Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased o pay tribute to John Finerty for his 25 years of faithful service to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. John began his work as a member of the professional staff on November 8, 1981, just 6 years after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, a period marked by ruthless Soviet repression and widespread violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Driven by a passion for upholding the dignity of the downtrodden, John devoted himself to documenting the cases of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience cast into the Soviet gulag or banished because of their beliefs. His career at the Commission began in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a situation he followed closely. He also focused on the plight of Soviet Jewry, abuse of psychiatry and use of slave labor in the USSR, the persecution of human rights defenders, and repression of religious believers. His determined efforts were undertaken for well-known dissidents and the unknown alike without distinction. The resolution of hundreds of Soviet human rights cases were brought about in no small measure as a result of John's diligence. The end of the Cold War brought new challenges and opportunities and once again John's talents proved invaluable to me and my fellow Commissioners as freedom began to take root in the former Soviet Union and the subjugation of the Baltic States came to an end. Throughout the turbulent transition, John remained focused on promoting peaceful democratic change while continuing his vigilant defense of human rights. He was part of the first teams to monitor elections in the former USSR. While the conflict in Chechnya has faded from the focus of many, John has not been willing to forget its victims. Similarly, he has helped draw attention to those who have fallen victim to terrorists in places like Beslan. Mr. Speaker, in this year when we observe the 13th anniversary of the Helsinki Commission, as a long-serving Commissioner and Co-Chairman, I am pleased to recognize and commend John Finerty for his faithful service and tireless defense of human rights and dignity.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to pay tribute to Orest Deychakiwsky for his 25 years of faithful service to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. Orest began his work as a member of the professional staff on November 15, 1981, just six years after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, a period marked by ruthless Soviet repression and widespread violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Driven by a deep commitment to aid the victims of Communist oppression, Orest devoted himself to documenting the human rights cases, particularly those involving divided families, an especially poignant task given his own family's history under Soviet domination and repression. He was responsible for compiling and maintaining the lengthy lists of individuals seeking to emigrate from the Soviet Union and Romania. Each spring would bring an opportunity to secure the exit of some of the thousands effectively held hostage in Romania by the Ceausescu regime. Orest was faithful in making representations to the Romanian Embassy on behalf of all those seeking to exercise their right to leave their country. When Moscow began to accept emigration lists from the Commission in the mid-80s, Orest's diligent efforts on behalf of refuseniks began to pay off for families, including some with American spouses, who were finally allowed to leave the Soviet Union after a decade or more of waiting. With a passion for Ukraine, his familial homeland, Orest helped document modern Soviet repression in that country including imprisonment of human rights activists, suppression of Ukrainian culture and language as well as harsh actions against the Ukrainian Catholic Church. He was at the forefront of efforts in support of the restoration of Ukrainian independence and the consolidation of democracy in that country following the demise of the Soviet empire. Despite setbacks, Orest was optimistic that the people of Ukraine would insist on a democratic future for their country. On a cold November night in 2004, he witnessed firsthand their determination as he stood in Kiev's Independence Square where tens of thousands of Ukrainians gathered to protest fraudulent elections. Fifteen years earlier he had stood in the main square in Sofia, Bulgaria as peaceful demonstrators stood up to tyranny, ushering in the demise of Eastern Europe's longest standing dictatorship. In recent years, he has been active in confronting the repressive regime of Aleksandr Lukashenka in Belarus, Europe's last dictatorship. Mr. Speaker, in this year when we observe the thirtieth anniversary of the Helsinki Commission, as a long serving Commissioner and Co- Chairman, I am pleased to recognize and commend Orest Deychakiwsky for his faithful service and tireless defense of human rights and dignity.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and Vice Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, today I introduce this resolution on systemic human rights violations in Turkmenistan. Freedom House recently ranked Turkmenistan as one of the most repressive countries in the world. Along with cosponsors Representative Joseph R. Pitts and Representative Mike McIntyre, we seek to put the Government of Turkmenistan on notice that these policies must change and that the Congress expects improvements in human rights observance and democratization. The human rights situation in Turkmenistan remains abysmal. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, ``Turkmenistan is an authoritarian state dominated by president-for- life Saparmurat Niyazov. . . . The government continued to commit serious abuses and its human rights record remained extremely poor.'' Turkmenistan is a one-party state with all three branches of government controlled by President Niyazov, who was made ``president- for-life'' by the rubber-stamp People's Council in 2003. No opposition is allowed and the state promotes a cult of personality around President Niyazov, the self-proclaimed ``Turkmenbashi''--the father of all Turkmen. His likeness is on every public building and the currency. Authorities require that his self-styled spiritual guidebook, the Rukhnama, be taught in all schools and places of work. There are consistent reports of security officials physically abusing, torturing and forcing confessions from individuals involved in political opposition or human rights advocacy. The regime also continues the dreadful Soviet practice of using psychiatric hospitals to jail dissidents. In August, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Ogulsapar Muradova and two Turkmenistan Helsinki Foundation members were sentenced to 6 and 7 years of imprisonment, respectively, for their involvement in a documentary about Turkmenistan. Sadly, Muradova died while in custody just three weeks later. The resolution therefore urges President Niyazov to, among other things, conduct a thorough investigation into the death of Muradova, free all political/religious prisoners, provide ICRC access to all Turkmen prisons, and allow peaceful political opposition parties to operate freely. The resolution also lays out recommended steps for U.S. action, should the government not improve respect for democratization, freedom of movement, human rights and religious freedoms. The abuses don't end with repressive actions against dissidents and reporters. Niyazov is also reportedly diverting billions of dollars of state funds into his personal off-shore accounts. The ``father of all Turkmen'' is pillaging his country and jeopardizing the future of its citizens. Consequently, the resolution urges the Government of Turkmenistan to ``end the diversion of state funds into President Niyazov's personal offshore accounts, and adopt international best practices as laid forth by the International Monetary Fund regarding the disclosure and management of oil and gas revenues.'' In addition, the resolution urges the U.S. Government to encourage companies dealing in Turkmen gas to increase transparency, and to encourage the European Union and other countries not to enter into trade agreements with Turkmenistan until the ``government demonstrates a commitment to implementing basic norms of fiscal transparency.'' To further demonstrate the level of Congressional concern regarding the misappropriation of state resources, the resolution recommends the U.S. Government issue ``a report on the personal assets and wealth of President Niyazov.'' In closing, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to bring to the attention of the Congress and the world the appalling human rights record of the Government of Turkmenistan. The resolution is timely, as the European Parliament will soon consider an enhanced trade relationship with Turkmenistan. I hope this resolution will be a catalyst for change and that President Niyazov will initiate serious and far-reaching reforms.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I chaired a briefing and hearing of the House International Relations Committee to examine means to enhance the global fight to end human trafficking. When I held the first hearing on trafficking as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights back in 1999, only a handful of countries had laws explicitly prohibiting the practice of human trafficking. Individuals who engaged in this exploitation did so without fear of legal repercussions. Victims of trafficking were treated as criminals and illegal immigrants, and had no access to assistance to escape the slavery-like conditions in which they were trapped. Few seemed to even be aware that this modem form of slavery was taking place, and those who did failed to recognize it as a violation of fundamental human rights. However, the situation has changed markedly over the past 6 years. Significant credit for improvements must be attributed to the enactment of the trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, together with two reauthorizations of that Act in 2003 and 2005, all of which I sponsored. These three laws created a comprehensive framework for combating trafficking in persons abroad, as well as the trafficking of American girls and young women within the U.S. As a result of these three laws, our government has been a leader in addressing this serious human rights violation and encouraging other governments to do the same. Just this past weekend, I experienced the impact of this leadership during a trip to Iraq. Millions of people who lack job opportunities are misled by ads for well-paying jobs and leave their countries for what is presented to them to be the chance of a lifetime. Last year, the Chicago Tribune did a series of articles detailing a practice by employment brokers and subcontractors to bring laborers into Iraq through fraud or coercion. The seizure of the workers' passports and recruitment ``fees'' made it diffIcult for them to escape employment in a war zone. After the State Department trafficking report confirmed this practice, my Subcommittee held a hearing in which Colonel Robert Boyles testifIed that the military had issued an order that all contracts include a clause allowing termination without penalty, prohibits the use of unlicensed employment brokers, and ends the practice of confiscating worker passports. With the compliance inspections set to begin this month, one of the major objectives of my visit to Iraq was to ensure that the order on labor trafficking would be enforced. Major General Bruce Moore, the Chief of Staff for our military in Iraq, assured me that compliance was being checked on this. As of the time of our subcommittee hearing, 