Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in closing, how grateful I am to Members on both sides of the aisle for working so steadfastly on this legislation. There were some glitches, there were some areas where there was broad agreement as well as disagreement. We worked out those differences, and I want to thank the Members, but also the staff. Joan Condon has done an incredibly good job in walking us through this legislation and writing many parts of it. Greg Simpkins, our Africa specialist on the subcommittee, who also worked on this legislation, as I said earlier, accompanied me to Darfur last August. We saw firsthand the devastating impact of this horrific genocide on men, women, and children in that beleaguered land. Pearl-Alice Marsh is always a great friend of the Africa Subcommittee, who provides very good insights. I want to thank her, as well as Noelle Lusane, Don Payne's lead staffer who works very well with us, and Ted Dagne. Together we were able to work through these differences.

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 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 back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this bill to my colleagues today in defense of a man who has fought for democracy in Vietnam at great personal cost. There has been a tremendous amount of publicity lately about Internet dissidents in China. As a matter of fact, we had a day- long hearing on this use of the Internet to capture and to really decapitate the dissidents and religious freedom movements in China, in Vietnam and Belarus and in other countries, but we now focus on one particular man, as well as others who have suffered because of that, in the case of Dr. Pham Hong Son of Vietnam. In March 2002, Mr. Speaker, police arrested Dr. Son. He had translated an article from the Web site of the U.S. Embassy Hanoi that was entitled, ``What is democracy?'' and he sent it to some of his friends and senior Vietnamese officials. In addition, he had written an open letter, published on the Internet, protesting the fact that his house had been searched illegally and his computer and documents confiscated. Dr. Son was charged with espionage by the government, which accused him of collecting and dispatching news and documents for a foreign country to be used against the Socialist State of Vietnam. Let us not forget who that foreign country is. It is us. It is the U.S. Embassy's Web site in Hanoi, and that is where he went to download that essay, ``What is democracy?'' After a closed trial and a closed appeal, from which Western reporters and diplomats from Europe, the United States and Canada were barred, Dr. Son was sentenced to 5 years, plus an additional 3 years of house arrest. Dr. Son's case has been highlighted repeatedly by the U.S. Department of State's Human Rights Report for Vietnam and by Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International. Mr. Speaker, I went to Vietnam last year, accompanied by Eleanor Nagy, who is our Director of Policy on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, and met with some 60 dissidents in the course of the better part of a week in Hanoi, Hue and in Ho Chi Minh City. We met with Dr. Son's extraordinary and courageous wife, Vu Thuy Ha, who continues to campaign for her husband's freedom despite constant surveillance and harassment, which I personally witnessed. I knew that we could not let this brave woman battle alone. As a matter of fact, when Eleanor and I, along with some people from the embassy, sat with his wife, right across from us at a hotel were some thugs from the secret police who were taking pictures of her and trying to intimidate her, which they have been doing day in and day out. The State Department, to its credit, put Dr. Son at the head of their list of political prisoners who need to be released during the February Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam. As Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Barry Lowenkron told the Vietnamese, and this is his quote, ``I bluntly told them that the American people will not understand why a country that wants to have better relations with us would imprison someone for translating an article on democracy.'' On Friday March 31, Vietnam flatly rejected Lowenkron's call to release Dr. Son and 20 other religious and political prisoners, saying it only jails criminals. In Vietnam, they said, there are no prisoners of conscience, and no one has been arrested for their viewpoints or their religion. That is unmitigated nonsense and a big lie, Mr. Speaker, and that has to be confronted by this Congress. Less than a day after the unanimous subcommittee markup of this resolution on December 9, plainclothes officers detained two other well-known Internet writers, Do Nam Hai, whom I met with in Vietnam and who is mentioned in our resolution. They were at a public Internet cafe. The police also forced Hai to open his personal e-mail account and printed about 30 of his sent messages. The two writers were interrogated for 6 hours at the cafe and later at a police station in Hanoi. Both were released from police custody that day. And the persecution continues, Mr. Speaker. On March 12, according to Reporters Without Borders, an Internet user calling himself ``Freedom For the Country,'' joined the discussion group ``Democracy and Freedom the Only Way for Vietnam.'' He went on-line in a Hanoi cyber cafe, and he discussed politics for about half an hour with two other people in the group. During the discussion, he said he was a member of a pro- democracy working group. The entire on-line conversation was recorded by the forum administrator, police entered the cyber cafe, and they arrested him. On the recording, someone could be heard asking the Internet user to go with them, and then someone else shouting, hit him. The administrator continued recording after the police intervention, and no one came to disconnect the computer linked to Pal Talk. Afterwards, a man's voice is heard on the microphone introducing himself as the cyber cafe's owner and confirming that one of his customers had been taken away by the police. He added that he had been fined for violating Internet law. The Vietnamese denied the arrest, and the victim's identity is unknown. He joins three other cyber dissidents who were arrested in October and whose whereabouts remain unknown. This sort of persecution, Mr. Speaker, will obviously not go away by itself. But tyranny hates and fears public exposure, and we need to keep attention focused on Vietnam's continuing violation of the rights that it claims to grant to its people. Vietnam is at a critical crossroads. It wants to expand its burgeoning trade relations with the United States and seeks to join the WTO. There would be no better way to convince Vietnam of the seriousness of our human rights concerns and their centrality in any relation with the U.S. It seems to me you can't trust a country on intellectual property rights and copyright infringement if they jail, incarcerate, and beat their own people because they simply espouse basic fundamental human rights. The European Parliament, I might add, has already passed a resolution calling for Vietnam to release all of its prisoners of conscience, allowing democracy and political pluralism and ensuring the human rights for Vietnam's Montagnards. It is appropriate that we do likewise and that we do it today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would close by especially thanking Dennis Curry, Eleanor Nagy, and Dan Freeman, our staff who have worked so hard on this resolution. The hearing that we held recently was a very insightful hearing that focused on the ongoing and persistent violations of fundamental human rights in Vietnam. Last year, right before Prime Minister Khai came to the United States, we held another Vietnam human rights hearing, and it was very telling. We can't reduce human rights to an asterisk or a ``see page 3'' footnote in our relationship with the government of Vietnam. I would urge every Member, when and if they travel to Vietnam, that they prepare themselves by really understanding the nature of this government. Yes, there may be some modest progress being made in the area of religious freedom, and I underscore the word ``modest,'' but they still are a country of particular concern, so designated by the Department of State because of their egregious violations of religious freedom and the persecution of people, whether they be members of the Montagnards, the Evangelical Christians, or the Unified Buddhist Church, people like the Venerable Thich Quang Do, whom I met with. Let me say finally that I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do in his pagoda, as he is under house arrest. When we began to leave, all of a sudden he stopped, and he said, ``I take one step beyond this and the guys across the street will have me in handcuffs.'' That is the reality of what is going on in Vietnam today. I would hope Members, before they go to Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, acquaint themselves very thoroughly with the human rights abuses the Vietnamese commit and raise those issues, particularly as it relates to trade.