Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last month I introduced a resolution, H. Res. 578, expressing disappointment that the Government of Romania has instituted a virtual ban on intercountry adoptions that has very serious implications for the welfare and well-being of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission), I am pleased to be joined as original cosponsors by the Commission's Ranking House Member, Representative Cardin, fellow Commissioners Representative Pitts and Pence as well as Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Representative Burton, and Representative Northup, Costello, Jo Ann Davis, Tiahrt, Bradley and Frank. Mr. Speaker, the children of Romania, and all children, deserve to be raised in permanent families. Timely adoption of H. Res. 578 will put the Congress on record: Supporting the desire of the Government of Romania to improve the standard of care and well-being of children in Romania; Urging the Government of Romania to complete the processing of the intercountry adoption cases which were pending when Law 273/2004 was enacted; Urging the Government of Romania to amend its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease barriers to adoption, both domestically and intercountry, including by allowing intercountry adoption by persons other than biological grandparents; Urging the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to work collaboratively with the Government of Romania to achieve these ends; and Requesting that the European Union and its member States not impede the Government of Romania's efforts to place orphaned or abandoned children in permanent homes in a manner that is consistent with Romania's obligations under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. In 1989, the world watched in horror as images emerged from Romania of more than 100,000 underfed, neglected children living in hundreds of squalid and inhumane institutions throughout that country. Six weeks after the end of the dictatorial regime of Nicolae Ceausescu, I visited Romania and witnessed the misery and suffering of these institutionalized children. They were the smallest victims of Ceausescu's policies which undermined the family and fostered the belief that children were often better cared for in an institution than by their families. Americans responded to this humanitarian nightmare with an outpouring of compassion. For years now, Americans have volunteered their labor and donated money and goods to help Romania improve conditions in these institutions. Many families in the United States also opened their hearts to Romania's children through adoption. Between 1990 and 2004, more than 8,000 children found permanent families in the U.S.; thousands of others joined families in Western Europe. The legacies of Ceausescu's rule continue to haunt Romania and, when coupled with widespread poverty, have led to the continued abandonment of Romania's children. According to a March 2005 report by UNICEF, ``child abandonment in 2003 and 2004 [in Romania] was no different from that occurring 10, 20, or 30 years ago.'' UNICEF reports that more than 9,000 children a year are abandoned in Romania's maternity wards or pediatric hospitals. According to the European Union, 37,000 children remain in institutions; nearly 49,000 more live in nonpermanent settings in ``foster care'' or with extended families. An unknown number of children live on the streets. During Romania's first decade of post-communist transition, the corruption which plagued Romania's economy and governance also seeped into the adoption system. There is no question that corruption needed to be rooted out. The U.S. Government and the U.S. Helsinki Commission have been steadfast in our support of Romania's efforts to combat corruption and to promote the rule of law and good governance. I strongly disagree, however, with supporters of the current ban on intercountry adoption who allege that it was a necessary anti- corruption measure. There are many indications that corruption has been used as a hook to advance an ulterior agenda in opposition to intercountry adoption. In the context of Romania's desire to accede to the European Union, unsubstantiated allegations have been made about the fate of adopted children and the qualifications and motives of those who adopt internationally. Romanian policy makers chose to adopt this law against intercountry adoption in an effort to secure accession despite the fact, as stated in H. Res. 578, that there is no European Union law or regulation restricting intercountry adoptions to biological grandparents or requiring that restrictive laws be passed as a prerequisite for accession to the European Union. The resolution notes that the Romanian Government declared a moratorium on international adoptions in 2001 but continued to accept new applications and allowed many such applications to be processed under an exception for extraordinary circumstances. Then, in June 2004, Law 273/2004 was adopted, taking effect on January 1, 2005, which banned intercountry adoption except in the exceedingly rare case of a child's biological grandparent living outside the country. At the time of enactment, approximately 1,500 adoption applications were registered with the Romanian Government; of these, 200 children had been matched with prospective parents from the United States and the remainder from Western Europe. Intercountry adoption is, and always should be, anchored on the need to find homes for children, not to find children for would-be parents. Nonetheless, the individuals who applied to adopt Romanian children in the past few years committed their hearts to these children and we must recognize that the Romanian Government's mishandling of their applications has put them through a years-long emotional agony. H. Res. 578 calls on the Government to conclude the processing of these cases in a transparent and timely manner. Since introduction of the resolution, the Romanian press has reported that intercountry adoption would be denied in all of the pending cases. If indeed this is accurate, then it is impossible to believe that the standard applied in each case was that of the best interest of the child. Romania's new adoption law and another addressing child protection, Law 272/2004, create a hierarchy of placement for orphaned or abandoned children. By foreclosing the option of intercountry adoption, the laws codified the misguided proposition that a foster family, or even an institution, is preferable to an adoptive family outside the child's country of birth. On November 29, the European Commission issued a press release stating that ``according to the Romanian Office for Adoptions, there are 1,355 Romanian families registered to adopt one of the 393 children available for adoption. Thus there is little scope, if any, for international adoptions.'' The European Commission's press release fails to mention that more than 80,000 children in Romania are growing up without permanent families--in orphanages, foster care, maternity hospitals, or on the streets. That less than 400 have been declared available for adoption is a denunciation of the child welfare system. Barely 1,000 children have ever been domestically adopted in Romania in any given year and since enactment of the new laws in 2004, the rate of domestic adoption has fallen further. There is no doubt that if more children were to be made available for adoption, there would be a great need for intercountry adoption to provide them with permanent, loving homes. For thousands of children abandoned annually in Romania, intercountry adoption offered the hope of a life outside of foster care or an institution. That hope has now been taken away. This will fall hardest on the Roma children who are least likely to be adopted in- country due to pervasive societal prejudice. The Romanian Government and the European Commission are attempting to use a Potemkin Village to hide a grim reality of suffering children and bureaucratic obstacles which prevent them from being declared legally available for adoption. In one case that has come to the Commission's attention, an adoptive family is waiting for biological parents to sign away their rights to a child they abandoned at birth and who has spent the first four years of her life with her prospective adoptive parents. She knows no other parents. Her biological parents have on four previous occasions relinquished their parental rights and yet, because of the new laws, the child has still not been declared available for adoption. Other sources also belie a Potemkin approach. A November 5th article in the British journal The Lancet entitled ``Romania's Abandoned Children are Still Suffering,'' quotes a charity worker saying, ``of course something needs to be done to help the children here, but at the moment all the Romanian