90 percent of the contracts had been modified, and the military is ensuring that the other 10 percent will be modified and that implementation of the order will be complete. Also on my trip this weekend, I spoke with State Department officials about trafficking in Kuwait and Germany. According to reports earlier this year, more than 40 Indian youth had been stranded in Kuwait when their passports had been confiscated by unscrupulous job brokers and had been penalized by Kuwaiti police. State Department officials told me that they have launched an aggressive program entitled FALCON for Fostering Awareness of Labor Conditions to let foreign workers know their rights. In Germany, State Department officials described efforts to discourage patronage of brothels during the World Cup earlier this year in which women and girls were coerced into prostitution. Efforts were especially concentrated on ensuring that the U.S. military did not patronize such establishments. Since the end of the World Cup, the U.S. has continued to work with the German government to ensure that coerced prostitution is ended to the extent possible and facilities are established to help prostitutes who want to escape that life. One of the key components of the 2000 Act is the requirement that the Secretary of State provide Congress with a list of those countries whose governments are not fully complying with minimum standards to eliminate trafficking and are not making significant efforts to do so. These countries, designated as ``Tier 3,'' may be subject to certain sanctions, including the withholding of non-humanitarian, non-trade-related assistance. These sanctions can be waived if the government makes significant efforts to comply with the minimum standards, or pursuant to a determination by the President that the provision of assistance would promote the purposes of the statute or is otherwise in the national interest of the United States. The President is to submit a notification to Congress no later than 90 days from the submission of the annual report as to the determination made for each Tier 3 country. I have received numerous reports from our government representatives and non-governmental organizations as to how the implementation of this tier ranking and the consequent threat or imposition of sanctions have dramatically impacted the trafficking practices in the relevant countries. The determinations for 2006 were due on September 1st and it was the intention of the Committee to examine those determinations at the hearing. It was therefore deeply disappointing that the determinations still had not been provided by the President three weeks later. This raises grave concerns that were examined later in the hearing, including whether the Administration is giving due priority to its stated commitment to combat human trafficking. This delay past the legislative mandate sends the wrong message to these Tier 3 countries as to the urgency with which this serious human rights violation needs to be addressed. And in this instance, it was a missed opportunity to apply additional pressure on these countries through the attention that would have been focused on them at this important hearing. We did, however, have the opportunity to inquire about the implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services' assistance program as mandated by the 2000 Act. The purpose of such programs is to expand benefits and services to trafficking victims in the United States without regard to the victim's immigration status. Unfortunately, evidence of the need for such assistance within our own country is growing. Just this month, it was reported that a woman from my home state of New Jersey pled guilty to being part of a smuggling ring that brought in more than 20 young women and teenagers from Honduras to work in a bar. These women were virtually imprisoned in apartments, and are alleged to have been beaten, raped, and subjected to forced abortions. Such horrific stories make us all too aware that this modern form of slavery has silently infiltrated and poisoned the fabric not only of the U.S., but of virtually every society around the world. It is extremely important that this awareness be amplified, so that public outrage will further motivate those of us in government, shame those who are creating the demand for trafficking victims, and ultimately stop those responsible for perpetrating these human rights violations. We were privileged to have with us at the hearing a prominent public figure who is using his position on the world stage to publicize the reality and prevalence of human trafficking. Not only has Ricky Martin given his time and talent to promote the cause as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Children's Fund, but he has also established a foundation that is engaged in numerous activities on behalf of trafficking victims and children. As just one indication of his personal commitment to the most vulnerable among us, he visited the affected areas in Thailand following the 2004 tsunami. In April 2005, he entered into a partnership with Habitat for Humanity to construct over 220 homes to provide shelter and safety, particularly for those children orphaned by the disaster. All three of our witnesses provided the Committee with valuable information and perspectives with which we can indeed enhance our global fight to end human trafficking.