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I want again to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their tremendous support for this resolution and the underlying issue of trying to encourage intercountry adoption in a country, Romania, that has now, in a misguided fashion, turned their back on those children who could find loving, durable homes with the adoption option. Let me also thank so many other people who were a part of this, but especially Maureen Walsh, who is our General Counsel for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, for her extraordinary expertise and work on the issue and this resolution. We have had an ongoing process, contacting the highest levels of the government of Romania, from the President on down. It has been ongoing. It has been frequent. Our hearing that Ben Cardin and I put on last year I think brought all of these issues to the fore in a way that were very persuasive on the part of the pipeline families, as well as the issue itself. The intercountry adoption is a loving, compassionate option, and certainly is far better than languishing in an orphanage somewhere where the child is warehoused. Mr. Speaker, so we call upon the Romanian government again to reverse its position, to cease its mucking under Lady Nicholson's pressure, which is now going into reverse. The European Union, as I said before, is showing clear signs that it concludes it has made a profound mistake. I want to thank Mr. Cardin, who is our ranking member on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, who has been working on these issues side by side.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 578 expresses deep disappointment that the Romanian government has instituted a virtual ban on intercountry adoptions with serious implications for the well-being of orphaned and abandoned children in Romania. Immediately after the December 1989 revolution, Mr. Speaker, which ousted the much-hated dictator Nicholae Ceausescu, the world learned that tens of thousands of underfed, neglected children were living in institutions, called orphanages, throughout Romania. A month after the fall of Ceausescu, Dorothy Taft, who is our deputy chief of staff at the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and I traveled to Bucharest and visited those orphanages. We also met with government officials and spoke about the hope for democracy in that country. But one of the most lasting impressions that I have from that trip is being in an orphanage in Bucharest, where dozens of children were lined up with no one to turn them, to change their diapers and, in some cases, even to feed them with the frequency that their little bodies required. It left a lasting impression upon me. Sadly, all these years later, Mr. Speaker, Romania's child abandonment rate that we witnessed firsthand on that trip has not changed significantly over those years. As of December 2005, 76,509 children are currently in the child protection system. While the Romanian government deserves at least some credit for reducing the number of children living in institutions from 100,000 to 28,000, this is only part of the picture. The government statistics do not include the abandoned infants living for years in maternity and pediatric hospitals, where donations from charities and individuals keep the children alive; and more than 40,000 of the children moved out of the institutions are living in nonpermanent settings or foster care, or with maternal assistance, paid by the government or with a distant relative who do not intend to adopt them, but do accept them for a stipend. In the context of Romania's ascension to the European Union, unsubstantiated allegations have been made about the qualifications and motives for those who adopt internationally and the fate of those adopted children. Intercountry adoption, Mr. Speaker, was falsely equated with child trafficking, and Romania faced relentless pressure to prohibit intercountry adoptions. Sadly, rather than focusing on the best interest of the children, Romanian policymakers acquiesced to the European Union's pressure, especially its rapporteur, Lady Emma Nicholson, by enacting a law in 2004 that banned intercountry adoption, except by biological grandparents. By foreclosing foreign adoptions, the laws codified the misguided proposition that a foster family, or even an institution, is preferable to an adoptive family outside of the child's country of birth. Between 1990 and 2004, I would note, more than 8,000 Romanian children found permanent families in the United States and thousands more joined families in Western Europe and elsewhere. This possibility is now gone. Some Romanians and Europeans argue that this law, this misguided law, is somehow consistent with Hague Convention on the Intercountry Adoptions and the Rights of the Child Convention. They also allege that ``there is little scope, if any, for international adoptions in Romania because there are so few children who are legally adoptable.'' Mr. Speaker, the low numbers declared ``legally adoptable'' is not something to be proud of. It is a contrivance. Indeed, it is a denunciation of the child welfare system, which now places such an unrealistic priority on unification with blood relatives that it is nearly impossible to determine any child is adoptable, no matter how old and how long they have been in state care without contact with the blood relatives. If more children were made available for adoption, there would be a great need for intercountry adoption. Barely a thousand children have ever been domestically adopted in Romania in any given year. As a result of the new laws, only 333 children were entrusted for domestic adoption last year. For thousands of children abandoned annually in Romania, domestic or intercountry adoption offered the hope of a life outside of foster care or an institution. That hope has now been dashed and destroyed. Last September, Mr. Speaker, I chaired a hearing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe at which Maura Harty, the Deputy Under Secretary of State, rebutted the argument that the adoption ban is somehow consistent with Romania's intercountry international treaty obligations. Likewise, our witnesses, including Dr. Dana Johnson, Director of the International Adoption Clinic and Neonatology Division at the University of Minnesota's Children's Hospital, testified that Romania's concentration on reunification of an abandoned child with his or her biological family is only superficially consistent with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. He also talked about the deleterious effect of such waiting, being held in foster care and especially in institutions, has on a child's mental, as well as their physical health. When Romania enacted its intercountry adoption ban, there were 211 pending cases in which children have been matched with adoptive parents in the United States. Approximately a thousand more have been matched with parents in Western Europe, Israel and Australia. In the past few weeks there have been unofficial reports that pending applications are being rejected across the board and the dossiers returned to the adoptive parents. A document from the Romanian Office for Adoption acknowledged that fewer than 300 of these children have been placed in permanent situations, either returned to biological parents or adopted within Romania. The vast majority remain in limbo. This cannot be the last word of what we often call ``the pipeline cases.'' The Romanian government repeatedly promised to analyze each pending case thoroughly, but the review that has supposedly been done was not transparent, was not done on a case-by-case basis, and was not conducted according to clear and valid criteria that is in the best interest of each individual child. These cases involve prospective families who have proven their good faith, by waiting for years for these children. Many cases involve children who will not be domestically adopted due to their special needs, medical or societal prejudices. In at least three cases, Mr. Speaker, children are already living in the United States with their prospective adoptive parents while receiving life-saving medical treatment, including a child with spina bifida. These children were legally adoptable until Romania's new law took effect. Let me say that when I introduced this resolution in November, I asked the question, who in the European Union will stand with Members of our Congress, to protect these defenseless children? Today I am happy to say, members of the European Parliament are challenging the anti-adoption monopoly over this issue and that is encouraging. On December 15, the European Parliament urged Romania to act in the pending cases with the goal of allowing intercountry adoptions to take place where justified and appropriate. In March, the European Parliament's rapporteur for Romania's EU accession, Mr. Pierre Moscovici, reported that he notably differs on the issue of international adoption of Romanian children from the previous rapporteur, Baroness Emma Nicholson, whose virulent anti-adoption views that hurt the children of Romania are now very, very well known. I applaud the European Parliament and I am glad that our parliament, this Congress, is poised to go on record very strongly in trying to resolve these pipeline cases. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), who has several cases in his own district that he has been advocating for.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much and his work on behalf of his constituents. General Leave

