kyrgyzstan's experience has genuine significance for the possibility of democratization in Central Asia, simply because the Kyrgyz political class, cooperating with civil society, has shown that it is possible without bloodshed to reach compromise solutions to fundamental political problems. Whether Kyrgyzstan's experience can or should work in other countries is a different issue. But it is clear that all post-Soviet states need to find a way to limit the power and authority of their presidents if they are to escape the trap into which they have fallen. When people feel they have no representation or possibility of addressing grievances through state institutions, they will be tempted to find other methods. If this happens in other, more repressive countries with few or no democratic traditions, the outcome may not be so peaceful or positive. So far, there is little evidence that this realization has penetrated elsewhere in Central Asia, where presidents continue to jealously hoard power. Sapannurat Niyazov remains the all-powerful ``Turkmenbashy,'' or leader of all Turkmen, whom he continues to subject to his capricious campaigns, while running a permanent purge of the political class and making sure Turkmenistan remains the only one-party state to survive the Soviet bloc. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov, who allows no opposition, has cracked down even harder and cuddled up to Russia since the international community reacted with outrage to the slaughter of hundreds in Andijan in May 2005. Tajikistan's Imomali Rakhmonov won re- election last month; constitutional amendments adopted last year will potentially allow him to remain in office until 2020. And Kazakhstan's bid to chair the OSCE in 2009 has been resisted by the United States and the United Kingdom for failure to improve its poor human rights record. What happened in Bishkek is quite noteworthy, especially for the region--opposition groups were allowed to protest, the government did not respond with violence, and both sides agreed to a new constitution that actually decreases presidential powers and introduces a parliamentary system. Nothing like this is happening for thousands of miles in any direction. All in all, Mr. Speaker, 15 years after the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of new states, it is hard to summon up much optimism for the prospects of democracy. Still, Kyrgyzstan has given me a bit of hope.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, when I was appointed chairman of the Helsinki Commission in early 1995, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. foreign policy establishment and its European counterparts were seized by a genocidal conflict of aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina. Many here in the Congress were already deeply involved in bipartisan efforts to end the conflict by urging a decisive, international response under U.S. leadership. I can still recall the sense of horror, outrage, and shame when the Srebrenica massacre occurred and nothing was done to stop it and other atrocities committed against civilians. Slobodan Milosevic, meanwhile, was comfortably entrenched as Serbia's leader, with Kosovo under his repressive thumb. The situation was truly bleak. Today, relative calm prevails throughout the Balkans region, though simmering tensions and other serious problems could lead to renewed crisis and conflict, if left unchecked. Overcoming the legacy of the past and restoring dignity and ensuring justice for the victims will require sustained engagement and vigilance. Integrating the countries of the region into European institutions can advance this process. Slovenia has become a full-fledged member of both NATO and the European Union. Croatia is well on its way to similar membership, and Macedonia and Albania are making steady progress in the right direction. In a welcome development, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the epicenter of bloody carnage and mass displacement in the mid-1990s, was invited last week to participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace Program, along with Serbia and the newly independent state of Montenegro. As a longstanding member and leader of the Helsinki Commission, I want to highlight some of the numerous initiatives we have undertaken in an attempt to draw attention to developments in the Balkans and to influence related policy. Since 1995, we have convened more than 20 hearings on specific aspects of the region as well as related briefings, legislation, letters, statements and meetings. These efforts have been undertaken with an uncommon degree of bipartisanship. In this regard, I particularly want to thank the Commission's outgoing ranking member, Mr. Cardin of Maryland, for helping to make this a reality. Among the Commission's most noteworthy accomplishments, I would include garnering the strong support that contributed to the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and pressing countries to cooperate in bringing those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to justice. I would include the change in U.S. policy from relying on Milosevic to implement the Dayton agreement to supporting democracy in Serbia as the long-term and genuine partner in building regional peace and stability. We have maintained a significant focus on elections, encouraging all the countries in the region to strive to meet international standards for free and fair elections as well as referenda. There has been tremendous progress in this regard. The Commission's support for the OSCE, I believe, has helped the organization's field activities in southeastern Europe to be more successful in promoting respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all the people, regardless of ethnicity. Finally, on the more controversial policy of NATO's action against Serbia in 1999, the Commission served as a forum to air differing views on the policy response while finding common ground in addressing the humanitarian crises, documenting human rights abuses and holding human rights violators to account. Mr. Speaker, while welcoming this progress in southeastern Europe, I would caution against complacency as the region faces significant challenges. Maintaining positive momentum will require much from actors in the region as well as the international community, including the United States. First and foremost is the situation in Kosovo. The pending decisions that will be made on Kosovo's status give rise to growing expectation as well as apprehension and concern. Despite the many debates on larger issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self- determination, these decisions should and will ultimately be judged by whether or not they lead to improved respect for human rights, especially the rights of those people belonging to the Serb, Roma and other minority communities in Kosovo. The members of the minority communities deserve to be treated as people, not as pawns in a fight over territory and power. They should be allowed to integrate rather than remain isolated, and they should not be discouraged from integration when opportunities arise. I remain deeply concerned that these issues are not being given the attention they deserve. Whatever Kosovo becomes, OSCE