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his great leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, young girls desperately need the modest protections against exploitation contained in the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, and they need these protections now, without any further delay. It is inhumane and unjust that abortion mills in New Jersey and some other States aggressively advertise and market secret abortions for pregnant minors living in States that have enacted and enforce parental involvement statutes. The Yellow Pages in Pennsylvania, for example, are filled with ads for children to procure secret abortions in my home State. That is unconscionable. The fact that older men, including statutory rapists, can secretly transport and perhaps pressure or coerce teenagers to go to abortion mills for an abortion even as late as 6 months is wrong. Who protects the teenagers from abuse? The abortionist? The male who wants the baby dead to evade responsibility? Policies that enable abortion clinics to circumvent State parental involvement laws recklessly and irreversibly endanger the health, safety, and well-being of young girls. Mr. Speaker, not only are babies being slaughtered at abortion clinics, and let's not kid ourselves, the soothing rhetoric of the abortion industry has anesthetized many people to the inherent violence against children of every abortion. Chemical poison and dismemberment is violence against children. But minor girls as well have become physically wounded and emotionally wounded by the abortion. They become the walking wounded. Ask yourselves, when health or emotional complications occur, do we really think a young girl and her shocked and broken parents return to the abortion mill? I think not. Finally, I want to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff for the exemplary work they have done on this bill, especially the highly persuasive, heavily footnoted majority commentary in the report accompanying the bill. I wish more Members had the time or made the time to read it. It makes a cogent case for this bill, and I urge support for this important bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me make it very clear. What I just said was that if you go to the Yellow Pages and look at some of the ads and in newspapers and in other media, the abortionists actively try to solicit young girls 13, 14, 15, 16, to go across State lines. And you know as well as I do adult males, including predatory males, read those ads and act. All they have to do is go to New Jersey or some State other than Pennsylvania, where there is no parental involvement law, and thereby circumvent the parental notification, parental consent in that particular State.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the challenges we face today in Sudan are perhaps among the most difficult of our time. The interminable war between Khartoum and the rebels in the south claimed the lives of over 2 million people and was punctuated by brutalities that strain our credulity. The United States poured hundreds of millions of dollars into humanitarian relief for Sudan, but never bothered to effectively engage in a high-level effort to resolve the conflict until 2001 when President Bush appointed Senator John Danforth to serve as a Special Envoy to Sudan. With Senator Danforth's leadership, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan was signed in January of 2005, presenting a historic opportunity for peace, economic development, and democratic aspirations in southern Sudan. Unfortunately, implementation of the peace agreement has been slow and many difficult challenges lie ahead. While the international community focused on resolving the war in the south, a genocidal campaign was unleashed by the government of Sudan in the Darfur region of western Sudan. As many as 400,000 people have died since 2004, and more than 2 million others have been forced from their homes. Once again, the U.S. Government provided millions of dollars to meet the immediate humanitarian needs of those most affected by the conflict, including more than $150 million to support the deployment and operations of the African Union peacekeepers in Darfur. This time, however, the U.S. immediately engaged at the highest levels to seek a resolution to the conflict. Two years of intense negotiations, with significant engagement by President Bush himself, finally yielded a peace agreement between the Government of Sudan and the largest rebel faction in Darfur, the SLA, in May of this year. Unfortunately, the agreement has not held and the Sudanese Government has launched military operations against its own civilian population in Darfur. Mr. Speaker, the United States has significant human rights and security interests at stake in Sudan. Recall that in 1996 the Sudanese Government made Osama bin Laden available to American law enforcement officials, a point that Salah Gosh reiterated to me with a great deal of sarcasm when I met with him 14 months ago in Khartoum. That offer, as we know, was refused. We cannot afford to repeat those mistakes of the past. The United States needs a rational, well coordinated policy towards Sudan that puts an end to the violence and terrorism and human rights abuses at the core of our relationship. It is in this context that I welcome, and we welcome as a body, the President's appointment of Andrew Natsios to serve as the Presidential Envoy for Sudan. The resolution before us today, authored by our good friend and colleague, Chairman Frank Wolf, H. Res. 992, strongly supports the appointment of the Special Envoy for Sudan and suggests a roadmap for the formation of a comprehensive responsible policy towards Sudan. It states that the Special Envoy's mandate should include all efforts to consolidate peace throughout Sudan, including by ensuring full implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The mandate should also include helping to secure a just and equitable peace in eastern Sudan, supporting reconstruction efforts and the return of displaced persons to the Darfur and southern Sudan and addressing the inextricably linked conflict in northern Uganda. In essence what will be the Special Envoy's responsibility to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past by focusing solely on the crisis in Darfur at the expense of solidifying the north-south peace accord and resolving the conflict in the east; by allowing the potential for peace in southern Sudan to blind us to the grave human rights tragedies continuing to unfold in Darfur; and by allowing the government of Sudan's reported cooperation in the war on terror to outweigh human rights concerns in the region. They must be paramount. And also to allow those same human rights concerns to compromise our ability to protect our own citizens. Again, this is a good resolution. I would note parenthetically that originally it called for the creation, this resolution by Mr. Wolf, of a Special Envoy. Thankfully, events have overcome the resolution and now we are congratulating the administration for doing just that, creating a Special Envoy for Sudan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Frank Wolf, author of the resolution. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 992) urging the President to appoint a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan, as amended.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 480) to correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3127, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3127) to impose sanctions against individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes again humanity, to support measures for the protection of civilians and humanitarian operations, and to support peace efforts in the Darfur region of Sudan, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For as long as I can remember, we have received conflicting messages about the situation in Sudan. My staff and I, like many people in this body, have met with Sudanese government officials. We have met with African Union officials and Darfur rebel leaders in Khartoum, Darfur, Addis Ababa, Abuja, and in Washington; and we have gotten varying accounts and assurances between the northern and southern officials in the Sudan government, between the African Union military and political departments, and between the SLM factions and the JEM. Unfortunately, the past few months have brought more of the same. On May 5, 2006, we welcomed the news that the government of Sudan had signed a peace agreement with the largest rebel group in Darfur, the Minni Minnawi-led faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement Army. Modeled after the peace agreement which ostensibly ended over 20 years of war in southern Sudan, the Darfur Peace Agreement was hailed as a breakthrough in the peace process that had seen little progress in 2 years. Our hopes for peace in Darfur were further raised on August 30 as the United Nations Security Council finally approved Resolution 1706, authorizing the transition of the well-meaning but severely constrained African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS, to a larger, more capable U.N. peacekeeping mission with a robust mandate providing for civilian protection. Before the microphones were silenced and the ink had dried, however, it became clear that eloquent speeches and agreements on paper would do little, if anything, to protect human life in Darfur. Given its conduct of the war in the south, it should have been come as no surprise to learn that the government of Sudan had launched a new major military offensive in north Darfur in late August, in direct violation of the peace agreement it had signed just 3 months earlier. Rather than serving as a harbinger of peace, it appears that the Darfur Peace Agreement has emboldened the Sudanese government, the Janjaweed militias, and rebel groups in Darfur to act with even greater impunity in killing, abusing and displacing civilians as they seek to consolidate their positions before international peacekeepers are deployed. And despite assurances that a U.N. peacekeeping mission would be accepted upon conclusion of a peace agreement, Security Council Resolution 1706 was greeted by the Sudanese government with unmitigated hostility. Regardless of the fact that a U.N. peacekeeping mission already exists in southern Sudan, the Sudanese government now seeks to portray the proposed expansion to Darfur as a ``western invasion'' and has called upon jihadists to attack any U.N. peacekeepers who dare to deploy in Darfur. While it is not require under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706, the Sudanese government's intransigence and inflammatory remarks have all but guaranteed that the long-awaited transition of AMIS will not take place before the end of this year. It is these sharp contrasts between word and deed in Sudan which underlie the importance of today's consideration of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. H.R. 3127, which was authored by Chairman Hyde and cosponsored by Mr. Lantos, Mr. Payne and me and 160 other Members, passed the House in April and was amended by the Senate just last week. It offers the President the tools he needs both to support the immediate expansion of AMIS and to facilitate its transition to a U.N. peacekeeping mission as soon as possible. It also provides the President with the authority to provide emergency economic and development assistance to marginalized areas in Sudan, including southern Sudan and Darfur. H.R. 3127 also carries punitive measures intended to promote accountability in Sudan and act as a deterrent against further atrocities. It imposes targeted sanctions against individuals determined to be complicit in or responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity in Darfur. It calls upon the President to take all necessary actions to deny the government of Sudan access to oil revenues, which have been used to fund its genocidal campaign in Darfur. H.R. 3127 also calls for the suspension of the government of Sudan's rights and privileges at the U.N. until it has honored its commitments before that body. The Senate amendment updates the bill to reflect events that have taken place following House passage last April