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 back the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 578) concerning the Government of Romania's ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Chairman Leach, for yielding me time and for his leadership on this and on so many other resolutions and initiatives as well on behalf of human rights. Mr. Lantos, it is great to see you again on the floor, not unexpected. You are always here fighting the good fight on behalf of human rights. Madam Speaker, I especially want to commend Chairman Hyde for offering this resolution. I am very proud to be one of the original cosponsors of it. It is a collaborative effort that strongly restates U.S. support for the Good Friday Agreement signed 8 years ago this month. Madam Speaker, the Hyde resolution also underscores our unyielding support for the establishment of peace, justice, reconciliation and prosperity in Northern Ireland which we have all hoped for and we have all prayed for. While we are not there yet there has been some very encouraging signs. On March 15, Madam Speaker, I chaired my eleventh hearing on the Northern Ireland peace process. All of these hearings have been comprehensive and insightful but this one was the first since the IRA's full renunciation of arms struggle and the decommissioning of its weapons. Our resolution today makes note of that historic milestone, a remarkable development in the path to peace. Of course, equally significant for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is true, durable and transparent police reform. Here, too, Madam Speaker, there has been progress. Today there is a vigorous and fiercely independent Police Ombudsman's Office, whose chief, Nuala O'Loane, has been a catalyst for reform. There is now a Policing Board in Northern Ireland composed of independent and party representatives to design and provide civilian control and fair nonsectarian policing. The Chairman, Sir Desmond Rea, and retiring Vice Chairman, Dennis Bradley, testified at our most recent hearing. There is a new Historical Enquiries Team established by the PSNI Chief Constable Hugh Orde, which will provide a thorough and independent examination of unresolved deaths that occurred in connection with the troubles from 1968 to 1989. H. Res. 744 rightly commends Nuala O'Loane, Sir Hugh, and the new policing institutions for the progress that they have made, often under very adversarial conditions. Even with these improvements, Madam Speaker, significant work further remains to be done in order to ensure acceptance by all the communities of the PSNI. A key stumbling block to that greater acceptance has been the lack of resolution of charges of official collusion in the murder of human rights lawyer Patrick Finucane. In 2001 the British and Irish governments jointly appointed Judge Peter Cory, a preeminent retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to determine whether independent commissions should investigate possible state-sponsored collusion in six notorious and horrific murders. They also pledge to abide by his recommendations. Two years ago Judge Cory, and he too testified at one point before our committee, 2 years ago he issued his report; and it called for five of the six murderers to be investigated independently. Yet, I am sorry to say, the British government has still not appointed an inquiry commission into the murder of the human rights attorney, Pat Finucane, who was gunned down in his home in front of his wife and three small children in 1989. Every one of the 11 hearings that I have chaired on human rights and police reform in Northern Ireland has dealt with Pat Finucane's murder in whole or in part, yet still nothing has been done. The U.K. government must find a way to institute a credible inquiry which will be stepped by all, by Judge Cory, the Irish Republic, by the world community, but most of all, by the Finucane family. If the population of Northern Ireland is to cease relying on paramilitaries for protection, which they absolutely must do, they must never rely on that, and transfer its trust to the police, it must have the confidence that the police and the authorities deserve trust. That is the major reason why these inquiries must be done and done right as soon as possible. Again, I want to commend Chairman Hyde, Chairman Gallegly, Mr. Walsh, Mr. King, of course Mr. Lantos again, and Chairman Leach, and also many of our staffs, including Mary Noonan, Richard Mereu and Dennis Curry for their work in writing and crafting this resolution which will put us in a bipartisan way on record for saying that the peace process must continue and the Good Friday Agreement must be fully implemented.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a Washington-based non-governmental organization--the Coalition for International Justice--will close its offices this week after 10 years of service to the cause of justice around the world. Serving as Chairman and Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission for that same period of time, I have worked closely with the Coalition and seen the effect of its work. Ten years ago, the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a priority in U.S. foreign policy, a conflict in which numerous war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide were committed. Many of us fought for the inclusion of basic justice as an element in our country's policy response, and an international tribunal was fortunately created for that purpose. At the time, however, support was lukewarm at best; many saw efforts to apprehend and bring to justice those responsible for heinous crimes as too far- reaching, perhaps unachievable, and potentially detrimental to efforts to end the conflict through diplomacy. The Coalition for International Justice was a tireless advocate of another view, one that saw no true peace, nor the resulting long-term stability, in Bosnia or anywhere else, without appropriate consideration of justice. Time has since shown how correct that view has been. Bosnia and Herzegovina has come a long way since the mid- 1990s, in large part because those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide were instead removed from positions of authority and made accountable at the tribunal located in The Hague. Many of those people might still be at large had the Coalition, among others, not advocated a tough policy toward those powers who were harboring and protecting them. Many of us can remember the State Department's hesitancy, let alone that of many European foreign ministries, to these tough measures. Today, however, the United States maintains an effective conditionality on assistance to Serbia and, along with the European Union, on Serbia's integration efforts due to the particular failure to transfer Ratko Mladic to The Hague. Similar linkages apply to another at-large indictee, Radovan Karadzic. Representatives of the Coalition for International Justice participated in numerous briefings and hearings of the Helsinki Commission on this subject, and were always available to provide useful information when justice in the Balkans became part of our policy debates. The Coalition similarly assisted the international criminal tribunal established for Rwanda in its efforts to be fair, responsible and effective in the provision of justice. Its mandate later expanded to help the investigation and prosecutions process in East Timor, to establish a tribunal for Khmer Rouge crimes in Cambodia, and to create a Special Court for Sierra Leone. It helped track the finance of such notorious figures as Charles Taylor, Saddam Hussein and the Khartoum elites, in addition to Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic. Most recently, the Coalition has been part of the international effort not just to hold those responsible for the genocide in Darfur accountable from the crimes already committed but to protect the civilian population there from continuing to be victimized. Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the work of the Coalition for International Justice as a resource of accurate information, and as an advocate to a reasonable, practical approach to the sometimes controversial subject of international justice. While its board and staff may have concluded that the Coalition has largely accomplished the tasks it was created to address, they know, as do we, that horrible crimes continue to be committed against innocent people in conflicts around the world. I am confident that the dedicated individuals who made the Coalition such a success will continue, through other organizations and offices, in the struggle for international justice.