and other international human rights standards must apply. Similarly, there is a need to ensure that justice is vigorously pursued for the victims of horrendous human rights violations. Conditionality on assistance to Serbia, as well as on that country's integration, must remain firmly in place until Belgrade cooperates fully in locating at-large indicted war criminals and facilitating their transfer to the ICTY in The Hague. It is an outrage that Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic remain at large. After refusing to take meaningful action on these cases, Serbia can not be let off the hook now, but should be pressed to comply with its international obligations. A related issue is that of missing persons. Ten years after Dayton, additional mass graves continued to be uncovered, and the identification of the remains of relatives and loved ones is important for the survivors of past atrocities and their societies. The Commission recently held a briefing on identifying remains found in mass graves in Bosnia, and I hope that support for determining the fate of missing persons can be further strengthened. While some progress has been made in combating trafficking in persons in the region, all countries there need to intensify their efforts to end this modern-day form of slavery. Political will and adequate resources will be required, including through enhanced efforts by law enforcement and more vigorous prosecution of traffickers while providing protection for their victims. Religious freedoms also remain a cause for concern. Various laws in the region allegedly providing for religious freedom do more to restrict this fundamental right by establishing thresholds for registration, by discriminating against small or new religious groups through tiers of recognition with associated privileges for traditional faiths, and by precluding the sharing of creeds or limiting free speech. These restrictions are particularly burdensome to smaller religious groups and can lead to stigmatization, harassment, and discrimination against their members. For instance, Kosovo's new religion law singles out certain communities for special status while failing to address how other religious groups can obtain juridical personality as a religious organization, thereby creating a significant legal void from the start. I urge Kosovo authorities to follow the progressive Albanian system and create a neutral registration system of general applicability. Macedonia is considering a draft law now, and I hope authorities will fully adopt the recommendations of the OSCE Panel of Experts on Religious Freedom, as certain provisions of the draft regarding the granting of legal personality need additional refinement. I similarly call on Serbian officials to amend their current law and ensure all groups seeking registration receive legal status. Meanwhile, there is a need to step up efforts to respect the sanctity and ensure the safety of places of worship that have in the past been the targets of ethnically based violence in Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, concerted efforts by courageous leaders in the Balkans and elsewhere have helped move the region from the edge of the abyss to the threshold for a brighter and more prosperous future. I congratulate the countries of southeastern Europe on the progress achieved thus far and encourage them to make further progress to ensure that all of the people of the region benefit.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the House just isn't going to be the same without Henry Hyde--one of the rarest, most accomplished and most distinguished Members of Congress ever to serve. Henry Hyde is a class act. He is a man of deep and abiding faith, he is generous to a fault and he has an incisive mind that works seamlessly with his incredible sense of humor. He is a man who inspires and challenges us to look beyond surface appeal arguments. He is a speaker of truth in a society that all too often is willing to accept cheap sophism, the plausible and the fraudulent. And Henry Hyde compels us to take seriously the admonitions of Holy Scripture to care for the downtrodden, the vulnerable and the least of our brethren. The Almanac of American Politics has written that Henry Hyde is ``one of the most respected and intellectually honest members of the House'' and ``has proven himself as one of the most eloquent members of the House'' and that his ``speeches are classics.'' In abortion debates Henry Hyde remains the great defender of children and their moms, the champion of the most fundamental of all human rights--the right to life. Because of the Hyde amendment countless young children and adults walk on this earth today and have an opportunity to prosper because they were spared destruction when they were most at risk. With malice towards none, Henry Hyde often took to this microphone to politely ask us to show compassion and respect--even love--for the innocent and inconvenient baby about to be annihilated. In one speech here on this floor he stated, ``for over two centuries of our national history, we have struggled to create a society of inclusion--we keep widening the circle of those for whom we are responsible--the aged, the infirm, the poor. Slaves were freed, women were enfranchised, civil rights and voting rights acts were passed, our public spaces made accessible to the handicapped, Social Security for the elderly--all in the name of widening the circle of inclusion and protection. This great trajectory in our national history has been shattered by Roe v. Wade and its progeny. By denying an entire class of human beings the welcome and protection of our laws, we have betrayed the best in our tradition. We have also put at risk every life which someday someone might find inconvenient. What I ask here today, ``welcome the little stranger.'' In another speech on U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century given in Committee back in 2001, Henry eloquently summed up the challenges and I quote in part ``As a new century opens, the United States finds itself at a unique moment, not only in its own history, but in that of the world as well. We stand at the pinnacle of power: in virtually every area--military, economic, technological, cultural, political--we enjoy a primacy that is unprecedented and virtually unchallenged. Our potential at times seems unlimited, to some perhaps even permanent. . . . But as pleasant as these thoughts may be, I confess that I also see much that concerns me. . . . The concern I speak of is the longer-term, specifically how well we will use the enormous power we currently possess to secure the future for our country and the generations to come. The wealth of opportunities we currently possess are not permanent; the luxury of choice may be a passing one. To believe that we shall always be above the fray, untouched and untouchable by the forces of destruction still at work in this world, is a dangerous illusion . . . The principal problem, the one that concerns me the most, is that we have no long-term strategy, no practical plan for shaping the future. . . . Despite our power, we must resist the temptation of believing we can fix every problem, indulge in every wish. Part of our strategy must be to decide what we cannot