government is doing is signing forms sending children back to their parents . . . It doesn't seem to matter that the parents might be alcoholics or have no means to look after their kids as long as the numbers are cut.'' The article continues, ``Romanian authorities have proudly claimed that last year only 1,483 children aged 0-2 years were in state institutions, compared with 7,483 in 1997. But those figures do not include hospitals, where staff admit they rely on donations from charities and individuals to keep helping such children. . . . The head of the Neonatology Department at the University Hospital in Bucharest says abandoned children stay on average for 6-7 months [and] the situation is almost as bad as it was in Ceausescu's time.'' The article also quotes the head of the Neonatology Section at the Bucur Maternity Hospital, also in Bucharest, as saying ``last year, we had more abandoned kids than ever because the law changed. And it changed for the worse for the people in the maternity wards because the law forbids us to send children under 2 years old to state orphanages.'' At a Helsinki Commission hearing on September 14, Dr. Dana Johnson, Director of the International Adoption Clinic and Neonatology Division at the University of Minnesota Children's Hospital, testified that Romania's concentration on the 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 or the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. According to Dr. Johnson, ``in neither of those documents is the mention of time. . . . It doesn't tell you how long you should spend reunifying that child with the family. . . . Contemporary child development research has clearly shown that there is a known amount of deterioration that occurs in children who are in hospitals or institutional care and outside of family care during the first few years of life. . . . You can predict that every child who is in institutional care during that period of time will lose one month of physical growth, one month of motor development, one month of speech development for every three months they're in institutional care. You also can predict that from age four months through 24 months of age, they will lose one to two I.Q. points a month during that period of time. The other thing we know is that by placing them into a caring, competent family, that you can recover some of this function. . . . A child that is abandoned in Romania today at the end of next summer will have permanently lost 15 I.Q. points. That child two years from now will have permanently lost 30 I.Q. points, which means that half of those kids are going to be mentally retarded.'' Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking for Romania's children. H. Res. 578 notes that Romania is a party to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption which recognizes that ``intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her State of origin.'' State Department officials and nongovernmental experts from the adoption and child welfare communities have testified that Romania's child welfare and adoption laws are inconsistent with Romania international commitments under this and other agreements. The resolution further notes that UNICEF has issued an official statement in support of intercountry adoption which, in pertinent part, reads: ``for children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care, which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. Intercountry adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution. In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the role of the European Union in this debacle, I ask who in the European Union will stand with Members of Congress to protect these defenseless children? All children deserve better than to spend their lives in group homes or warehoused in institutions where their physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual well-being is critically endangered. It is indeed tragic if the price of admission to the European Union is the sacrifice of thousands of Romania's orphaned or abandoned children. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. For the sake of the innumerable children in need of permanent families, the voice of the United States Congress must be heard clearly in this transatlantic dialogue on intercountry adoption.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER 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 pass the bill (H.R. 972) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago when Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, the United States assumed a leadership role in combating the modern-day slavery known as human trafficking. As chief sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, or TVPA, helped transform the way governments and the private sector around the world respond to human trafficking. Enactment of H.R. 972, the reauthorization of the act, will ensure that we continue to make progress and significant in-roads. Along with many new initiatives, H.R. 972 also reauthorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for antitrafficking programs of all relevant Federal agencies. It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that in the past 4 years twice as many people in the United States have been prosecuted and convicted for trafficking than in the prior 4-year period. I would note parenthetically in my own State, Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney, has gone after one group of traffickers after another, Russian mobsters and those who have trafficked women in from Latin America, and has gotten convictions while simultaneously liberating the women from this scourge of modern-day slavery. Worldwide, more than 3,000 traffickers were convicted last year, a significant increase from the previous year. These numbers reflect an increasing number of countries adopting the laws necessary to combat trafficking and having the political will to implement those laws. I would also note that since 2001, more than 800 survivors of trafficking in the United States have been found eligible for assistance. More than 400 victims have received a T visa. Likewise, in many countries, victims--mostly women and young girls--are now receiving shelter, job training, and critical medical assistance. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were in Lima, Peru, and went to a trafficking shelter and saw young women who had been trafficked, who were now getting life skills, but also getting the kind of medical and psychological assistance to get their lives back together again. Without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, much has been accomplished; and yet an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 people are still being trafficked across international borders each and every year. Possibly millions more are trafficked internally within the borders of countries. Upon enactment, title I of this bill would continue to fight against international trafficking. H.R. 972 will put pressure on international organizations to implement reforms needed to tackle the unconscionable situation of peacekeepers or other international workers being complicit in trafficking and sexual exploitation. I would point out that on December 6, the OSCE adopted a decision calling on States to prevent peacekeepers from being complicit in trafficking or abusing in a sexual way the local population. We only have to remember what happened in the Congo, where little 13- and 14- year-old girls were raped by U.N. peacekeepers, and that is as recent as just a few months ago. Thankfully, there is a zero tolerance policy now; and, hopefully, it will have real meaning in the field. Indeed, as confirmed in an October report by Refugees International, peacekeeper reform has not been implemented at some U.N. missions in places such as Haiti and in Liberia because of a deep-seated culture of tolerating sexual exploitation. H.R. 972 would also require the annual Trafficking in Persons report to include information by groups like the U.N., the OSCE and NATO to eliminate involvement in trafficking by any of the organizations' personnel. We know we can recount one instance after another where in- country when they are in a very authoritative position these personnel, peacekeeping and non-peacekeeping alike, have exploited the local population. Under H.R. 972, the Secretary of State would also report to Congress before voting for a peacekeeping mission about the measures taken to prevent and, if necessary, punish trafficking or sexual exploitation by peacekeepers. To ensure that our own house is in order, the bill would create criminal jurisdiction over Federal employees and contractors for trafficking offenses committed overseas while on official business. The bill will also focus the State Department, USAID and DOD on improving trafficking prevention strategies for post-conflict situations and humanitarian emergencies in which indigenous populations face a heightened vulnerability to violence. The legislation also would amend the criteria used in the annual TIP report, or Trafficking in Persons report. The new criteria will include consideration of governments' efforts to reduce demand for prostitution, to prevent sex tourism, to ensure that peacekeeping troops do not exploit trafficking victims, and to prevent forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards. Unlike transnational cases of trafficking, few governments are yet willing to recognize internal trafficking within their own borders. Even in the United States, Mr. Speaker, American citizens and nationals who are trafficked domestically, often from one State to another, are still viewed through the lens of juvenile delinquency, rather than victims of crime, worthy of compassion and assistance. Title II of H.R. 972 shines a new light on our own domestic trafficking problem. Enactment of this bill will begin to shift the paradigms so that these exploited girls and women will receive assistance that they so desperately need. I would like to thank my good friend and colleague, Deborah Pryce for her good work on this provision. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) was the author of legislation, the End Demand Act, and those provisions are in this legislation, mostly intact, and I want to thank her for her leadership in doing that. It will make a difference for many American girls, mostly the runaways who are then victimized by the traffickers; and I certainly appreciate her work on this. The bill's domestic provisions, Mr. Speaker, respond to a very real need, and I will give my colleagues one example. On December 6, there was an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that said that Seattle has become a major hub on the child trafficking circuit. The article states: ``Despite Seattle's extensive network of services for youths, there is one 15-bed temporary shelter, it is the only place, other than a jail cell, where children trapped in prostitution can find respite, albeit brief. There is nothing in the city, or even in Washington State, dedicated to helping young people permanently free themselves from sex work.'' We find that is the case all over the country, including my own State of New Jersey. Having seen this void, again, this legislation responds. It also provides money for a pilot program under the Department of Health and Human Services to help these victims of trafficking. The bill also, Mr. Speaker, enhances State and local efforts through grants to encourage the enforcement of antitrafficking and antiprostitution laws, re-education programs, modeled after what they call ``john schools'' for people arrested for soliciting prostitution, and training for law enforcement on how to work compassionately and effectively with trafficked persons. All of the funded programs will involve collaboration between law enforcement agencies and NGOs. Again, I would just like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this legislation: Chairman Sensenbrenner, who marked this legislation up and wrote some very, very good provisions; again, I mentioned Chairman Pryce who, again, was so effective in getting the domestic language into this bill; Chairman Hunter, Chairman Barton, Chairman Hyde, my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lantos, who is ever a great friend and colleague when it comes to anything dealing with human rights and, in particular, on human trafficking. I also want to thank our Republican leadership, particularly Majority Leader Blunt and Mike Pence, who were original cosponsors, along with almost 100 Members of the House, both sides of the aisle, that have joined in to make this legislation possible. I also want to thank a number of staff members who were instrumental in getting this bill to the floor: Eleanor Nagy, Director of Policy for the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee of the committee I serve as chairman; Maureen Walsh, to my left, General Counsel of the OSCE, or Helsinki Commission; Renee Austell; Jack Scharfen; and David Abramowitz. Again, David and I worked with Joseph Reese, way back when the first bill was enacted, and he did yeomen's work on writing provisions and working with us. Dr. King as well for his great work. Katy Crooks from the Judiciary Committee. And Cassie Bevin from the Majority Leader's Office. There are just so many people who have corroborated on this, and I want to thank them for their tremendous work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and recognize her great contribution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank all of the Members who have participated in this debate, and more importantly, note the work that they did to bring this legislation to fruition. Let me also point out that the modest sanctions that are in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act have yielded significant new laws throughout the world. In 2004 alone, 39 countries enacted new laws or strengthened existing laws. We know when we put some carrots and sticks, the sticks being the possibility of losing nonhumanitarian foreign aid, security aid for example, and then when we place countries in a ranking system that makes determinations concerning a country's achievement in meeting ``minimum standards''--tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, and tier 3 being the egregious violators with a new watch list, we get their attention. Many countries have taken action and today we work in a partnership to try to end trafficking. After drugs and weapons, trafficking in human persons is the biggest moneymaker for organized crime. The ILO suggested in a June study approximately $32 billion a year goes into the coffers of those who are committing such nefarious crimes against innocent individuals. Finally, I would just say we have in this legislation a provision--a study--that seeks to find whether or not there is a nexus between terrorism and trafficking. With that kind of money flowing into trafficking enterprises, these horrific enterprises, we tend to think that there probably is a link with terrorism. We do not know. We want to find out.

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4436) to provide certain authorities for the Department of State, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, to conclude, before yielding back, I do want to thank Chairman Davis from the Government Reform Committee for his cooperation because there were some issues of jurisdiction, and he acted in a very cooperative and collegial way to help make this legislation possible. I would also like to thank Kristen Gilley for her fine work in working on this legislation, and to my good friend and colleague Mr. Lantos as well. 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 within which 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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4436.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I begin by commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for crafting and authoring this resolution. It is very timely and extremely important, given the events in Zimbabwe. I would like to point out that H. Res. 409 condemns the government of Zimbabwe for its horrendous abuses of civil and human rights of its citizens. Zimbabwe is a Nation that even recently was an economic success, an example to other nations in Africa. However, the serious mismanagement of that country's economy has reduced the gross national income to levels last seen in 1953. Inflation in Zimbabwe today exceeds 500 percent. When the government of Zimbabwe began its so-called Operation Murambatsvina on May 19, it was supposed to be a limited operation to end the parallel market but developed into the most destructive campaign that country has seen in its post-independence history. Months after this vicious campaign, there are estimates of as many as 700,000 displaced persons, many of whom are living without food, water or shelter. By all accounts, this operation has made existing social problems much worse. Nongovernmental organization representatives have told us that now there are 2 million widows, 1.5 million orphans, 500,000 children with only one surviving parent and 8,000 households headed by children. While many still recall Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe's critical role in winning independence for his country, we must hold him accountable for the devastation he has more recently brought upon his country's citizens, serious, serious crimes and human rights abuses. Whatever he has achieved in the past, he is furiously undoing his legacy in the present. House Resolution 409, which received its due consideration by the House International Relations