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 2006, I chaired a hearing to review the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2005 and, in the context of those reports, to examine the state of respect for human rights around the world. Human rights are not a concession or benefit conferred by the state. They are the entitlement of every human person on the basis of that person's inherent dignity and worth. Thus the Universal Declaration for Human Rights and subsequent international human rights treaties did not establish human rights--they recognized those rights. Therefore, human rights cannot be abrogated or otherwise removed by any government. They are entitlements pre-existing and superseding the prerogatives of the government, and as such are either respected or violated. Certain human rights are fundamental, and are the basis for the recognition and enjoyment of all other human rights. Foremost of these rights is the right to life. If a human being is denied or threatened with the denial of life, the existence of other rights is meaningless. And attempts to exclude any category of human beings from the inviolable right to life at the whim of expediency or the more powerful undermines and threatens the respect of life for all peoples. A determination to take the life of one human being easily translates into taking the life of another, limited only by the relative power of the aggressor and the vulnerability of the one whose life is threatened. It is for these reasons that the life of every human being, from conception to natural death, is of such critical, overriding importance. As affirmed by the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, liberty, justice and peace in the world are built on the foundation of the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Human rights are central to United States foreign policy not only because they are a moral imperative but also because they are central to any effort to establish and maintain a democratic, peaceful, stable society. Those who ignore or repudiate human rights are sowing the seeds of instability, rebellion and violence. It is therefore disturbing that human rights concerns are often subordinated to other concerns, such as trade, cooperation on terrorism, immigration control, or selling military equipment, in the name of maintaining relations with countries of high importance to U.S. strategic goals. This misses the point. The most important U.S. interest is the promotion of freedom and democracy and long-term stability. We are strong enough, and we are prosperous enough that we have no need to accept blood money or to send refugees back to persecution or to seek our alliances among regimes that murder and torture their own people. The Country Reports are among the most important tasks undertaken by the Department of State. These reports allow the United States an opportunity to bear witness, to reassert fundamental principles, and also to examine its own conscience about whether its foreign policy comports with these principles. Other annual reports, such as the Trafficking in Persons report and the report on International Religious Freedom, also shine the spotlight on specific human rights areas which bear closer examination. Although the human rights mechanism of the United Nations is not directly germane to the release of the Country Reports, the importance of the recent adoption by the General Assembly of the resolution establishing the new Human Rights Council is of such importance that I included it in the discussions of the hearing. I personally am deeply disappointed and dismayed that the United Nations adopted such a weak and deeply flawed replacement for the discredited Human Rights Commission. Furthermore, the new Council's anticipated promotion of the goals and commitments ``emanating'' from UN conferences and summits, measures not intended by negotiating member states to be on a par with human rights treaties, will dilute and trivialize the solemn importance rightly attributed to fundamental human rights. Many of us in Congress will be watching the development of the new Council closely, and we strongly encourage the Administration to work assiduously to not only ensure that this new council promotes and defends human rights but also that it does not distort the established and accepted framework of fundamental human rights. The 2005 Country Reports document several important steps forward taken by governments around the world to respect and protect the fundamental human rights of their citizens. Burundi concluded a four- year transitional process and large numbers of displaced persons were encouraged to return home. The election of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia marked ``a significant milestone'' in that country's efforts to achieve democracy and peace. Afghanistan experienced its first parliamentary elections in almost 30 years, with women enthusiastically participating. And in Ukraine, the Orange Revolution resulted in a democratically elected government and a notable improvement in respect for human rights. Unfortunately, the news is not all good. The Country Reports also serve to confirm and document what we knew already, that the last year has not been a good one for the state of human rights in the world. The Zimbabwean government's Operation Restore Order led to the demolition of houses and businesses and displaced or destroyed the livelihoods of more than 700,000 people. The government of Belarus President Lukashenko detained, fined, and imprisoned pro-democracy activists, including opposition politicians, students and newspaper editors, for criticizing him and his regime. And the people of Nepal continued to suffer many serious human rights abuses, both during and after the February-April state of emergency that suspended all fundamental rights except for habeas corpus--and even habeas corpus orders issued by the court were not respected. The totalitarian governments of China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba all continued their persecution of political and religious dissidents. The Chinese government and security forces, in particular, are cited by the 2005 Reports as having increased their harassment, detention and imprisonment of those perceived to be a threat to government authority. The government considers the number of death sentences to be a state secret, but foreign experts estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 persons are executed each year. There were claims that 20 public protesters were killed last year during one demonstration, and the state-run media reported that in general 460 persons were killed through abuse or dereliction of duty. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak reported after his November visit that torture in China remains widespread. One of the most egregious human rights abuses that is receiving grossly insufficient global attention is the one-child per family policy enforced in China since 1979. The policy says that if a woman happens to become pregnant with a second child, despite the government's best efforts to assure that this does not happen, then the parent must pay a heavy penalty or unborn child must be aborted. Heavy fines are imposed upon couples who have an ``unapproved'' child. These so-called ``social compensation fees'' can be up to ten times a person's annual salary, compelling them to abort the baby. The Chinese government goes to appalling lengths to enforce its one- child limit, abusing the rights of Chinese women, in particular, to a degree that is unique in both kind and degree. For example, Government Family Planning Bureaus conduct periodic pregnancy tests on married women, and give them unspecified ``follow-up'' services. Fines for failing to undergo these tests can be as high as $60 US. It should therefore not be surprising that approximately 500 women in China commit suicide each day--more than five times the global rate. Possible reasons given for this tragic statistic include that country's birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children. Officials who help individuals to evade the birth limitations are legally subject to significant and detailed sanctions. On the other hand, those who meet the population goals established by their administrative region are rewarded. Thus, it is no wonder that local officials violated individual's rights in attempting to reduce the number of births in their region. The 2005 Reports state that in just one province, 130,000 people were detained to force them or their relatives to submit to abortion or sterilization procedures. Several late-term abortions were documented, and at least 7,000 people were forcibly sterilized. Local officials profited personally from the fees charged for attendance at the ``population schools.'' One legal activist was placed under house arrest for exposing these abuses. Other instances of forced sterilizations and abortions, committed in pursuance of these harsh birth limitation policies, were again documented. The combined effect of the birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female fetuses at a rate of 116.9 to 100 overall, and a shocking 151.9 to 100 for second