do, what we choose not to do, and to ensure that others take up their responsibilities. . . . So even as we revel in our good fortune, my great hope is that we will use this gift of time to plan for the future, unhurried, uncoerced, but mindful of the task at hand, aware that our opportunity to do so is a mortal one. The choice is clear: We can either shape the future or have it shape us. A century ago, Britain stood majestically at the height of her power. Within 40 years, the knife was at her throat, and she survived only because the United States was there to rescue her. But, Mr. Secretary, as you are well aware, there is no one to rescue us. That is why we must think long and hard about how we can use the opportunities that Providence and the labors of two centuries have provided us to so shape the world that the need for rescue never occurs.'' A Congressman for 32 years, a Chairman for 6 years of the Judiciary Committee and for another 6 years Chairman of the International Relations Committee, Henry has been a prodigious lawmaker. With uncanny skill, determination and grace, he has crafted numerous, historic bipartisan laws and common sense policies that have lifted people out of poverty, helped alleviate disease, strengthened the U.S. Code to protect victims and get the criminals off the streets and has been magnificent in his defense of democracy and freedom both here and overseas. One of his many legislative accomplishments includes his authorship of the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a 5-year $15 billion plan to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. During the debate Chairman Hyde was positively incisive as he compared the HIV/AIDS crisis to the Bubonic plague of the 14th century--the black death--and challenged us to enact a comprehensive program, which we did, to rescue the sick, assist the dying and prevent the contagion from spreading. Having served with this brilliant one-of-a-kind lawmaker for my 26 years here, I hope Henry Hyde knows that I--and so many others--will truly miss him. He is as irreplaceable as irreplaceable can get.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank my distinguished chairman for yielding; Elton Gallegly, thank you so much for your leadership on this legislation. I want to thank Mr. Lantos, our ranking member, for his commitment to changing and reforming the last dictatorship in Europe, which is Belarus. I especially want to thank our good friend and leader, Chairman Hyde, for his staunch belief in democracy and freedom everywhere, including this very troubled country called Belarus. Mr. Speaker, I do strongly support and urge passage of H.R. 4958, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, to provide sustained support for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of just law in the Republic of Belarus. I want to thank our speaker, Speaker Hastert, for his commitment in bringing this legislation before the Congress today. Speaker Hastert's deep personal interest in the cause of freedom in Belarus was demonstrated at his recent meeting in Vilnius in Lithuania when he met with the leaders of the democratic opposition. It was very much appreciated by them. I know them, I have worked with them for many years. They got a great boost from his personal intervention on their behalf and for really taking the time to listen and to react to their pleas. I am happy to say again that this legislation enjoys very broad bipartisan support. As I said, again, I want to thank Mr. Lantos for his leadership on this as well. As one who has worked for freedom in Belarus over many, many years, I remain deeply concerned that the Belarussian people continue to be subjected to the arbitrary and self-serving whims of a corrupt and anti-democratic regime headed by Aleksandr Lukashenka. Since the blatantly fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, which the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe condemned as having failed to meet international democratic standards, the pattern of repression and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms has continued. While those who dare to oppose the regime are especially targeted, roughed up, tortured, thrown into prison, the reality is that all in Belarus, outside of Lukashenka's inner circle, pay a price. Last week in Riga, President Bush pledged support to help the people of Belarus who faced a cruel regime, his words, and apt words, led by President Lukashenka. The existence, President Bush went on to say, of such oppression in our midst offends the conscience of Europe, and the conscience of America. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would be a concrete expression and expansion of congressional commitment to the Belarussian people and would show that we stand as one in supporting freedom in Belarus. Just within the last few months, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed a series of patently political trials designed to further stifle peaceful democratic opposition. In the last few months, the regime continues to show its true colors, punishing those who would dare to challenge the tin-pot dictator, Aleksandr Lukashenka. Former presidential candidate Aleksandr Kozulin was sentenced to a politically motivated 5\1/2\ years' imprisonment for alleged hooliganism and disturbing the peace. His health is precarious, and he is now well into the second month of a hunger strike. This is only the tip of the iceberg with respect to political repression, as many other political prisoners continue to languish in prison or so- called corrective labor camps. By way of background, Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I introduced the Belarus Democracy Act which passed the House and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bush in October of 2004. Prompt passage of the reauthorization act before us today will help maintain this momentum aimed at upholding the democratic aspirations of the Belarussian people. With the continuing decline on the ground in Belarus since the fraudulent March elections, this bill is needed now more than ever. This reauthorization bill illustrates the sustained support for Belarus independence. We seek to encourage those struggling for democracy and respect for human rights in the face of formidable pressure and personal risks from this anti-democratic regime. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary in assistance for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008 for democracy-building activities such as support for nongovernmental organizations, including youth groups, independent trade unions and entrepreneurs, human rights defenders, independent media, democratic political parties and international exchanges. The bill further authorizes money for both radio and television broadcasting to the people of Belarus. While I am encouraged by the recent U.S. and EU initiatives with respect to radio broadcasting, much more needs to be done to penetrate Lukashenka's stifling information blockade. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the administration will make this a priority. In addition, I hope that the administration would make this, like I said, a priority and much more. In addition, H.R. 5948 calls for selective sanctions against the Lukashenka regime, and a denial of entry into the United States for senior officials of the regime, as well as those engaged in human rights and electoral abuses. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help end the pattern of violations of OSCE human rights and democracy commitments made by the Lukashenka regime and loosen its unhealthy monopoly on political and economic power. I hope our efforts here today will facilitate independent Belarus's integration into democratic Europe in which the principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law are respected. Clearly, the beleaguered Belarussian people have suffered so much over the course of the last century and deserve better than to live under a regime frighteningly reminiscent of the Soviet Union. The struggle of the people of Belarus for dignity and freedom deserves our unyielding and consistent support. This legislation is important and timely, and I urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge passage of H.R. 5948, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, to provide sustained support for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Belarus, as well as encourage the consolidation and strengthening of Belarus' sovereignty and independence. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank you for your commitment to bring this legislation before this Congress. Your deep personal interest in the cause of freedom in Belarus, as demonstrated by your recent meetings in Vilnius with the leaders of the democratic opposition, has been particularly appreciated by those struggling for the rule of law and basic human freedoms. This legislation enjoys bipartisan support, and I want to recognize and thank the tremendous collaboration of Rep. Tom Lantos, an original cosponsor of this bill. As one who has followed developments in Belarus over many years through my work on the Helsinki Commission, I remain deeply concerned that the Belarusian people continue to be subjected to the arbitrary and self-serving whims of a corrupt and anti-democratic regime headed by Aleksandr Lukashenka. Since the blatantly fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, which the OSCE condemned as having failed to meet international democratic standards, the pattern of repression and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. While those who would dare oppose the regime are especially targeted, the reality is that all in Belarus outside Lukashenka's inner circle pay a price. Recent news regarding Lukashenka's regime Last week in Riga, President Bush pledged to help the people of Belarus in the face of the ``cruel regime'' led by President Lukashenka. ``The existence of such oppression in our midst offends the conscience of Europe and the conscience of America,'' Bush said, adding that ``we have a message for the people of Belarus: the vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace includes you, and we stand with you in your struggle for freedom.'' Mr. Speaker, this legislation would be a concrete expression of Congress' commitment to the Belarusian people and would show that we stand as one in supporting freedom for Belarus. Just within the last few months, we have witnessed a series of patently political trials designed to further stifle peaceful, democratic opposition. In October, 60-year-old human rights activist Katerina Sadouskaya was sentenced to two years in a penal colony. Her ``crime''? ``insulting the honor and dignity of the Belarusian leader.'' Mr. Speaker, if this isn't reminiscent of the Soviet Union, I don't know what is. And just a few weeks ago, in a closed trial, Belarusian youth activist Zmitser Dashkevich received a one-and-a-half year sentence for ``activities on behalf of an unregistered organization.'' A report mandated by the Belarus Democracy Act and finally issued this past March reveals Lukashenka's links with rogue regimes such as Iran, Sudan and Syria, and his cronies' corrupt activities. According to an October 9, 2006, International Herald Tribune op-ed: ``Alarmingly, over the last six years, Belarus has intensified its illegal arms shipment activities to the point of becoming the leading supplier of lethal military equipment to Islamic state sponsors of terrorism.'' I guess we shouldn't be all that surprised that in July, Lukashenka warmly welcomed to Minsk Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. In keeping with their bent, both pledged cooperation and denounced the West. More recently, Belarusian Foreign Minister Martynov traveled to Iran where President Ahmadinejad pledged further cooperation in the energy and defense industries. Not long ago, a member of Belarus' bogus parliament asserted on state-controlled radio that Belarus has the right to develop its own nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, Belarus is truly an anomaly in Europe, swimming against the rising tide of greater freedom, democracy and economic prosperity. The Legislation Three years ago, I introduced the Belarus Democracy Act which passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bush in October 2004. At that time, the situation in Belarus with respect to democracy and human rights was already abysmal. The need for a sustained U.S. commitment to foster democracy and respect for human rights and to sanction Aleksandr Lukashenka and his cronies, is clear from the intensified anti- democratic policies pursued by the current leadership in Minsk. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that countries throughout Europe have joined in a truly trans-Atlantic effort to bring the promise of freedom to the beleaguered people of Belarus. Prompt passage of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help maintain this momentum aimed at upholding the democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people. With the continuing decline on the ground in Belarus since the fraudulent March elections, this bill is needed now more than ever. This reauthorization bill demonstrates the sustained U.S. support for Belarus' independence. We seek to encourage those struggling for democracy and respect for human rights in the face of the formidable pressures and personal risks from the anti-democratic regime. The bill authorizes such sums as may be necessary in assistance for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008 for democracy-building activities such as support for nongovernmental organizations, including youth groups, independent trade unions and entrepreneurs, human rights defenders, independent media, democratic political parties, and international exchanges. The bill further authorizes monies for both radio and television broadcasting to the people of Belarus. While I am encouraged by the recent U.S. and EU initiatives with respect to radio broadcasting, much more needs to be done to penetrate Lukashenka's stifling information blockade. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the administration will make this a priority. In addition, H.R. 5948 calls for selective sanctions against the Lukashenka regime, and the denial of entry into the United States for senior officials of the regime--as well as those engaged in human rights and electoral abuses. In this context, I welcome the punitive sanctions imposed by both the administration and the ED which are targeted against officials--including judges and prosecutors--involved in electoral fraud and other human rights abuses. The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that strategic exports to the Government of Belarus should be prohibited, except for those intended for democracy building or humanitarian purposes, as well as U.S. Government financing and other foreign assistance. Of course, we would not want the exports to affect humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products.The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions are encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs. Furthermore, we would encourage the blocking of the assets (in the United States) of members of the Belarus Government as well as the senior leadership and their surrogates. To this end, I welcome the Treasury Department's April 10 advisory to U.S. financial institutions to guard against potential money laundering by Lukashenka and his cronies and strongly applaud President Bush's June 19 ``Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to make it crystal clear that these sanctions are aimed not at the people of Belarus, but at a regime that displays contempt for the dignity and rights of its citizens even as the corrupt leadership moves to further enrich itself at the expense of all Belarusians. Ongoing Anti-Democratic Behavior To chronicle the full litany of repression over the course of Lukashenka's 12-year misrule would go well beyond the bounds of time available here. Let me cite several more recent illustrations of anti- democratic behavior which testify to the true nature of the regime. Belarus' March 19 presidential elections can only be described as a farce, and were met with condemnation by the United States, the OSCE, the European Union and others. The Lukashenka regime's wholesale arrests of more than 1,000 opposition activists and dozens of Belarusian and foreign journalists, before and after the elections, and violent suppression of peaceful post-election protests underscore the contempt of the Belarusian authorities toward their countrymen. Illegitimate parliamentary elections in 2004 and the recently held presidential ``elections'' in Belarus brazenly flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self-imposed isolation. Albeit safely ensconced in power, Lukashenka has not let up on the democratic opposition. Almost daily repressions constitute a profound abuse of power by a regime that has blatantly manipulated the system to remain in power. In the last few months, the regime continues to show its true colors, punishing those who would dare to challenge the tinpot dictator. Former presidential candidate Aleksandr Kozulin was sentenced to a politically-motivated five-and-one-half-years' term of imprisonment for alleged ``hooliganism'' and disturbing the peace. His health is precarious as he is now well into his second month of a hunger strike. In early August, authorities sentenced four activists of the non- partisan domestic election monitoring initiative ``Partnerstva''. In a patent attempt to discourage domestic observation of the fraudulent March 19 presidential elections, the four had been kept in custody since February 21. Two were released, having served their six month sentences. Two others--Tsimafei Dranchuk and Mikalay Astreyka--received stiffer sentences, although Astreyka has been released from a medium security colony and is now in ``correctional labor''. Other political prisoners, including Artur Finkevich, Mikalay Autukhovich, Audrey Klimau, Ivan Kruk, Yury Lyavonau, Mikalay Razumau, Pavel Sevyarynets, Mikalay Statkevich also continue to have their freedom denied, languishing in prison or in so-called correctional labor camps. Administrative detentions of ten or fifteen days against democratic opposition activists are almost a daily occurrence. Moreover, the Lukashenka regime continued to stifle religious expression. It refuses to register churches, temporarily detains pastors, threatens to expel foreign clergy, and refuses religious groups the use of premises to hold services. Despite the repressions, Protestant and Catholic congregations have increasingly become more active in their pursuit of religious freedom. I am also concerned about the recent explosion at a Holocaust memorial in western Belarus, the sixth act of vandalism against the monument in 14 years. Unfortunately, the local authorities have reportedly refused to open a criminal investigation. Lukashenka's minions have closed down independent think tanks, further tightened the noose around what remains of the independent media, suspended the activities of a political party, shut down the prominent literary journal Arche, and evicted the Union of Belarusian Writers from its headquarters. Of course, Lukashenka's pattern of contempt for human rights is nothing new--it has merely intensified with the passage of time. Moreover, we have seen no progress on the investigation of the disappearances of political opponents--perhaps not surprisingly, as credible evidence points at the involvement of the Lukashenka regime in their murders. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 will help end to the pattern of violations of OSCE human rights and democracy commitments by the Lukashenka regime and loosen its unhealthy monopoly on political and economic power. I hope our efforts here today will facilitate independent Belarus' integration into democratic Europe in which the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law are respected. The beleaguered Belarusian people have suffered so much over the course of the last century and deserve better than to live under a regime frighteningly reminiscent of the Soviet Union. The struggle of the people of Belarus for dignity and freedom deserves our unyielding and consistent support. This legislation is important and timely because Belarus, which now borders on NATO and the EU, continues to have the worst human rights and democracy record of any European state--bar none.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we likewise yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in describing American foreign policy after World War II, General George Marshall said, ``Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit an emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.'' Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has seen more than its fair share of hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Since 1998, an estimated 4 million people have died as a result of war, famine and disease, and thousands more die each and every day. More than 40,000 women and children have been systematically raped and tortured at the hands of the armed forces of the Congo, perpetrators of genocide from neighboring Rwanda and an increasing intricate array of militia groups. Life expectancy in Congo has plummeted to 49 years, and years of war and rampant corruption have decimated an economy that should have been one of Africa's strongest. Fortunately, hope for an end to the constant conflict and chaos that have plagued the Congo since independence has been raised following the historic elections that took place in July and October of this year. An estimated 70 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote in the face of great difficulties, and international monitors agreed that the election results were uncompromised by irregularities. But the conduct of elections represent only an initial step towards normalcy. A legitimate result in the October runoff that is accepted by both parties and the population at large is vitally important. Further, the establishment of inclusive political institutions, the restoration of critical infrastructure and essential public services, and the creation of viable economic opportunities for development will be critically important if Congo is to flourish. During a recent visit to Kinshasa earlier this month, U.N. Under Secretary of Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egelund asserted that ``the Congolese people were still suffering one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.'' Unfortunately, this is a fact that has largely escaped the attention of many of us, particularly as we focus on other well-deserved crises such as that which is occurring in Darfur and northern Uganda and, as a result of U.S. policy towards Congo, really has gone adrift and needs to be re-energized. S. 2125 recognizes the importance of a coherent, forward-leaning U.S. policy toward the Congo. It identifies key U.S. policies in Congo, including the promotion of free, fair and democratic elections in the future; support for security sector reform and disarmament; demobilization, repatriation, reintegration and rehabilitation programs; and the promotion of accountability for those who have committed atrocities and gross human rights violations. It also asserts that the United States will work to ensure that a stable Congolese government is committed to the principles of good governance and resource management, rule of law, and peaceful coexistence with its regional neighbors. The bill suggests that the U.S. partner with other governments with similar goals for the Congo. Finally, it compels the U.S. to work to strengthen the mandate of the United Nations peacekeeping force in the Congo, MONUC, to include specific authority to prevent and effectively counter imminent threats, protect civilians, enhance intelligence gathering capabilities, and monitor arms trafficking, and of course, also to look into the terrible problem of child soldiers. S. 2125 further authorizes $52 million for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, an increase of $5 million, to carry out these objectives and expresses support for additional funding in future years. However, the bill makes it clear that U.S. assistance to Congo cannot continue in perpetuity. It calls on the Secretary of State to withhold such assistance if the government is not making sufficient progress towards accomplishing the stated U.S. foreign policy goals. Mr. Speaker, this is a timely bill. While providing a road map for U.S. policy towards Congo during this critical stage in its transition, it rightly places the burden of success on the Congolese themselves. After all, solutions for Congo's ills cannot be imposed from the outside. The Congolese themselves must seize the opportunity for peace and prosperity that is before them. Still, this bill helps support them in that effort. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate Bill (S. 2125) to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of S. 843, with the amendment, the Combating Autism Act. This bill is great news for the 1.5 million individuals suffering from autism spectrum disorders and their families, the many ASD advocacy groups who have been working hard for so long, and also the very many Members of Congress who have championed the cause of autism with the goal of providing meaningful relief to those autistic individuals and their families. I just point out, Mr. Speaker, that from my very first session of Congress in 1981, I have been a consistent advocate for individuals who have autism, and frankly, it was not until the mid-1990s when some caseworker wrote in my own district about a family who had two children with autism that I realized that we were not doing enough, that the research, the best practices that are so important, the early intervention was not happening. It was at that time that we formed the Autism Caucus. Mike Doyle, who is my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I formed this caucus. We have about 200 members and we have been pushing very hard to get money for NIH, as well as for the Centers for Disease Control so we get better prevalence data, and also, most importantly, how do we deal with this issue and how do we help these individuals. Let me point out to my colleagues, when I first got elected, the incidence or the common prevalence of autism was thought to be one out of every 10,000. Now, because of the work that the CDC has done, we know that it is probably around one out of every 166 individuals. We have an epidemic on our hands. This legislation which reauthorizes Title I of the Children's Health Act, and has other very, very important additions to that, I think takes us into a new era of helping the individuals who have been afflicted by this disability, trying to find out what is the trigger. There are many, many ideas out there as to what may be triggering this. We need more definitive information about that, and again, I think this legislation is good, bipartisan legislation, and it is an example of what we can do here when we put our minds together and work across the aisle and especially when we work with these many autism advocacy groups that have been tremendous in helping to bring this legislation to the floor. So I urge strong support for it. I thank Chairman Barton for bringing it up, even if it is late, but not too late. This legislation will make a significant difference in the lives of autistic children, as well as in the lives of their families. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 843, with an amendment, the Combating Autism Act. This bill is great news for the 1.5 million individuals suffering from autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and their families, the many ASD advocacy groups who have been working hard for so long, and also the very many Members of Congress who have championed the cause of autism with the goal of providing meaningful relief to those autistic individuals and their families. From my first session in Congress in 1981, I have been a consistent advocate for individuals with developmental disorders, including autism. More recently, in 1998, I successfully requested the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct an investigation in Brick Township, New Jersey after learning and listening to the community's concerns about high numbers of autism cases--a study that showed that cases of both classic autism and autism spectrum disorders were significantly higher nationwide than expected. The Combating Autism Act, that was introduced in the Senate by my good friend Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and was unanimously passed by the Senate, reauthorizes major components of Title I of the Children's Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310), and also adds significant new provisions to broaden and strengthen activities related to autism. Specifically, within its provisions, this legislation: requires the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to expand, intensify, and coordinate ASD-related research and to conduct an NIH- wide study of research centers of excellence, and reauthorizes provisions, which I had authored in the Children's Health Act, to grant HHS the authority to award grants for the collection, analysis, and reporting of state-level epidemiological data on ASDs and other developmental disabilities, as well as the authority to award grants for the establishment of regional centers of excellence in autism spectrum disorders epidemiology. Importantly, the bill directs that NIH-funded research include investigation of possible environmental causes of ASDs and that CDC- funded epidemiological centers develop expertise in specialty areas, including environmental exposures. I applaud this recognition of the need to pursue research into environmental factors and epigenetics to further advance and clarify the science. While not specifically addressed in this bill and although some are fearful to even mention the issue, I believe that we do not yet have the answers we need regarding the biological effects of thimerosal, and I am hopeful that research on environmental factors will include further study to find those important answers. The bill does much more, such as, facilitates the creation of state- level agencies to serve as clearinghouses for public information; reauthorizes the proven successful Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee; and also includes a very robust section ``Autism Education, Early Detection, and Intervention,'' to improve the early screening, diagnosis, interventions, and treatments for ASDs. As many as 1.5 million Americans today have some form of autism and the number is on the rise. Each and every day across America, 66 children are diagnosed with autism and as many as 1 in 166 children born today will eventually be diagnosed with autism. Just 10 years ago, the estimate was 1 in 500. A complex neurobiological disorder that generally appears in the first 3 years of life, autism impairs a person's ability to communicate and to relate to others; the condition is often associated with rigid routines or repetitive behaviors. About 40 percent of children with autism do not talk, and others only repeat what is said to them. Children with autism may experience a range of medical problems which can be very debilitating. Because these patients have such extreme communication problems, behavioral symptoms such as agitation, sleep difficulties, and other behavioral problems may be attributed to the disability rather than to the pain and discomfort of a medical condition. Adolescents with autism may develop a strong sense of isolation, socially and emotionally, and show signs of depression or increased challenging behaviors. Autism generally is a life-long disability; it also is a spectrum disorder that affects each individual differently and at varying degrees. 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. Our Nation is in the midst of an autism crisis that becomes more severe each passing month, a crisis that costs our nation tens of billions of dollars annually in medical care, behavioral therapy, special child care, and a range of child and adult services needed to care for these individuals. While we have significantly increased our government's commitment to surveillance and biomedical research in the last decade in an effort to find a cause or cure, it is incumbent upon us to act now to reauthorize, intensify, and expand those and other efforts to identify individuals with autism and to provide them with more effective care and treatments. Thanks to the incredible work of Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton and his staff in finalizing this bill and getting it here today to the floor of the House of Representatives, we have a tremendous opportunity to join together in carrying it over the finish line. I strongly encourage everyone of my colleagues to vote for this bill. Perhaps the greatest thanks should go to the very many individuals and organizations in the ASD community who coalesced and advocated so effectively for this bill. Some, but certainly not all, of those organizations are: Autism One, Autism Society of America, Autism Speaks, Cure Autism Now, Dan Marino Foundation, First Signs, Organization for Autism Research, Southwest Autism Research & Resource Center, TalkAutism, Unlocking Autism, and the US Autism and Asperger Association. I know that there are numerous other organizations and individuals who also deserve thanks and recognition. I know that all of us here share the commitment to dramatically improve the lives for the well over a million American children and adults who have an autism spectrum disorder and improve the outlook for their families and other loved ones. I humbly encourage you not to let this opportunity pass without casting your vote in support of this much needed and much desired legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, most, perhaps everybody in this House today, has had to deal at one time or another with the emotional agony of a loved one dying from severe illness, an accident, or perhaps even an act of violence. One of the questions we often ask is, Did they suffer? How much pain did they endure? Did we do everything we can to alleviate their pain? Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize or gloss over the significant and ever-expanding body of knowledge that shows that an unborn child suffers real pain, excruciating pain, when he or she is dismembered, as in a D&E abortion, or jabbed with scissors as in a partial-birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist. Not only is abortion violence against children, but we now know that the abortion act itself is painful to the baby as well. As the gentleman from Georgia pointed out a moment ago, Dr. Sunny Anand, an expert on pain for the unborn and the neonates, has pointed out that human fetuses possess the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and there is a whole growing body of evidence that clearly demonstrates that. Meanwhile, approximately 18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond, are destroyed without even the basic decency of pain relief. Let me describe to you what one of the abortionists who now has turned pro-life, says about the D and E abortion procedure. He did about 10 abortions per week, Dr. Anthony Levatino, from New York, here is how he described this D&E method of abortion. These are his words, he did them: ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard, really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart, and lungs. The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. ``The head of the baby that age is about the size of a plum,'' he goes on to say, ``and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it when the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day,'' he goes on to say, ``like I often did, a little face may come out and stare right back at you.