and expresses the conviction of this Congress that AMIS must be transitioned to a larger, more capable U.N. mission. It also allows the President to provide limited military assistance to the government of southern Sudan, thereby fulfilling commitments to facilitate the transformation of the Sudan People's Liberation Army from a rebel group to a professional military force. I note with considerable regret that the Senate amendment also strikes an important provision to make clear that nothing in this bill shall preempt State laws on divestment. I am very proud of the fact that New Jersey has divested its pension fund investments from companies that do business with Khartoum. I would note that some States like Illinois are in court, in litigation, because they have done likewise. This provision would have made clear that nothing in the bill would preempt State laws on disinvestment. That is a loss, but there are many other things in this bill that I think warrant its passage. Mr. Speaker, in their addresses to the U.N. Assembly last week, both President Bush and Secretary General Kofi Annan recognized the transcendent importance of a show of resolve on Darfur. While it is true that the bill before us as amended by the Senate requires Members to make difficult compromises, it is nevertheless a solid bill. It is a serious bill. It is an urgent bill. Far too much time has lapsed. Far too many graves have been filled since we first began debating this resolution. The time to show Congress's resolve is now. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to just at this point thank the following congressional staff for their extraordinary work and persistence in shaping this bill. As my colleague from Minnesota pointed out earlier, we did mark this bill up 15 months ago in my subcommittee, and it has been a long, arduous journey to this night on this Hyde-Lantos legislation. So I want to thank Joan Collins, Gregory Simpkins, Pearl Alice Marsh, Noelle LuSane, Ian Campbell, Hannah Royal, Aysha House-Moshi, Greg Adams, Samantha Stockman, Walker Roberts, Jock Scharfen, David Abramowitz, Will Lowell. And I hope I didn't leave anybody out because there was an extraordinary amount of give and take on this legislation. Again, some of its aspects that we would have liked to have seen dealing with disinvestment was dropped by the Senate. I think that was a setback. But it is still a very solid piece of legislation and deserves the full support of this body to advance our efforts to mitigate and hopefully end the genocide in Darfur. This now goes to the President, as I have just been reminded, and I think he will sign it very quickly. I urge its passage.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 723) calling on the President to take immediate steps to help improve the security situation in Darfur, Sudan, with a specific emphasis on civilian protection, as amended.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as may consume. Mr. Speaker, 14 months ago, Greg Simpkins on our International Relations staff and I visited Darfur and met some of the heroic survivors of genocide at two camps, Mukjar and Kalma. When the helicopter landed at the remote Mukjar camp, thousands of women and children danced, clapped and sang beautiful traditional African songs. The people of Darfur have a remarkable generosity and spirit, and it was awe-inspiring. At first glance, most of the people had a superficial glow of physical wellness, thanks in large part to the brave NGO workers bearing food, clothing and medicine. However, now even those necessities are disappearing due to the insecurity in the camps, further exacerbating the genocide with even more starvation and more disease. In addition to the horrific loss of life in Darfur, estimated to be at upwards of 400,000 dead and 2 million displaced, I was struck by the appalling fear and trepidation that is ever present, just below the surface, just below the smiles that greet any visitor. Among the refugees and IDPs, emotional woundedness and brokenness is everywhere. Like you and me, Mr. Speaker, all that the wonderful people of Darfur want is to love God and their families and friends and earn a living and to live in peace. Yet they have had atrocities imposed upon them that no human being should ever have to bear. Just about everyone that we spoke with, especially the women, told us personal stories of rape, senseless beatings and massacres by the Janjaweed and by Sudanese militias. On that same trip, Mr. Speaker, I also met with Sudanese President Omar Hassan El-Bashir at his presidential suite in Khartoum. Perhaps like some others before me and after me, I pushed hard for the end of genocide. I argued, if peace and a fledgling reconciliation was achievable in southern Sudan, the other genocide that killed 2 million people and displaced 4 million, why not peace in Darfur? The exchange was not encouraging. All Bashir wanted was to talk about ending U.S. trade sanctions, not the horrific loss of life. Mr. Speaker, the very important resolution before us today, authored by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lantos, H. Res. 723, reflects congressional concern about the recent escalation of violence in Darfur and the government of Sudan's continued refusal to create a permissive environment for the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers. It also speaks to the fear that a security vacuum could be left in Darfur if the African Mission in Sudan, AMIS, is not immediately reinforced and transitioned to a larger, more capable UN peacekeeping mission. On August 31, Mr. Speaker, the administration's skillful and resolute efforts to build international consensus on the need for action in Darfur resulted in the passage of Resolution 1706 by the United Nations Security Council. This urgently needed resolution approved a robust peacekeeping force for Darfur of up to 22,000 