pregnancies. As a direct result of these ongoing crimes against humanity, China today is missing millions of girls, girls who were murdered in the womb simply because they are girls. A couple of years ago, the State Department suggested that as many as 100 million girls of all ages are missing-- that is to say, they should be alive and well and are not, a direct consequence of the government's one-child policy. This gendercide constitutes one of humanity's worst blights, and a far greater peril to peace and security than is being credited at this time. Elsewhere in the world, dictatorships in Belarus and Burma were unsurprisingly similar in their oppressive methods of control to maintain power. Security forces in both countries arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens for political reasons. Police abuse and torture of prisoners continued in Belarus, and in Burma, abuses also included rape, beatings, forcible relocation of populations, and conscription of child soldiers. In Africa, human rights abuses continued to be widespread throughout the continent. In Ethiopia, the refusal of the opposition parties to accept the announced results of the May elections resulted in serious human rights abuses. Authorities arbitrarily detained, beat and killed opposition members and freedom of the press and freedom of assembly were severely curtailed. In addition to the forced displacement mentioned earlier, Zimbabwe once again went through the charade of elections that in fact were marked by fraud and the improper participation of security forces in the tabulation of ballots, irregularities in voter registration, and continued restrictions on speech, press and assembly. The world is all too aware of the continuing tragic situation in Sudan. According to the World Health Organization, the conflict in Darfur has resulted in the deaths of at least 70,000 civilians, the internal-displacement of more than 1.9 million civilians, and the flight of an estimated 210,000 refugees to neighboring Chad. When confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, extensive trafficking in persons, and the acts of torture and violence against women. The human rights record of Iran also worsened this past year, with numerous troubling violations reported. The government executed many political dissidents following trials that lacked due process. Dissent was criminalized and the death penalty applied to such offenses as apostasy, ``attempts against the security of the State, outrage against high-ranking officials and insults against the memory of Imam Khomeini and against the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic.'' A report released during the past year stated that at least 8 evangelical Christians have been killed in Iran and another 15 to 23 reported missing or ``disappeared'' over the past 15 years. Also alarming were the reports of serious human rights violations by governments with which the United States enjoys a close relationship. The 2005 Reports give no indication that Saudi Arabia is correcting its traditional disregard for religious freedom. Officially sanctioned discrimination against the Shi'a Muslim minority continued, and Christians still faced arrest and detention for practicing their faith, even in the privacy of their own homes. One newspaper reported that 40 Pakistani citizens, including one Muslim, were arrested after holding Christian services in an apartment. Other human rights abuses took place in Saudi Arabia as well, including abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary arrests, and legal and societal discrimination against women. Finally, I continue to be deeply troubled by the lack of respect for human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. Vietnam is a one-party state run by the Communists which oppressively controls the ordinary lives of its citizens, rigidly represses political rights, and denies its people the exercise of their religious freedom. The Country Report on Vietnam documents that the government subjected religious leaders to administrative detention, ``pagoda arrest,'' and varying degrees of informal detention in their residences. Citizens who tried to exercise their rights to practice their religion, assembly, or expression also were detained at times for several days by security forces. Such conduct should not be ignored when a country is seeking stronger economic relations with the United States. In conclusion, the biggest challenge with the Country Reports is not the reporting itself, but the uses to which this human rights reporting will be put to achieve universal respect for human rights and thus greater peace and stability in our world. Human rights can not be the work of one political officer in the Embassy who prepares the annual report once a year and then turns to other tasks. Rather, it must be the foundation on which our bilateral relationships are based. The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy must be the promotion of American values, which include the protection and advancement of fundamental human rights of people around the world. The moral character and depth of soul of any society will be measured not by its military might, technological prowess, athletic excellence or GDP, but by the respect it accords to the inherent dignity and worth of every person who lives within its borders.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I commend President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Afghan President Karzai for their quick and decisive action to save the life of Afghani Christian convert Abdul Rahman. I wish to extend my thanks to my fellow Congressmen, fellow Americans and other members of the world community who rose up to demand that the travesty of Abdul Rahman's trial and near certain death for apostasy be stopped. The actions, and the prayers, of millions helped save an innocent man and demonstrate that the world community will not tolerate such offenses against freedom of conscience. We all dodged a bullet in Afghanistan. But the problem is not just Afghanistan, and the ultimate solution is not simply granting asylum for yet another refugee of conscience. The problem is the increased number, and increasing attempts to enforce, laws and statutes against conversion in many countries of the world, not just Afghanistan. This freedom of thought, conscience and belief is now threatened not only in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq. It is also threatened in countries such as Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia, where religious pluralism has long been established. It is threatened in countries like Russia and Belarus, where minority religions are denounced as ``non- traditional'' and suffer harassment and discrimination. Freedom of religion is founded on the inherent dignity of every individual. It is a right that is not granted at the whim of governments. Freedom of religion does not mean permission for an individual to follow the religion of his ancestors, and no other. It does not mean that only established religions have the right to exist and be practiced freely. It means, rather, that: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. This is not an ``American point of view.'' This is not a ``Western point of view.'' This is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is fully confirmed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Afghanistan has acceded. Today's resolution condemns the enforcement of laws against apostasy. I would go further: we must condemn not just the enforcement, but the very existence of such laws. Whether enforced or not, they are an ever present threat to all believers, an ever present reminder that those who believe differently are second class citizens. They are a continuing denial of the principal of individual human dignity and freedom. And I call upon the President to work not just with the government of Afghanistan to enhance human rights protection and religious freedom, but also with Iraq. Last year I and my colleagues pointed out that the new Iraqi Constitution also contains language which endangers individual freedom, especially religious freedom and the rights of women. The Iraqi Parliament now must adopt crucial implementing legislation for the Constitution. We must ensure that such legislation effectively protects individual freedom and freedom of conscience. Otherwise we may see countless repetitions of the appalling drama that has just been completed in Afghanistan. I also call upon the President to work with Sri Lanka, whose government has pandered to religious extremists by introducing anticonversion laws. Sri Lanka is a recipient of Millennium Challenge grants, which are premised on progress in democracy and rule of law, not regress. Finally, I call upon my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Ethiopia, one of Africa's most populous and influential nations, has for centuries been the home to numerous diverse religious and ethnic populations. Last May, the East African nation held elections, which promised to be a big step forward for Ethiopia's democracy. The election process started out more open than previous elections, with the political opposition able to campaign more freely than ever before. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity presented for democracy closed in a wave of government harassment of opposition parties and ethnic hate speech on both sides. Although there were other problems in the election process, the biggest issue was the delayed release of vote results. Preliminary results indicated that the opposition did much better than in past elections, increasing the number of parliamentary seats won from 12 to nearly 200. However, opposition party coalitions charged that fraud had been committed in many of the races they did not win. Because the government had failed to release results in the weeks after the election, suspicions rose that a victory by the opposition had been stolen. The controversy surrounding the 2005 Ethiopian election is the result of a number of factors that created a ``perfect storm'' of political discontent that has created tragic conditions in Ethiopia. The European Union election monitoring team reported serious irregularities, but its impartiality was questioned after the leak of a preliminary EU report which indicated that the opposition parties would win a majority in Parliament based largely on results in the capital city of Addis Ababa. Periodic statements released by the EU election team were then undercut by statements from EU diplomats, much as I experienced in my visit to Addis last August. The Government of Ethiopia, by refusing to release all relevant information regarding the election in a timely fashion, created fear that the election had been stolen. International donors worked behind the scenes with the government to create a mechanism to resolve election disputes. However, that mechanism pitted the ruling party and the government-appointed National Election Board against the opposition parties. As a result, the opposition lost 90 percent of the challenges it filed, and the government missed its own July 8th deadline for release of election results, furthering the frustration and suspicion. As for the political opposition, its leaders contributed to this crisis by failing to provide necessary evidence of election fraud in all too many cases. It isn't that this evidence may not have existed, but the parties appeared to be unprepared to effectively document what the problems were. Moreover, their refusal to take many of the seats won in the election prevented many issues from effectively being addressed in the Parliament, including the appointment of judges and guarantees of freedom of the press. The suspicions regarding the election were exacerbated by the government's mass arrest of students in Addis in June. Protests were met with gunfire by government forces. It is estimated that as many as 40 persons identified as political activists were killed by government sharpshooters in the capital alone. Broadened arrests put tens of thousands in jail without charge or adequate contact with families or legal counsel. Further demonstrations in November resulted in at least another 40 persons killed by government forces--this time including those not connected with the political opposition. The recently-released State Department human rights report on Ethiopia is scathing in its description of what is taking place in Ethiopia, stating that ``the government's human rights record remained poor and worsened in some areas.'' Among the human rights problems reported by the State Department were: limitation on citizens' right to change their government; unlawful killings, including alleged political killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention of thousands of persons; particularly those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition; detention of thousands without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention; government infringement on citizens' privacy rights, and frequent refusal to follow the law regarding search warrants; government restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; self-censorship by journalists; government restrictions on freedom of assembly including denial of permits, burdensome preconditions or refusal to provide assembly halls to opposition political groups, and at times use of excessive force to disperse demonstrations, and government limitations on freedom of association. Approximately 16,000 people were released from jail earlier this year, but there is uncertainty about how many more prisoners remain behind bars without being charged or while awaiting a trial whose date is not yet set. During my visit to Addis Ababa last August, I met with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, and I asked him why he had not investigated the June shootings of demonstrators by agents of his government. His response was that the investigation might require the arrest of opposition leaders, and he didn't want to do that while by-elections were still scheduled. He went on to tell me that he had dossiers on all the opposition leaders and could arrest them for treason whenever he wanted. Thus, their arrests were all but certain even before the events that ostensibly led to their being incarcerated. Reportedly, the investigation of the government shootings of demonstrators is now belatedly underway. The shootings by government forces and delayed investigation are reminiscent of an earlier incident: the massacre of Anuaks in southwestern Ethiopia beginning in December 2003 and continuing until May 2004. The farming Anuak minority predominate the Gambella region of Ethiopia, but there have been periodic disputes with the highlanders, who are of the Tigrayan and Amharan ethnic groups. According to a Human Rights Watch report at the time, government forces joined with highlanders to kill at least 400 Anuaks in December 2003 alone and participated in the rape and torture of Anuaks. Genocide Watch and Survivors' Rights International confirmed the events described in the Human Rights Watch report. The Government of Ethiopia announced last year that trials of government forces responsible for 13 of the Anuak killings had finally begun. However, there is no word yet on the result of these trials. While the government is engaged in such efforts, one hopes it also will investigate reports of the killing last year of 24 members and supporters of the Oromo National Congress and other allegedly politically-motivated killings by government forces in 2005. Ethiopia has been an important ally of the United States in Africa, and the stability of one of Africa's most populous nations is critical to American policy, especially in the important Horn of Africa region. However, the violations detailed in the State Department human rights report and in other accounts of independent human rights organizations will only make this nation more vulnerable to civil war or a foreign- supported insurgency. This past Monday, a series of explosions in Addis Ababa led to the death of one person and the wounding of three others in a blast on a crowded minibus. This was part of a wave of attacks that began in January and included three explosions earlier this month that wounded three persons at a restaurant, a market, and outside a school. America's commitment to promote the respect for human rights around the world demands that we examine the current situation in Ethiopia and that we prevail upon our ally to live up to its international human rights commitments while this situation can still be salvaged. The discussions the Government of Ethiopia is conducting with its political opposition and with our government are good signs that some positive movement is possible. Other humanitarian gestures, for example, the eye operation the government reportedly authorized for opposition leader Hailu Shawal, are also an important step in the right direction. However, the current situation calls for more than small steps taken slowly. If a crisis in Ethiopia is to be averted, reforms, investigations, and trials must proceed with all deliberate speed. This is why we convened a hearing on the situation in Ethiopia yesterday and why I have introduced H.R. 4423--the Ethiopia Consolidation Act, which we intend to mark-up next week. As I have said many times, ``Friends don't let friends commit human rights abuses.'' This is a perfect example of why we must follow that dictum.