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a hideous, barbaric abuse of children. And, yes, sadly we are not stopping it with this legislation. I wish we had the ability to protect these children from this kind of child abuse. We need to affirm both patients, mother and baby. That is what prenatal care is all about. Our legislation is simply informed consent, requiring that a brochure, not unlike those booklets given to women in many States of the union that describe the growth of an unborn child and any problems she may experience, be given to her since she has the right to know this very important information. Abortion methods kill, Mr. Speaker, and we need to at least allow that child pain medication information be conveyed to the mother. Most--perhaps everyone in the House today--has had to deal at one time or another with the emotional agony of a loved one dying from severe illness, an accident or perhaps even an act of violence. One of the questions we often ask is how much did they suffer? How much pain? Did we do everything possible to alleviate that pain? Today, we can no longer deny, trivialize, or gloss over the significant and ever expanding body of knowledge that shows that an unborn child suffers real pain--excruciating pain--when he or she is dismembered as in a D & E abortion, or jabbed with scissors in a partial birth abortion, or poisoned by an abortionist. Not only is abortion violence against children but we now know that abortion is painful to the baby as well. In expert testimony provided to the Northern District of the US District Court in California during the partial birth abortion trials, Dr. Sunny Anand, Director of the Pain Neurobiology Lab at Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute said, ``the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborn's or older children.'' In testimony before the Virginia State Senate, Dr. Jean Wright of Emory University School of Medicine said ``Aspects of pain architecture begin as early as six to seven weeks, mature and are identified by their anatomy, their physiology, and the coordination of responses so that by 20-22 weeks of gestation, the evidence reveals a developed system of pain perception and response. . . . The ability to modulate or blunt the pain response does not develop until the last weeks of pregnancy and the first few weeks of infancy, leading us to believe that the pain perceived in the fetus is greater than that in the full- term infant. Dr. Anand further describes before the court that the'' highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero,'' while still in the womb, ``from 20 to 30 weeks gestation. During this period, the epidermis is still very thin, leaving nerve fibers closer to the surface of the skin than in older neonates and adults.'' He went on to explain that the pain inhibitory mechanisms, in other words fibers which dampen and modulate the experience of pain, do not begin to develop until 32 to 34 weeks of gestation. Thus, Dr. Anand concludes, a fetus 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults when these groups are subjected to similar types of injury. Dr. Anand points out on the question of fetal consciousness that more than 3 decades of research show that preterm infants are actively perceiving, learning and organizing information, and are constantly striving to regulate themselves, their environment and their experiences. All preterm infants actively approach and favor experiences that are developmentally supporting and actively avoiding experiences that are disruptive. Additionally a recent British study measured blood flow and oxygen in the part of the brain that feels pain while blood was drawn during a heel lance. The results showed a surge of blood and oxygen in the sensory area of their brains, meaning the pain was processed in the higher levels of the brain. Indicating that these little boys and girls do feel pain. Meanwhile approximately 18,000 unborn children at 20 weeks or beyond are destroyed without the basic decency of pain relief. That means that twice every hour a baby is destroyed without pain alleviation by methods that include the D and E abortion. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is a modest but necessary expansion of informed consent. To date several states have enacted informed consent laws that convey in booklet form to the mother the facts concerning development of an unborn baby as well as risks associated with abortions. Our bipartisan legislation simply ensures that new information concerning pain capable in unborn babies be conveyed as well. Under HR 6099, a woman considering an abortion at or past 20 weeks fertilization must simply be given an HHS produced brochure describing the most accurate and up to date information on unborn child pain. After that, the mother is given a decision form on which she may either request or decline pain relieving drugs for her baby prior to the abortion. Is it our hope that this additional information may dissuade a woman from allowing her child to be killed? Absolutely. I--we--believe good medicine should affirm the value, and dignity of every human life. We need to affirm both patients--mother and child. For the child dismembered by hideous and abusive abortion methods like the D & E abortion that happen every day--the little girl or boy at least shouldn't be made to suffer. Here's how Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist describes the painful D & E abortion. ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4-5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs. . . The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head of the baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the [Sopher] clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a puer white gelatinous material issued from the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Unborn Pain Child Awareness Act is a modest but necessary expansion of informed consent. Let me remind my colleagues that in State after State throughout the country these booklets like the one in my hand that describe fetal development are given to the woman prior to an abortion. These kinds of informed consent booklets have been vigorously opposed by the abortion lobby, and we know for a fact from former as well as current-day abortionists do not discuss the baby's pain. They rarely will talk about anything that is even remotely connected with the humanity of the unborn child. It is just not part of what they convey to the woman. Let me also point out to my colleagues that the 2005 JAMA article that is being pushed by members and the press has been part of a slick disinformation campaign and is true junk science. The authors of that study failed to point out that their conflict of interest. Susan Lee is a medical student who was previously employed as a lawyer for NARAL, and Eleanor Drey, runs the largest abortion clinic in San Francisco, where they do 600 D and E or late-term abortions every year, those hideous abortions where the baby is dismembered and she has been a very strong advocate of partial birth abortion. Eleanor Drey too did not disclose as one of the authors of that study her affiliation. Talk about conflict of interest, and the study is riddled with holes. Finally, what the legislation does, and let us be clear, it just requires the informed consent brochure from the Department of Health and Human Service and that the mother be given an informed consent form to sign.