soldiers and police officers to relieve a severely undermanned and overfatigued African Union mission which has valiantly struggled against acute disadvantages to maintain some level of protection for innocent civilians. Still, every day it becomes clear that the government of Sudan is more interested in imposing its own solution in Darfur than in pursuing a swift and lasting resolution to the conflict. Even as the UN Security Council's Resolution 1706 was being debated, the Sudanese government was preparing a major military offensive in Darfur, in direct violation of a peace agreement that it signed on May 5. And despite the government's agreement to accept the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur upon conclusion of the Darfur Peace Agreement, the government then turned around and categorically rejected the passage of Security Council Resolution 1706, renouncing the UN mission as a ``western invasion of Sudan'' and threatening attacks against peacekeepers. H. Res. 723, Mr. Speaker, calls upon the Sudanese government to comply immediately with UN Security Council Resolution 1706, to support the transition of AMIS to a U.S. peacekeeping mission and to facilitate the deployment of UN peacekeepers. It also demands that the Sudanese government immediately withdraw all offensive military aircraft and personnel from the region, cease all support for the Janjaweed militias and rebels from Chad and disarm the Janjaweed militias themselves. H. Res. 723 makes clear that the deployment of a capable UN force is our paramount objective, but also calls on the African Union to work closely with UN and NATO to strengthen its capacity to deter violence in the Darfur region during the interim. And while the resolution does not suggest the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces, it does call upon the President to continue urging NATO to extend and expand upon the support it currently is providing to AMIS. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisan resolution, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Madam Speaker, as one of the cosponsors, I am pleased to rise in support of House Resolution 965. The people of Montenegro deserve this commendation for the fair and orderly manner in which they achieved independence. They also deserve commendation for their patience. Many Montenegrin citizens wanted independence much earlier, but they and their political leaders understood that following a process marked by democratic norms and mutual agreement would only add credibility to the result. A significant number of Montenegrin citizens, I should add, did not see a reason to break its ties in a state union with Serbia and voted against independence in the May referendum. To their credit, they have nevertheless accepted the result. Just last week, Montenegro held new parliamentary elections which were favorably assessed by the OSCE, indicating that the republic remains committed to democratic norms where differences of opinion will be respected. As noted in the text of the resolution, Serbian authorities and the people of Serbia deserve some credit here as well. While many in Serbia failed to understand why Montenegro felt a need to break with Serbia, there was a willingness to work out differences and, since the May referendum, to respect the results. Things were not always so easy. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I recall holding hearings on Montenegro. At the time, this republic posed the only genuine and effective internal opposition to the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, and became his threatened next target as a result. Montenegro became a haven for those displaced by the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts, which was very challenging given its own, small yet ethnically diverse population. For some, it continues in that role. Montenegro needed to assess its own role in the violent disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, and to rebuild good relations with its neighbors. It has done just that. The Commission has maintained a dialogue with Montenegrin political leaders over the years, held hearings on the situation in Montenegro, observed elections there and most recently observed the referendum itself. Whatever concerns have been expressed in this ongoing dialogue, we have had a serious back and forth. It is my hope that Montenegro, as the 56th participating State in the OSCE, will remain committed to the path it has chosen, and remain engaged with the Helsinki Commission on issues of common concern. Among those issues, few are as important as trafficking in persons. This criminal activity remains a widespread problem throughout southeastern Europe, and Montenegro must endeavor to stop it. I also want to encourage Montenegro to undertake the reforms necessary, especially regarding the judicial system and other aspects of the rule of law, in order to realize its aspirations for European and Euro-Atlantic integration. The people of Montenegro can count on my support. In closing, Madam Speaker, I think it important to note that Montenegro's independent statehood has implications not only for Montenegro but for the region as a whole. With Montenegro's independent statehood accepted and recognized, another outstanding issue has been resolved, and this time, thankfully, in a peaceful and democratic manner. Other issues still remain, including of course the question of Kosovo's status. Some would assert that Montenegro's achievement of independent statehood is a precedent that can be easily applied to Kosovo or elsewhere. I would argue, however, that it is not the result of the process Montenegro followed but the process itself, with its commitment to democracy and respect for human rights as well as to finding the most widely acceptable arrangements through compromise, that is the true precedent here that others should follow.