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on March 16 I cochaired a hearing on the Northern Ireland peace process, on the advances in police performance and behavior, and on the remaining challenges the Police Service of Northern Ireland faces to its becoming fully accepted as a fair and impartial police service. The hearing was my 11th hearing on Northern Ireland in not quite 9 years, and I shall continue to follow the events on Northern Ireland closely and encourage reform for as long as necessary. This hearing helped the U.S. Congress and the American people to better understand the current issues in the always complex situation in Northern Ireland. It provided guidance to our efforts as we continue to seek to assist in the realization of a durable peace and the guarantee of fundamental human rights in Northern Ireland. The establishment of peace, justice and prosperity in Northern Ireland, which we have all hoped, worked and prayed for, is still not a reality. There are many encouraging signs, but also disturbing ones, and we are still not there yet. One of the most encouraging developments is, of course, the IRA's renunciation of armed struggle, and the decommissioning of its weapons--a remarkable step in the path to peace. The IRA must follow through on its proclamations and cease all criminal activities as well. The most disturbing factor, however, is the alienation of the unionist community. The large majority of decent people on the unionist side, who hope for peace as ardently as nationalists, are skeptical of IRA promises. They are also terrorized by their own paramilitaries. Those pararnilitaries need to follow the IRA example, and disarm, and cease their criminal activities. They are right now one of the greatest dangers to peace and stability. The Government of the United Kingdom has begun all party negotiations to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and the power sharing executive. It is also preparing legislation to devolve the administration of justice and policing to a restored Northern Irish executive. Mitchell Reiss, President Bush's Special Envoy to the Northern Ireland peace process briefed us on the current prospects and challenges facing the restoration of self-government in Northern Ireland. There has been some progress in the continuing reform of Northern Ireland's police force. Nearly 7 years ago I chaired a hearing on policing in Northern Ireland. Chris Patten, who had just released the famous report that bears his name, testified before us. Now we shall have a chance to hear about the progress that has been made in implementing the 175 recommendations made by the Patten Report. There is a new police force, the Policing Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI; there is a vigorous and fiercely independent Police Ombudsman's Office, whose chief, Nuala O'Loane, has been a catalyst for reform. The Police Ombudsman's office has been recognized as an effective mechanism for holding the police in Northern Ireland accountable and helping people develop some confidence in a policing service that has faced credible charges of collusion in crime and assassination. In fact a poll conducted in March of last year showed that public confidence in the ombudsman's objectivity was high, with 78 percent of respondents saying they were confident that complaints were dealt with impartially. There is now a Policing Board in Northern Ireland, composed of independent and party representatives, designed to provide civilian control and fair, nonsectarian, policing. There are district police partnerships, to guarantee that both the police and the communities they guard understand that the role of the police is to protect the community, not to impose some form of political control. The Patten Commission also envisioned a police force more representative of the whole community. Although Northern Ireland is nearly 45 percent Catholic, the old police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, RUC, was over 90 percent Protestant, and often seemed to function more as an auxiliary to loyalist paramilitaries than the upholder of law and order. Today, recruits to PSNI are supposed to be 50 percent Catholic, so that in time the police will hopefully be representative of the people they are supposed to protect. Now only 20 percent of the police force is Catholic. It's an improvement, but only a start. In the disturbing riots last fall and summer by unionists, the police vigorously enforced the law instead of standing aside as they often did before. This again is a hopeful sign. But questions remain about ``bad apples'' who may still remain somewhere in the ranks of Northern Ireland's police and about Special Branch members. The U.S. Congress has long understood the importance of supporting police reform and community reconciliation in Northern Ireland. As the author of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 2000-2001--H.R. 3427; Public Law 106-113--I have been particularly interested in training and or exchange programs conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other Federal law enforcement agencies for the RUC, now PSNI. In fact it was my legislation that suspended all FBI-RUC training until 2001, when President Bush certified that the human rights and vetting standards established by my legislation were implemented in the program. In this year's State Department Authorization Bill, which I sponsored and which passed the House overwhelmingly, 351-78, I included funds to provide specialized investigative training for personnel in the office of the Police Ombudsman to ensure that policing in Northern Ireland is carried out in compliance with internationally recognized human rights standards. We also amended the authorization for the International Fund for Ireland, IFI, to provide up to $7 million for programs that enhance relations between communities, and between the police and the communities they serve, promote human rights training for police, enhance peaceful mediation in neighborhoods of continued conflict, promote training programs to enhance the new district partnership police boards, and assist in the transition of former British military installations and prisons into sites for peaceful, community-supported activities, such as housing, retail, and commercial development. We hope the Senate will act soon on this important legislation. The Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill--now Public Law 109-102-- specifically allows the IFI to use the U.S. contribution to be used for training police to promote human rights and rule of law, and to foster improved relations between police and the communities they serve. But one remaining area of great concern are the more than 3,000 unsolved murders between 1969 and the signing of the Good Friday agreement in 1998. Punishment of the guilty in many cases may not be possible, because of previous amnesties which have been granted to promote peace in Northern Ireland. But true peace and true democracy cannot be founded on lies and cover-ups. An integral part of police reform is investigation of police and government collusion in past criminal acts. Only the truth can guarantee that Northern Ireland's new police force is established on a sound basis of respect for law and justice, something the previous force, the RUC could never claim. Only the truth can guarantee that the people of Northern Ireland accept their police as legitimate. The government has recently instituted the Historical Enquiries Team to investigate and resolve these cases. This has the potential--if operated with transparency and openness--to be a critical, helpful step. Time will tell. Meanwhile, there are several cases which require special attention. The British and Irish Governments in 2001 jointly appointed Judge Peter Cory, a preeminent retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether independent commissions should investigate possible state sponsored collusion in six notorious and horrific murders. They also pledged to abide by his recommendations. Two years ago Judge Cory issued his report and called for five of the six murders to be investigated independently. Yet the British Government has still not appointed an inquiry commission into the murder of the human rights attorney Patrick Finucane, who was gunned down in his home, in front of his wife and three small children, in 1989. Every 1 of the past 10 hearings I have chaired on human rights and police reform in Northern Ireland has dealt with Patrick Finucane's murder. Yet still nothing has been done. The Government of the UK must find a way to institute a credible inquiry which will be accepted by all, especially the Finucane family. The British Government has finally begun its inquiry commission, as demanded by Judge Cory, into police misconduct in the murder of Rosemary Nelson, another heroic human rights lawyer, and mother of three, who fell victim to a car bomb in March 1999. Rosemary, 6 months earlier had testified before my committee about the harassment, intimidation and threats made against her by the RUC. No one has ever been charged in her murder. That inquiry was finally begun on April 19 but has made little progress so far, and serious questions remain as to whether the investigation is being conducted properly. If the population of Northern Ireland is to cease relying on paramilitaries for protection, and transfer its trust to the police, it must have confidence that the police and the authorities deserve trust. These inquiries need to be done, and done well, as soon as possible. Finally, although political reform and police reform are absolute preconditions for all progress, only economic development can finally end the terrible poverty, among both Catholics and Protestants, nationalists and unionists, which helps breed the violence. Fully employed, prosperous and prospering people, who can see tomorrow as better than today, rarely attack their neighbors. The Catholic and nationalist community, although