Committee, seeks to shed light on the profound suffering that this operation has brought and inflicted upon the people of Zimbabwe. It notes that, through this operation, the government of Mugabe has created a manmade humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, which has only compounded the existing human rights and economic crises in Zimbabwe. It condemns President Mugabe's harassment of the United States Ambassador to Zimbabwe most recently by threatening his expulsion from the country and asserting that he could ``go to hell'' in response to the Ambassador's efforts to draw attention to the crisis in Zimbabwe. H. Con. Res. 409 also states that the government of Zimbabwe has a duty to protect its people and calls on that government to immediately and aggressively implement policies to promote private sector development, create jobs and build housing to benefit those displaced by this operation. It further asserts that, absent such meaningful corrective measures, President Mugabe's legacy will be defined by his responsibility for the ruinous policies and draconian laws that have brought untold suffering to his people and the near collapse of Zimbabwe as a nation. Finally, the resolution calls on the International Monetary Fund to take further action against the government of Zimbabwe should it continue to fail to meet its obligations to the international community. My subcommittee held a hearing on Zimbabwe's situation and the U.S. policy toward that country last April. We were dissatisfied with the state of U.S. engagement. Despite diligent State Department efforts, we still lack creative ways to address and resolve this crisis. One of the problems in engaging the government is the failure to speak with a consistent voice. This resolution may seem harsh to some, but it does not even begin to touch what is really going on in that once prosperous nation. Mr. Speaker, Greg Simpkins is the leader on the subcommittee of our Professional Staff, and he led a staff CODEL to Zimbabwe on July 1 through the 10th. He was joined by Dr. Pearl-Alice Marsh, Senior Professional Staff Member for the Committee, and they did an extraordinary job in gathering a tremendous amount of information about what has really gone on and what the crisis is all about. I submit herewith their staff report for inclusion in the Record. Staffdel Simpkins Trip Report: Zimbabwe and South Africa (By Gregory Simpkins)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 409) condemning the Government of Zimbabwe's ``Operation Murambatsvina'' under which homes, businesses, religious structures, and other buildings and facilities were demolished in an effort characterized by the Government of Zimbabwe as an operation to ``restore order'' to the country, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker. I am attaching an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Thomas concerning H. Con. Res. 294 ``Calling on the international community to condemn the Laogai, the system of forced labor prison camps in the People's Republic of China, as a tool for suppression maintained by the Chinese Government'' for insertion into the Congressional Record. Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 13, 2005. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hyde: I am writing in regard to H. Con. Res. 294, which is scheduled for floor consideration on Wednesday, December 14, 2005. The second clause of the resolution relates to the use of prison labor in China. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning imports. The second resolved clause calls on the Government of the United States to fully implement its laws prohibiting the importation of products made in Chinese forced labor camps, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this resolution for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this resolution. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H. Con. Res. 294, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 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 myself such time as I may consume. I thank my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his very eloquent statement. This is an issue that very few Americans, very few lawmakers are really aware of, and it is about time the gross cruelty of the Laogai become much more well-known and action needs to be taken.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which calls for the condemnation of the vast Laogai labor system of more than 1,000 prisons, camps and mental institutions maintained by the government of the People's Republic of China, and of the use of forced labor as an integral part of China's economy. I would note parenthetically that, back in 1992, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I gained access to one of those prison camps, Beijing Prison Camp Number 1, a horrible place where 40 Tiananmen Square activists were being punished for their peaceful activities. Hundreds of others were also imprisoned there for political, religious and other alleged crimes. The place reeked of cruelty and sadness and was a nightmarish insight into the dark soul of the Chinese Communist dictatorship. Today, sadly, the Laogai continues its cruelty unabated. Indeed, the continued operation of this network of Stalinist camps within China's borders raises grave questions about Beijing's commitment to engage in reform even after it seeks to be recognized as a leader among the community of nations. The Laogai, which was created by the Chinese Communist party under Mao Zedong and modelled after the Soviet Gulag system, serves the one- party dictatorship as a tool to maintain control of a population yearning to be free. The Laogai system has tormented more than 50 million people since its founding and still contains as many as 4 million prisoners today. It not only provides the government a source of cheap labor, it also serves to instill fear in its citizens lest they be forced to go through ``reeducation'' through hard labor and compulsory political indoctrination. The low cost of maintaining these prisons provides additional incentive for the PRC to continue its use of the Laogai system. The use of slave labor to manufacture a product for export as an integral part of its economy represents not only a violation of international law and labor standards but represents an unfair trade practice which widens the trade deficit and threatens American jobs. As is so common in authoritarian regimes, the PRC represses freedom of religion and expression through this system of more than 1,000 prisons. As we know, Mr. Speaker, these prisoners are given no legal rights and are often tortured in order to induce confessions. All Laogai prisoners are forced to labor in order to remake them as new socialist persons. New arrivals are subjected to immediate, daily, lengthy interrogation sessions and forced to admit their ``crimes.'' These sessions may last days, weeks and even months. In some cases, they last years. If a prisoner resists, he or she is tortured. The horrifying trade in human organs from China is the latest development of the Laogai system. The organs of more than 1,000 executed prisoners have reportedly been harvested for money. In the 1990s and to the year 2005, as part of the series of about 24 Congressional hearings that I have chaired on human rights abuses in China, I conducted one extraordinary hearing on this grizzly business. In that hearing, with the help of the great Harry Wu, a survivor of the Laogai himself, we heard from a former PRC police officer who testified and brought compelling proof as to how prisoners were shot, but not killed, and moved to awaiting ambulances to begin the process of removing their organs for transplantation. The practice reminded me and many others in that hearing of the atrocities committed by the infamous Nazi, Dr. Joseph Mengele. Despite numerous human rights treaties, Mr. Speaker, to which the PRC is a signatory, the government continues to use the Laogai as a means to suppress groups such as the Falun Gong and other religious believers, but in the case of the Falun Gong, up to 50 percent of the Laogai prisoner population is made up of those individuals. Cyber dissidents and journalists are increasingly being crushed by the Laogai system as well. As in the case of Shi Tao, a journalist who is now serving a 10-year forced labor sentence at a jewelry factory attached to the Chishan prison for sending an e-mail through his Yahoo account warning journalists of the dangers of social destabilization and the risks of return of certain dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I point out to my colleagues, and I hope that each and every one of you will read this, there is a very, very strong statement on torture by the U.N. rapporteur on torture who has just finished his report, Manfred Nowak. He said that the abuse of suspects and prisoners remains widespread. His report describes some of the torture methods used by China's police and prison officers to extract confessions and maintain discipline: Emersion in sewage, sleep deprivation, cigarette burns and beating with electric prods. Not surprisingly, Mr. Nowak also accused the Chinese officials of systematically interfering with his investigations. Victims and family members were intimidated by security personnel during the visit, placed under surveillance or instructed not to meet with Mr. Nowak. Among the prisoners, Mr. Nowak said he observed ``a palpable level of fear and self-censorship'' that he had not seen in missions in other countries. One cannot be optimistic given recent events, but killings by gunfire last week of at least 20 residents in the village of Dongzhou in southern China by Beijing's security forces is further evidence that China has a long way to go in achieving the rule of law. The cold-blooded murder of these villagers protesting over land use and the corruption demonstrates clearly that, 16 years after Tiananmen Square, Chairman Mao's famous dictum that ``all political power comes from the barrel of the gun'' is still the credo of Beijing's leaders. Those among our friends in Europe who seek removal of an arms embargo against China should reflect on the use of guns and bullets to kill the innocent villagers in Dongzhou and to keep 4 million inmates, many prisoners of conscience, locked up in the vast Laogai system. This resolution sends a strong message, and I urge its passage. Special Rapporteur on Torture Highlights Challenges at End of Visit to China Introduction Beijing, 2 December 2005.--The Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concluded a two-week visit to the People's Republic of China (PRC) today. Nearly a decade after the initial request, the visit to the PRC by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, finally materialised from 20 November to 2 December, and included visits to Beijing, Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Urumqi, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR). The long-awaited visit of the Special Rapporteur on Torture to China has its origins in a 1995 request by the then Special Rapporteur, Sir Nigel Rodley, for an invitation to carry out a fact-finding visit. The Government responded in 1999 with an invitation for a ``friendly visit'' in May 2000, however, differences between the Government and the Special Rapporteur on the standard methodology for country visits by United Nations human rights experts (including unannounced visits to detention centres and private meetings with detainees) prevented it from being realized. In spring 2004, the Government extended an unconditional invitation to the then Special Rapporteur, Theo van Boven, for a two-week visit in June of that year, which was then postponed by the Government. Upon Manfred Nowak's appointment as Special Rapporteur on Torture in December 2004, the Government of China renewed its invitation for a visit in 2005, accepting his Terms of Reference. The mission's aim was two-fold: fact-finding and starting a process of cooperation aimed at the common goal of eradicating torture in the PRC. The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his deep appreciation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in particular Dr. Shen Yongxiang, Special Representative on Human Rights Affairs, and his team for their professionalism, cooperation, and shared commitment to the objectives of the mission. The Special Rapporteur credits the Ministry for its great efforts in ensuring that the mission proceeded as smoothly as possible and that his Terms of Reference were in principle respected. All meetings with detainees were carried out in privacy and in locations designated by the Rapporteur. No request for a meeting or interviewing of a particular individual was refused. Prison staff were generally cooperative. The Special Rapporteur was also able to meet with a number of individuals outside of his official programme, notwithstanding the obstructions elaborated upon below. While visits were also planned for Jinan in Shandong Province and Yining in the XUAR, the Special Rapporteur sincerely regrets that he had to cancel these visits due to time constraints, and expresses his gratitude to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the respective leaderships of Shandong Province and Yining Autonomous Prefecture for accommodating these last minute changes to the programme. While in Beijing, the Special Rapporteur met with Government officials, including the Assistant Foreign Minister, the Vice Ministers of Justice and Public Security, the Deputy Procurator-General, as well as prominent members of civil society including the All China Lawyers' Association, the Beijing Lawyers' Association, China University for Political Science and Law, Renmin University, Tsinghua University, Beijing University, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and the Beijing Child Legal and Research Centre. Meetings were also held with individual lawyers, human rights defenders, academics, and members of the diplomatic corps and UN country team. In Lhasa and Urumqi, the Special Rapporteur met with local officials including from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People's Court, the Procuratorate, and Departments of Justice and Public Security. In Beijing, the Special Rapporteur visited the Municipal Detention Centre, Prison No. 2 (twice), and the Municipal Women's Re-education Through Labour (RTL) Facility. In Lhasa he visited Lhasa Prison, Tibet Autonomous Region Prison (also known as Drapchi Prison), and the recently-opened Qushui Prison. In Urumqi, he visited Prison Nos. 1, 3, and 4, as well as the Liu Dao Wan Detention Centre. In all facilities, the Special Rapporteur met with prison management and interviewed detainees in private. Particular circumstances of the fact-finding mission The Special Rapporteur feels compelled to point out that some Government authorities, particularly the Ministries of State Security and Public Security, attempted at various times throughout the visit to obstruct or restrict his attempts at fact-finding. The Special Rapporteur and his team were frequently under surveillance by intelligence personnel, both in their Beijing hotel as well as in its vicinity. Furthermore, during the visit a number of alleged victims and family members were intimidated by security personnel, placed under police surveillance, instructed not to meet the Special Rapporteur, or were physically prevented from meeting with him. Prison officials imposed their own working hours as limits for interviews which curtailed the number of facilities that could be visited and the number of detainees interviewed. The Special Rapporteur and his team were also prevented from bringing photographic or electronic equipment into prisons. Furthermore, in contrast to his previous country visits, the Special Rapporteur was unable to obtain a letter of authorization from the relevant authorities to visit detention centres on his own. Consequently, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs accompanied him to detention centres in order to ensure unrestricted access. As the authorities were generally informed an hour in advance, the visits could not be considered to have been strictly ``unannounced.'' Nonetheless, this practice significantly improves upon the modalities employed in previous visits to China of Special Procedures of the Commission on Human Rights. In his interviews with detainees, the Special Rapporteur observed a palpable level of fear and self-censorship, which he had not experienced in the course of his previous missions. A considerable number of detainees did not express a willingness to speak with the Rapporteur, and several of those who did requested absolute confidentiality. Under these conditions and taking into account the size and complexity of China as well as the limited duration of the mission, the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the limitations in drawing up a comprehensive set of findings and conclusions on the situation of torture and ill-treatment in China. situation of torture and ill-treatment The Special Rapporteur recalls that over the last several years his predecessors have received a significant number of serious allegations related to torture and other forms of ill-treatment in China, which have been submitted to the Government for its comments. These have included a consistent and systematic pattern of torture related to ethnic minorities, particularly Tibetans and Uighurs, political dissidents, human rights defenders, practitioners of Falun Gong, and members of house-church groups. These allegations have been and continue to be documented by international human rights organizations. The methods of torture alleged include, among others: beatings; use of electric shock batons; cigarette burns; hooding/blindfolding; guard-instructed or permitted beatings by fellow prisoners; use of handcuffs or ankle fetters for extended periods (including in solitary confinement or secure holding areas), submersion in pits of water or sewage; exposure to conditions of extreme heat or cold, being forced to maintain uncomfortable positions, such as sitting, squatting, lying down, or standing for long periods of time, sometimes with objects held under arms; deprivation of sleep, food or water; prolonged solitary confinement; denial of medical treatment and medication; hard labour; and suspension from overhead fixtures from handcuffs. In several cases, the techniques employed have been given particular terminologies, such as the ``tiger bench'', where one is forced to sit motionless on a tiny stool a few centimeters off the ground; ``reversing an airplane'', where one is forced to bend over while holding legs straight, feet close together and arms lifted high; or ``exhausting an eagle'', where one is forced to stand on a tall stool and subjected to beatings until exhaustion. On the basis of the information he received during his mission, the Special Rapporteur confirms that many of these methods of torture have been used in China. Although he cannot make a detailed determination as to the current scale of these abuses, the Special Rapporteur believes that the practice of torture, though on the decline--particularly in urban areas--remains widespread in China. Indeed, this is increasingly recognized by Government officials and reports. According to the 2005 Supreme People's Procuratorate's (SPP) report to the National People's Congress presented on 9 March 2005, covering the year 2004), 1595 civil servants had been investigated for suspected criminal activity in cases involving ``illegal detention, coercion of confessions, using violence to obtain evidence, abuse of detainees, sabotaging elections, and serious dereliction of duty resulting in serious loss of life or property.'' The report goes on to note that this is a 13.3 percent increase over the previous year's totals and that the SPP personally investigated 82 of the most serious cases. When compared with other national statistics, these official figures are clearly the tip of the iceberg in a country the size of China and demonstrate that most victims and their families are reluctant to file complaints for fear of reprisal or lack of confidence that their complaints will be addressed effectively. efforts by the government to combat torture In recognizing the problem, the Government has undertaken a number of measures to tackle torture. In August 2003, the Minister of Public Security, Zhou Yongkang, issued a set of unified regulations on the standardization of law-enforcement procedures for public security institutions entitled, ``Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases'', including procedures defining police powers in respect of time limits for confiscation of property, legal means for gathering evidence, time limits on investigation and examination of suspects, etc. In 2004, the Ministry issued regulations prohibiting the use of torture and threats to gain confessions. The Supreme People's Procurotorate announced that eliminating interrogation through torture would be a priority of their work agenda and has instructed procurators that confessions obtained as a result of torture cannot form a basis for the formal approval of arrests and that prosecutors must work to eliminate illegally obtained evidence. In addition to initiatives at the central level, the Zhejiang provincial Public Security Department issued regulations on forced confessions stating that local police chiefs will be expected to resign in any district where there are more than two cases of forced confessions resulting in injuries, miscarriages of justice or public order problems. In mid-April 2005, Sichuan law enforcement and judicial authorities issued a joint opinion that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence, such as coerced confessions in criminal trials, and requires courts to exclude coerced statements and confessions if police cannot provide a rational explanation of the alleged coercion or refuse to investigate allegations of abuse. Practical measures to combat torture have included piloting systems of audio and video recording in interrogation rooms, strengthening representation during the investigative and pre-trial phase of the criminal process by placing lawyers on a 24-hour basis in pilot police stations, designing interrogation rooms which separate suspects from interrogators, and placing resident procurators in places of detention and near public security bureaux to supervise law enforcement personnel. The Special Rapporteur also observes positive developments at the legislative level including the planned reform of several laws relevant to the criminal procedure, which he hopes will bring Chinese legislation into greater conformity with international norms, particularly the fair trial standards contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which China signed in 1998 and is preparing to ratify. He also welcomes the resumption by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of its authority to review all death penalty cases, particularly given the fact that the quality of the judiciary increases as one ascends the hierarchy. The Special Rapporteur suggests that China might use the opportunity of this important event to increase transparency regarding the number of death sentences in the country, as well as to consider legislation that would allow direct petitioning to the SPC in cases where individuals do not feel that they were provided with adequate relief by lower courts in cases involving the use of torture, access to counsel, etc. Need for further efforts to prevent and address torture The Special Rapporteur notes that China was among the first States to ratify the UN Convention against Torture (CAT) in 1988, which requires States parties to take measures for the prevention of torture and to punish every act of torture with appropriately serious penalties. Although Chinese law prohibits gathering evidence through torture and provides for punishment of those guilty of torture, the Chinese definition of torture does not fully correspond to the international standard contained in CAT. In particular, physical or psychological torture that leaves no physical trace is difficult if not impossible to punish with appropriate penalties in China (indeed, the Chinese word for torture, ``kuxing,'' principally connotes physical torture). Combating torture in China is further impeded by the absence of essential procedural safeguards necessary to make its prohibition effective, including: the effective exclusion of evidence from statements established to be made as a result of torture; the presumption of innocence; the privilege against self-incrimination; timely notice of reasons for detention or arrest; prompt external review of detention or arrest; granting of non-custodial measures, such as bail; the right of habeas corpus; and timely access to counsel and adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. Other serious shortcomings are the lack of an independent monitoring mechanism of all places of detention and a functional complaints mechanism. A number of authorities have pointed out that mechanisms exist in China for individuals to report instances of torture, particularly procurators, some of which are resident in prisons and near police stations. However, the Special Rapporteur believes that it is difficult to rely on the vigilance of procurators whose interest in convicting suspects as charged might compromise their ability to oversee the police and prison guards. In addition, procurators encounter many difficulties in practice to exercise their supervisory role, including because detainees are afraid to report instances of torture to them. During his mission, the Special Rapporteur noted the inefficiency of current complaint mechanisms. He was informed, for example, that in Prison No. 4 in Urumqi, the procurators have not received a single torture complaint during the last decade. In the Tibetan Autonomous Region, he was told that no complaint had been received since 2003 and in the Beijing Municipal Detention Centre, none were received since its establishment in June 2004. In the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, two cases of torture were established by the courts since 2000, and in the Tibet Autonomous Region one such case had been confirmed. The Deputy Procurator-General of the PRC informed the Special Rapporteur that only 33 law enforcement officials had been prosecuted for torture throughout the country during the first nine months of 2005. Indeed, an important element in combating torture is judicial oversight. However, China lacks an independent judiciary, and the judiciary suffers from relatively low status in comparison to other State organs. Without a court system that judges cases fairly and independently according to law, thereby redressing grievances in a timely manner, the problem of torture cannot be brought under effective control, particularly in a context where police exercise wide discretion in matters of arrest and detention and are under great pressure to solve cases. Forced re-education as a form of inhuman and degrading treatment The Special Rapporteur also pointed to conceptual or ideological constraints to the effective implementation of the prohibition of torture. The criminal justice system is focused on admission of culpability, and the role of obtaining confessions continues to be central to successful prosecutions. In fact even after persons, who have not confessed to an offence, have been convicted and sentenced, these persons are subject to restrictions within prison, such as limited restricted access to telephone or visiting privileges until they confess, or are provided the incentive of a reduced sentence if they confess. Moreover, the system as such places a strong emphasis on change and re-education of the criminal, and the acceptance of punishment. Societies that have been successful in establishing a human rights culture differ from others in the degree of tolerance of the majority towards those whose behavior deviates from standard moral and social norms. This right to be different, which finds its legal expression in the human rights to privacy, freedom of expression, religion, assembly and association, lies at the very heart of any democratic society. These freedoms and political rights were not enacted to protect conformist behavior, but non-conformist behavior. Under international human rights law, Governments are only permitted to interfere with the expression of political opinions, religious convictions, moral values or minority views when they constitute incitement to hatred or violence or a direct threat to national security or public safety in the country. A system of State surveillance of citizens with non-conformist views and with severe punishments for such ``deviant behavior'', such as Re-Education through Labour (RTL), seems to be incompatible with the core values of a society based upon a culture of human rights and leads to intimidation, submissiveness, self-censorship and a ``culture of fear'', which interferes with the right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Every society has the right, and indeed is required by article 10 of the CCPR, to assist convicted criminals during their prison term through vocational training, education, and measures aimed at ensuring their equal access to the labour market in order to become law-abiding citizens. However, efforts aimed at the rehabilitation and re-socialisation of persons who committed crimes should be clearly distinguished from forms of deprivation of liberty aimed at the forceful re-education of human beings with deviant behaviour through labour and coercion. The system of RTL in China and similar methods of re- education in prisons and even in pre-trial detention centres go well beyond legitimate rehabilitation measures and aim at breaking the will of detainees and altering their personality. Such measures strike at the very core of the human right to personal integrity, dignity and humanity, as protected by Articles 7 and 10 of the CCPR, as well as articles 1 and 16 of the CAT. RTL constitutes not only a serious violation of the human right to personal liberty, but must also be considered as a systematic form of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, if not torture. RTL and similar measures of forced re-education in prisons, pre-trial detention centres and psychiatric hospitals should therefore be abolished. circumstances surrounding capital punishment The Special Rapporteur also expressed concern about the circumstances surrounding the death penalty, including the situation of prisoners on death row. At the Beijing Municipality Detention Centre, where the Rapporteur spoke with prisoners sentenced to death at first instance and awaiting appeal, he noted that these prisoners were handcuffed and shackled with leg-irons weighing approximately 3kg, 24 hours per day and in all circumstances (Le. including during meals, visits to the toilet, etc). Prison officials indicated that the average length of appeal was two months. This practice is reportedly based on a nation-wide regulation for detention facilities. When questioned by the Special Rapporteur on the reasons for the handcuffs and shackles around the clock, prison officials indicated that this was necessary for their own safety, the security of others, to prevent them from fleeing, and to prevent suicide. However, in the Liu Dao Wan Detention Centre in Urumqi, death row prisoners were ``only'' shackled and not handcuffed. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur this practice is inhuman and degrading and serves only as an additional form of punishment of someone already subjected to the stress and grievance associated with having been sentenced to death. The Special Rapporteur also expressed concern at the high number of crimes for which the death penalty can be applied. He encouraged the Government to both narrow its scope and to be more transparent towards family members and the public at large regarding its use; including by making statistics on the death penalty public information. Recommendations to the Government of the PRC Among his key preliminary recommendations to the Government, the Special Rapporteur recommended: Reform the criminal law by adding the crime of torture in accordance with the definition contained in CAT (Art. 1) with appropriate penalties. Ensure that the reform of the criminal procedure law conforms to ICCPR fair trial provisions, including by providing for the following: the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination; the right to cross- examine witnesses and the effective exclusion of evidence extracted through torture. Reform the criminal justice system by transferring several functions of the procurators to the courts, for example, authorization of detention and supervision of the police. Allow lawyers--particularly criminal defense lawyers--to be more effective in representing the rights and interest of their clients including through involvement at the earliest stages of police custody and pre-trial detention. Abolish Section 306 of the Criminal Law, according to which any lawyer who counsels a client to repudiate a forced confession, for example, could risk prosecution. Take measures to enhance the professionalism, efficiency, transparency, and fairness of legal proceedings; and raise the status and independence of judges and courts within the Chinese legal system. Reduce the number of pre-trial detainees by enlarging the use of noncustodial measures such as bail. Establish an independent complaints mechanism for detainees subject to torture and ill-treatment. Accept the right of individual petition to the Committee against Torture and its competence to initiate an inquiry procedure in accordance with Articles 20 and 22. Abolish imprecise and sweeping definitions of crimes that leave large discretion to law enforcement and prosecution authorities such as ``endangering national security'', ``disrupting social order'', ``subverting public order,'' etc. Abolish ``Re-Education through Labour'' and similar forms of forced reeducation of detainees in prisons and pre-trial detention centres and psychiatric hospitals. Bring conditions on death row into conformity with the right of detainees with humane treatment. Limit the scope of the death penalty by abolishing it for economic and nonviolent crimes. Utilize the opportunity of the planned restoration of Supreme Court review for all death sentences to publish national statistics on the application of the death penalty. Establish a national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and General Assembly have adopted a set of guiding principles on the role, composition, status and functions of national human rights institutions commonly known as the Paris Principles. Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1992/54 of March 1992 and General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/134 of 20 December 1993. With the authority to carry out unannounced visits to all places of detention. Ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. Ratify the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That OHCHR provide support to the above through its technical cooperation programme within the framework of the recent MOU signed between the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Chinese Government. The Special Rapporteur expresses his appreciation to the Government for inviting him to visit the country and looks forward to a long-term process of cooperation with the Government to combat torture and ill- treatment. He also expresses his appreciation for the support of the UN Country Team in China, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Special Rapporteur will submit a comprehensive written report on the visit to the UN Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-second session in 2006.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 312.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Thirty years ago, as we all know, Cambodia was thrust into 4-years of hellish chaos that claimed the lives of one-fifth of that country's population. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime attempted a radical restructuring of Cambodia, systematically destroying traditional Khmer society, forcibly relocating large portions of the population, and purging those whom it regarded as bourgeois, or culturally contaminated. Their movement, which claimed to be a Communist effort to create a classless, utopian state, was, in fact, a genocide. By the time it ended, 1.7 million Cambodians were dead. It stands as one of the worst crimes of the 20th century and a shocking example of what becomes possible when the dignity of the human person is subordinated to political ideology. Faced with the terror of the Khmer Rouge, many thousands of Cambodians did what you and I would do in that situation. They and their families fled their homeland, becoming refugees. Of those numbers, more than 145,000 resettled in the U.S. where they have contributed to the strength of communities throughout our Nation. We are proud of our Cambodian American population, which has demonstrated such resilience and industry. We also are hopeful that there may be yet justice and accountability for the Cambodian genocide. We welcome the steps that the U.N. has taken toward establishing an international criminal tribunal for that purpose. Although that body has yet to become operational, we hope that, when it does, its proceedings will be substantive, transparent and credible. In light of its history, I am proud that this body is taking up H. Con. Res. 238 which honors the victims of the genocide in Cambodia and welcomes the prospect of justice for that great crime. I want to especially thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald) for introducing this resolution and urge its unanimous adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and 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 concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 238) honoring the victims of the Cambodian genocide that took place from April 1975 to January 1979, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 294, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would just thank Chairman Gallegly for sponsoring this resolution. I am happy to be a cosponsor. I would just make the point that this supports the accession of Croatia into NATO. As either chairman or subcommittee chairman of the Global Human Rights and International Ops Committee for 6 years in the 1990s and as either chairman or cochairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have watched very closely the issues relating to Croatia over these many years. As a matter of fact, Frank Wolf and I actually got into Vukovar while it was under siege and saw the incredible devastation that occurred early in that war with Serbia, and one house after another, one block after another being literally decimated by the Serbian offensive. But so much has changed. So much has changed dramatically. As a matter of fact, over the last 5 years we have seen the real changes. For a while there, regrettably, the government was very wedded and many people in Croatia to nationalism, and some would even say extreme nationalism. That has now dissipated largely and now we have a Croat group of people, a free press, increasingly the NGOs, the church, all speaking on one accord for more human rights; and I do think over time and hopefully sooner rather than later they will make their way into NATO, provided the additional benchmarks are met. So this is a good statement of solidarity with the people of Croatia saying that we think it is time. I thank, again, Mr. Gallegly for sponsoring this. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Res. 529, I rise in strong support of this resolution that supports the accession of Croatia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have followed developments in Croatia extensively, both as a Chairman of the International Relations Committee and as Chairman or Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission. I can particularly recall--indeed, it would be hard to forget--the horror that accompanied the seige and ultimately the fall of Vukovar during the conflict in Croatia in 1991. That was the year Croatia proclaimed its independence from the disintegrating Yugoslavia. Few would have predicted that in such a short period of time Croatia would be advancing toward European integration at its current pace. It is true, as stated in this resolution, that since achieving independence, the people of Croatia have built a democratic society, based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and a free market economy. To be more precise, however, it is worth noting that most of this progress occurred in the last five years, after Croatia was able to move beyond the conflict but also to make its own transition away from nationalism. The lack of progress which occurred in the early years of Croatia's independence is not something to hide. It makes the progress achieved since 2000 all the more profound. It is also true that the people of Croatia deserve the credit. It was the Croatian people who became fed up with supporting the agenda of others. Through non-governmental organizations, independent media outlets and ultimately the ballot box, they earned their independence and freedom. Those representing Croatia's Serb community who made the decision to return to their homes, despite fears and lingering obstacles, also deserve credit for Croatia's progress. They have challenged the country to recover and to reconcile, and Croatia is stronger as a result. The people of Croatia have built a democratic society based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and a free market economy. They have sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led security force in support of the war on terrorism and have provided strong support to U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Mr. Speaker, just last week, the one remaining impediment to Croatia's entry into NATO was removed when General Ante Gotovina, the alleged Croatian war criminal, was arrested in Spain. General Gotovina has been transferred to The Hague to stand trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, the resolution states that once it meets NATO guidelines and criteria for membership, Croatia should be invited to join NATO at the earliest possible date. With its location, resources and talented people, a Croatia which satisfies the guidelines and criteria for NATO membership will strengthen the alliance. Support for Croatia's integration into NATO should also encourage others in the region to make similar progress. Two other Adriatic Charter partners, Albania and Macedonia, immediately come to mind. It is also my deepest hope that Bosnia and Herzegovina, ten years after the Dayton Accords ended the conflict there, can move beyond what have become the restraining effects of that peace agreement's ethnic balancing act, adopt serious constitutional reform and accelerate its integration into Europe as well. Finally, we all hope that people in Serbia will continue their efforts to overcome the bankrupt legacy left by extreme nationalism, in particular by taking every effort to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, so that Serbia, too, can move forward. H. Res. 529 commends Croatia's significant progress in strengthening its democratic institutions, its support for the global war on terrorism and its ability to make significant contributions to NATO. It also applauds their ongoing cooperation with the international war crimes tribunal. Mr. Speaker, Croatia is not only a strong ally of the United States. The American and Croatian people share a love of freedom and democracy. Croatia has been a steadfast friend, and it will make an important contribution to security and peace in Europe and throughout the world as a member of NATO. Both the Europe and Emerging Threats Subcommittee and the House International Relations Committee unanimously approved House Resolution 529, and I urge its passage by the full House.