worried, looks on the fulfillment of the Good Friday agreements with great hope. Too many in the unionist community, unfortunately, have been exploited by extremists to look upon all gains by Catholics as setbacks for themselves, that all jobs that Catholics get, as jobs that they lose. Only economic development can provide the jobs, the housing, the public services that all the people of Northern Ireland, in both communities, need for a better life. We have continued our support--$13.5 million in 2006--for the International Fund for Ireland for both 2006 and 2007, not only to promote police reform, as I mentioned above, but also to promote economic development which is critical to achieving a just and lasting peace. Now that we are nearer to success, this is no time to falter in our efforts. The IFI has played a vital role in economic progress in Northern Ireland. The U.S. has contributed over half of the total fund, about $400 million in the past 20 years. And it has helped. In the 1990's Northern Ireland's unemployment fell by 40 percent. The fund has created nearly 38,000 jobs. But the IFI does not only fund material progress, and its greatest achievements are not material: It has also developed a series of community building programs, promoting greater dialogue and understanding between Catholic and Protestant, including leadership programs designed to develop a new generation of leaders in Northern Ireland to bring about a more peaceful and prosperous future in the region. Young people are the key to the future everywhere, but in Northern Ireland they are absolutely crucial to breaking the cycle of discrimination and sectarian violence once and for all. For this reason our authorization bill continues support for ``Project Children,'' to bring together Catholic and Protestant participants from the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, to help build peace in Northern Ireland through its children and young people. Besides Mitchell Reiss, we heard testimony from the Right Honorable Sir Desmond Rea, chairman, Northern Ireland Policing Board; Mr. Denis Bradley, vice chairman, Northern Ireland Policing Board; Ms. Maggie Beirne, director, Committee for the Administration of Justice; Ms. Jane Winter, director, British Irish Rights Watch; Ms. Archana Pyati, senior associate, Human Rights Defenders Program, Human Rights First.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1184, as passed by the Senate, corrects a minor flaw in current passport law. While this flaw is minor in the sense of its legal impact, the possible impact it has had and could have on family members of our brave servicemen and -women who have made the ultimate sacrifice is significant enough that we should move to correct it quickly. Under current law, the State Department waives passport fees for family members traveling abroad to official grave sites of armed servicemembers. However, the current law does not make a similar exception for family members traveling to attend a funeral or memorial service for a servicemember killed in action and then buried or memorialized overseas. S. 1184 would rightly extend this fee waiver to these families as well. The ability to attend a funeral or memorial service for one who has paid the ultimate price in the service of our country is just as necessary an aspect of paying our final respects as being able to visit their grave. Mr. Speaker, the logistical and financial burden imposed by these fees on grieving families can quickly build up. This small flaw in our current law has had large ramifications, and it does a disservice to the families of our fallen heroes and creates undue stress and pain that could easily be corrected. Correcting this flaw would mean a great deal to those families who have given most. In this regard, I urge that S. 1184 be passed quickly and sent to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H. Con. Res. 190 expresses the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the right of its people to worship and practice their faith as they see fit. This freedom is the right of all religious communities without distinct, whether registered or unregistered, and that is stipulated by the Russian Constitution and by international standards. Yet I am sorry to report religious freedom for minority religious communities throughout the Russian Federation have been under growing pressure as local officials and government authorities continue to harass and limit the abilities of these groups to practice their faith freely. As we learned at a recent Helsinki Commission hearing, instances of violence have become alarmingly common. Arson attacks against churches in Russia have occurred in several towns and cities with little or no police response. In its 2005 International Religious Freedom Report, the State Department Office on International Religious Freedom notes: ``Some Federal agencies and many local authorities continue to restrict the rights of various religious minorities. Moreover, contradictions between Federal and local laws and varying interpretations of the law provide regional officials with opportunities to restrict the activities of religious minorities. Many observers attribute discriminatory practices at the local level to the greater susceptibility of local governments than the Federal Government to discriminatory attitudes in lobbying by local majority religious groups. The government only occasionally intervenes to prevent or reverse discrimination at the local level.'' Mr. Speaker, the internationally recognized expert on religious liberty in Russia, Larry Uzzell, has written: ``Russia has now come to use as standard practice methods of religious repression that were applied only occasionally in the 1990s. Secular bureaucrats now typically refuse to authorize land transfers to Baptist churches and also forbid movie theaters or other public halls to sign rental contracts with them.'' As a result, as an example: ``In Moscow City alone some 10 Baptist congregations have ceased to exist simply because they could not find places within which to worship.'' I would just note parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Larry for his extraordinary work in bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress. Larry is a tireless advocate for oppressed believers throughout Russia and Central Asia. He is facing some serious health issues now, and I would like to wish him a very speedy recovery. Mr. Speaker, in response to this growing and very negative trend in Russia, this resolution urges the Russian Federation to ``ensure full protections of freedoms for all religious communities without distinction, whether registered or unregistered, and to end the harassment of unregistered religious groups by the security apparatus and other government agencies, as well as to ensure that law enforcement officials rigorously investigate acts of violence against unregistered religious communities, and to make certain that authorities are not complicit in such attacks.'' I point out that in March 2004 a district court banned the religious activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow. For 2 years now the authorities have used the Moscow decision to harass the Jehovah's Witnesses Administration Center in St. Petersburg, with threats to ``liquidate'' the administrative center which could threaten local congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout all of Russia. Members of the Russia's Muslim community and respected human rights activists have expressed concern regarding what they contend are large- scale fabrications of terrorism against Russian Muslims. One of Russia's Supreme Muftis has stated that random police checks and arrests are becoming commonplace throughout Russia for Russian Muslims. Let me reiterate that Russia has every right to defend itself against terrorism and to investigate and prosecute terrorists. Of course it does. Here in the United States we face the problem of combating terrorism while safeguarding civil liberties. I would urge the government, however, to strive for the proper balance in defending both its citizens as well as their civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, the religious liberty picture in Russia is not entirely dark, and it would be disingenuous to make that assertion. There are Nations that have worse records. They can be found on the list of ``countries of particular concern'' that is issued by the U.S. Department of State in its annual report on religious freedom around the world, so-called CPC countries like Vietnam. However, Russia is a member of the U.N. Security Council, an OSCE- participating State, and will soon chair the Council of Europe. In addition, this year, it is the chair of the G-8 and the host of the G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg in July. Considering all of these positions, they should be expected to uphold basic, internationally recognized and accepted standards to protect peaceful religious practice. That is what this resolution is all about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 190) expressing the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards.