Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) urging the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations, and activities of domestic and foreign nongovernmental organizations in the Russian Federation, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 312, introduced by the very distinguished chairman of our full committee, Chairman Henry Hyde, urging the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have a chilling effect on civil society in that country. Amazingly, as Russia prepares to assume leadership of the G-8 and the Council of Europe next month, Russian lawmakers have been working feverishly to subordinate pockets of independent thought and action to state control. The focus of recent days has been on nongovernmental organizations, especially those working in the fields of human rights and democracy. In essence, the provisions would require all nongovernmental organizations to re-register with a government commission empowered with invasive powers to monitor NGO activities. The Duma has passed amendments to the Law on Public Associations by a vote of 370-18, but the measure must go through further readings scheduled for next week and signed then by Vladimir Putin before it becomes law. In mid- November, members of the Helsinki Commission, which I am cochair of, sent a letter which I will make a part of the Record to the Speaker of the Russian Duma, Boris Gryzlov, urging the Duma to reject the pending proposed amendments, purportedly crafted with input from Putin's advisers. The move against NGOs, Mr. Speaker, is not occurring in a vacuum, but is calculated to move in a lead-up to the critical parliamentary elections that are scheduled for 2007 and a presidential contest the following year to replace Putin, who is prevented from seeking another term. In response to expressions of concern from the United States and others, some modifications to the draft are apparently being considered, though it is still unclear the extent to which the amendments will be revamped. We will not have a full picture until next week. By then, it may be too late to change before landing on President Putin's desk. Thus, consideration of Chairman Hyde's measure comes at a critical time for the House to be on record opposing the burdensome compulsory registration requirements being proposed. As originally drafted, the proposed amendments will require Russia's approximately 450,000 NGOs to re-register with a government commission under a complicated registration procedure and would expand the ability of the government to deny registration permission. Financial auditing, a tactic currently used to harass opposition NGOs, would also become more intrusive under the bill's provisions. No doubt there would be negative impact on foreign-based organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and the Carnegie Foundation, while increasing controls over NGOs of Russian origin. Mr. Speaker, whatever package of amendments to the legal framework for NGOs in Russia finally emerges, they must be evaluated in light of that country's commitments as a member of the Council of Europe and participating state in the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe. Do the proposals under consideration in the Russian Duma fully respect the right of individuals to freedom of association, or do they undermine that fundamental freedom under the guise of fighting corruption and terrorism? That is the key question. This resolution gets us on record, and hopefully it will have some sway with the Duma and with President Putin. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter I referred to earlier to the Chairman of the Russian State Duma, Boris Gryzlov. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Washington, DC, November 18, 2005. Hon. Boris Gryzlov, Chairman, Russian State Duma, 2 Okhotny Ryad, Moscow, Russian Federation. Dear Mr. Chairman: As Members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, we urge you to seek rejection of the proposed amendments to the Law on Public Associations pending in the State Duma that would have a chilling effect on civil society in the Russian Federation, including the functioning of non-governmental organizations focused on human rights and democracy. These proposals would seriously undermine the rights of individuals in Russia to freedom of association, subordinating this fundamental right to excessive and intrusive control by organs of the state. Besides apparent conflicts with provisions of the Russian Constitution, these burdensome compulsory registration requirements run counter to numerous international commitments concerning the right of individuals to form, join and participate effectively in nongovernmental organizations, including longstanding OSCE provisions. If adopted, these proposals would jeopardize the very existence of a number of well-established human rights NGOs, cripple the non-governmental sector and undermine effective public oversight of governmental activity and policy. History has shown that a vibrant civil society and economically prosperous nation cannot long withstand such intellectual stagnation. Under the guise of fighting corruption and terrorism, the amendments would in fact deal a potential death blow to Russian civil society, reversing important advances made since the institution of glasnost. Enhanced enforcement of the existing criminal code should suffice to address any genuine security concerns. Indeed, the pending proposals reflect an attitude toward independent political activity that is reminiscent of Russia's Soviet past. Adoption of these amendments would send a particularly negative signal at a time when Russia is preparing to assume leadership of the G-8 and the Council of Europe. Mr. Chairman, we know that you and your colleagues aspire to a democratic and prosperous Russia, and trust that you recognize that further restrictions on civil society would lead Russia away from that goal. Sincerely, Christopher H. Smith, M.C., Co-Chairman. Sam Brownback, U.S.S., Chairman. Benjamin L. Cardin, M.C., Ranking Member. Frank R. Wolf, M.C., Commissioner. Joseph R. Pitts, M.C., Commissioner. Mike Pence, M.C., Commissioner. Christopher J. Dodd, U.S.S., Ranking Member. Russell D. Feingold, U.S.S., Commissioner. Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S.S., Commissioner. Mike McIntyre, M.C., Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (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, 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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends and colleagues for their very kind remarks. This is bipartisan legislation. We worked very closely with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to come up with what I think is a bill that will make a significant difference to help those who have suffered the cruelty of despotic regimes all over the world. I just returned from a trip to Vietnam. I was in Hanoi, Hue, and finished the trip in Ho Chi Minh City; and during the course of more than 24 comprehensive meetings with religious and political people, many of whom are under house arrest, or pagoda arrest, including that of Thich Quand Do, the venerable leader of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Father Li, Father Loy and many others, in each and every one of those circumstances, the more the conversation went on, the more you saw, while they suffered much in prison, especially for Father Li and others, they were subjected to torture and other inhumane treatment. Their faith helps them get through it. But for most beyond a facade of coping, the mental pain is overwhelming. They and so many others like them all over the world need what this kind of legislation can provide in the foreign treatment centers as well as our domestic centers. We have learned much about post-traumatic stress disorder. We have learned much of it through our work in this country through the VA and the fine work that the psychologists have done and the psychiatrists in mitigating the pain of our GIs who served in Vietnam and in other conflicts. But for other people who have suffered so cruelly, being put into coffin-like boxes for days and weeks on end, leaves scars. Father Calciu, I will never forget, a great leader in Romania who spent years in Communist prisons, used to be put in these small boxes where he would suffer beyond words. It was his faith that got him through it, but he carries those scars. There are people like Armanda Valadaries who wrote a book that should be read by everyone as a primer as to what the Castro regime does to its people, ``Against All Hope.'' Valadaries talks about the torture that he and so many others in Cuba have suffered. And he is one of the brave ones who endured and overcame. But so many others retreat and slide into despair, clinical depression, and then sometimes even to suicide. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this. In like manner, I urge the appropriators to ensure that we meet the authorized levels. Torture victims are the walking wounded and they are on our streets. As both the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I said, 400,000 is the estimation of torture survivors living in the United States. Many of them came here as asylum seekers. Thank God they got the asylum status. Many others survive throughout the world and need the kind of services this legislation can provide. 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, nationwide there are an estimated 400,000 torture survivors, most of whom came to the United States as refugees. Worldwide, it is impossible to count the numbers. As witnesses have repeatedly testified before our committee and before the Congress, the paralyzing scars from the physical and psychological wounds of torture can remain for years. Torture impacts not only the individual victim but their families and society as well. Yesterday, the first witnesses testified in the trial of Saddam Hussein. Demonstrating heroic courage, they described torture on a scale that is almost beyond belief and which is simply too grisly to be repeated here. Although these events described happened many years ago, their testimony painfully illustrates the lasting impact torture has on those who survive it, their families and communities. There can be no doubt that Hussein's systematic torture was intended not only to punish specific victims but to coerce an entire population into silence and into subservience. As we try to bring democracy to Iraq and to other parts around the globe, we must try to heal the victims of torture that was used to prevent democracy from taking hold in the past. In 1998, Mr. Speaker, Congress took a historic step towards repairing the broken lives of torture victims with the passage of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998. I sponsored that legislation, and I was joined by my good friend and colleague (Mr. Lantos), who has also been a hero in this battle to help torture victims. We also sponsored the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999 and the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2003. As important as these congressional measures have been, there continues to be an enormous need for us to reach out to the victims of torture who oftentimes have no other recourse for their suffering. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to join us today in supporting H.R. 2017, the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2005. The domestic aspect of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is designed to ensure that particular attention is given to torture victims in regions with significant immigrant and refugee populations. The measure authorizes $25 million for fiscal year 2006 and $25 million for fiscal year 2007 to the Department of Health and Human Services to assist domestic treatment centers. This maintains the current $25 million authorization funding level for fiscal year 2005 for such centers. Currently, 27 programs in 16 States are assisted by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement. In addition to direct assistance, many of these centers are also engaged in training mainstream organizations and personnel in the specialized treatment of torture victims. The number of survivors seeking treatment at U.S. centers funded through the Torture Victims Relief and Reauthorization acts has steadily increased throughout the years. The client base at just 14 such centers increased from 935 in 1999 to 1,550 in 2000 to 2,579 in 2001. A subsequent survey showed that during 2002, 23 Torture Victim Relief Act-funded centers treated over 3,600 clients. With the additional funding, it is estimated the U.S. centers would have the capacity and the capability to serve an additional 2,800 survivors per year. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2017 also authorizes $12 million in 2006 and $13 million in 2007 for foreign treatment centers and programs administered through USAID's Victims of Torture fund. This authorization would maintain the current fiscal year 2005 authorization for 2006 and increase it by $1 million for fiscal year 2007. The bill gives particular emphasis to supporting centers and programs abroad in emerging democracies and postconflict environments. Nongovernmental organizations that receive this funding provide direct services to survivors, their families, and their communities. They also strengthen institutions on the ground and the indigenous capacity of these institutions to deliver services to survivors. In addition to providing treatment, many of these programs advocate for the elimination of torture itself in these countries. Lastly, the measure maintains current authorization levels of $7 million for fiscal year 2006 for the U.N. Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture. It would increase this funding to $8 million in fiscal year 2007. In 2001, in just that one year alone, the U.N. fund assisted some 77,000 victims of torture. This type of humanitarian assistance provided by organizations which receive grants from the fund consists mainly of psychological, medical, social, legal, and economic assistance. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I attach for printing in the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Barton on the bill H.R. 2017 ``The Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2005.'' House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, November 29, 2005. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 30, 2005, the Committee on International Relations authorized me to seek consideration of H.R. 2017, the ``Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' under suspension of the rules. As you are aware, H.R. 2017 was additionally referred to your Committee. The bill contains language which falls within the Rule X jurisdiction of your Committee. Your Committee's subject matter jurisdiction relates to the authorization for domestic treatment centers for victims of torture. I write to ask that the Committee on Energy and Commerce waive its opportunity to mark up provisions referred to it. Timely action by the Energy and Commerce Committee would allow this Committee to proceed expeditiously to the House floor. By waiving the opportunity to mark up the bill, I understand that your Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over this or similar measures. In addition, in the event of a conference with the Senate on this matter, I will recommend that your Committee have the right to seek the appointment of conferees. A copy of this letter and your reply will be placed in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the floor. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2017) to amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign programs and centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission and the sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act, I remain deeply concerned about the violations of human rights occurring every day in Lukashenka's Belarus. During a recent news conference, the autocratic Belarusian leader expressed confidence in his victory in the presidential election scheduled for next year, rhetorically asking why should he be rigging this election. Given his intensified assault on civil society, his dismal human rights record, and penchant for rigged elections, Mr. Lukashenka's statements ring hollow. Yet, Lukashenka's actions against democratic forces, non-governmental organizations and the independent media belie his stated confidence regarding electoral victory. Last week, the lower chamber of Lukashenka's pocket parliament passed a law endorsing tougher new penalties for activities ``directed against people and public security,'' a proposal submitted to the parliament only days before passage. These changes to the Criminal Code increase penalties for participation in organizations that were liquidated or warned to stop their pro-democratic activities, or for the training and other preparations for unauthorized demonstrations or other civic actions. Mr. Speaker, to cite just one of the draconian provisions, the Code now gives authorities the leeway to jail an individual for up to 2 years for ``providing a foreign country, a foreign or international organization with patently false information about the political, economic, social, military, and international situation of the Republic of Belarus.'' Putting aside the matter of such a provision violating free speech norms, if the past is any guide, it is clear who would be the arbiter of what constitutes ``false information.'' There can be no doubt that the law aims to stifle the democratic opposition, and the head of the KGB (yes, in Belarus it is still called the KGB) himself recently admitted that the reasons for the law is to discourage street protests during the upcoming presidential race. This law, while particularly blatant, is part and parcel of other actions designed to strengthen the regime's control and deny the Belarusian people any alternative voices as the presidential election campaign unfolds. Last month, a new law further controlling political parties came into force. A recent Council of Ministers decree clamps down on organizations that conduct public opinion polls. A Lukashenka decree further discriminates against independent trade unions, stipulating that only trade unions belonging to the pro-governmental federation are granted the right to premises at no cost. Yet another decree considerably limits students' opportunities to travel abroad. Meanwhile, opposition activists are routinely beaten up or detained. Just last week, for instance, Ales Kalita was detained and at the hands of the police suffered a dislocated arm for merely distributing the independent newspaper ``Narodna Volya''. Viktor Syritsya, a lecturer at Baranavichi College was fired for organizing a meeting of students with presidential opposition candidate Alexander Milinkevich. Belarusian State Economic University in Minsk expelled fourth-year student Tatsyana Khoma because she took a brief trip to France, where she was elected to the executive committee of the Brussels-based National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), an umbrella organization of 44 national student unions from 34 countries. The police beat activist Mikita Sasim. They detained youth activists Yauhen Afnagel and others. Other repressive actions include frequent arrests of activists of democratic youth movements such as ZUBR, a ban on worship by some religious congregations and other repressive actions against selected religious minorities, and continued harassment of members of the Union of Poles in Belarus. Moreover, there is an emerging pattern of the regime putting obstacles in the way of Mr. Milinkevich. Recently, a public meeting he held in Borbuisk was disrupted by the authorities, with participants being told by the authorities to go home and threatened with tax inspections. During a press conference, the electricity in the room was cut off, as well as a ``hot-line'' phone with town residents. Especially egregious has been the regime's intensification of the war against the already repressed and struggling independent media. Newspaper closures, suspensions, threats, and exorbitant and absurd libel fines, pressures on advertisers and other forms of harassment have become routine. Outright police confiscations of independent newspapers are also not uncommon. A seemingly more subtle tactic, implemented just a few weeks ago, involved the decision by Belarus' monopoly state postal service to stop delivery to subscribers of a dozen private periodicals. Meanwhile, the suspicious murder in 2004 of journalist Veronika Charkasova has not been resolved. Authorities have refused to open a criminal investigation into journalist Vasil Hrodnikau's death. Lukashenka himself recently admitted to Russian journalists that his regime applies very serious pressure on the media, somewhat incongruously adding that ``this does not mean I am crushing them.'' Mr. Speaker, what I have cited is by no means an exhaustive list of abuses perpetrated by the Lukashenka regime, merely a sampling of the types of repressive actions employed on a daily basis by Europe's last dictator. As Helsinki Commission Co-Chair, I will continue to monitor closely and speak out forcefully regarding these and other violations of Belarus' freely undertaken OSCE commitments. I urge the Bush Administration to step up efforts to break the Lukashenka regime's near monopoly over the country's information space and provide timely assistance to pro-democracy forces in Belarus. It is clear that Mr. Lukashenka and his minions are laying the groundwork for yet another un-free and unfair election--similar to the 2001 presidential elections and the 2000 and 2004 parliamentary elections--that will fall far short of OSCE standards. Lukashenka is once again showing that, despite his confident rhetoric, he fears his own people and profoundly fails to respect their dignity as citizens and as human beings.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago this month a genocidal conflict was brought to an end in the Balkans. By initialing a ``General Framework for Peace'' at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, on November 21, 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged from almost four years of that conflict wondering whether it could survive as an independent unitary state and recover from the utter destruction not only of its towns and cities but of its own, multi- ethnic society. Time dulls our recollection of what the carnage in Bosnia was really about, so I believe it important to recall the nature of this, the most horrific phase of Yugoslavia's violent and bloody demise. Active on the Helsinki Commission which I co-chair today, I took part in many sobering hearings which documented the atrocities and discussed policy responses. The Bosnian conflict was, in large part, characterized not by opposing military forces but by groups of thugs, armed and orchestrated by the Milosevic regime in Serbia, wreaking havoc on innocent civilians. Tens of thousands were raped or tortured in detention centers and camps established across the country. While figures may vary substantially, the death toll is commonly estimated at about 200,000, while two million people--half the country's population--were displaced. We can well remember the photos of emaciated detainees at Omarska, the live coverage of the shelling and siege of Sarajevo, and the recently released video footage of the execution of captured young men near Srebrenica. While the decreasing advantages enjoyed by the Serb militants by late 1995 made a settlement possible, the Dayton Agreement did, in fact, help to bring this nightmare to an end. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that its compromises reflect a failure by the international community, including the United States, to intervene much earlier in the conflict in response to clear violations of international principles and what many, including myself, consider a genocide. The international community repeatedly failed to take decisive action, including the credible threat of the use of force, to compel the brazen Serb militants to stop their aggression. Instead, time was spent deploying peacekeeping forces under United Nations auspices when there was no peace to keep. UNPROFOR's presence thwarted more effective responses, such as lifting the arms embargo which denied the sovereign country of Bosnia and Herzegovina its right, as a member of the United Nations, to defend itself. As town after town, including some declared to be ``safe-havens'' by the United Nations, fell to the forces of ethnic cleansing, the international community acquiesced to a reality, codified by Dayton, of a country divided into two political entities characterized by an ethnic bias unworthy of 21st century democracy. One entity is a Bosnian Federation forged by the United States in 194 between Bosnia's Muslims or Bosniaks, and Croats. The other entity, Republika Srpska, is dominated by Serbs and represents what the militants among them started the conflict to create. The compromises accepted at Dayton, influenced by years of international inaction, also have made subsequent implementation difficult, and extremely expensive in terms of personnel, equipment and funds. Many persons indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide evaded justice for years, some to wreak havoc later in Kosovo and elsewhere, and some like Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, remain at large. With the economy destroyed and both organized crime and official corruption rampant, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina became passive and dependent on the international community for their very survival. Perhaps the greatest flaw in the Dayton Agreement was its heavy reliance on Slobodan Milosevic himself to follow its terms, which he did only under considerable pressure. Betting on the man most responsible for igniting the conflict meant undercutting the development of democratic forces in Serbia which are necessary for the long-term stability of southeastern Europe. Many of us worked hard to correct this flaw in the immediate post- Dayton years, and continue to encourage democratic forces in Serbia to reckon fully with the Milosevic legacy. Fortunately, along with the eventual ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, we have seen more vigorous and positive action to move ahead in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the past five years. More of the displaced have returned to their original homes than was thought possible when Dayton was negotiated. It hasn't been easy for many who return as members of a minority population, but determination has helped them to prevail. More and more individuals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including Milosevic, have been transferred to The Hague, and, at a recent Helsinki Commission briefing, we learned that Bosnia's own War Crimes Chamber has been established and is ready to conduct sensitive trials in accordance with the rule of law. Srebrenica is being acknowledged as the crime that it was. Defense and police reform are underway, helping to pave the way for Bosnia's further Euro-Atlantic and European integration. The region around Brcko, so brutally contested during the conflict that not even Dayton could determine its status, now provides a model of multiethnic cooperation and economic recovery for the rest of the country. There are now discussions of constitutional reforms which, if adopted, will hopefully make the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina a sum of its citizens and not a balance of its ethnicities. If the Dayton Agreement succeeded in anything, Mr. Speaker, it was because its detailed provisions and improved implementation have provided the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina with both the parameters of a state and enough time to bring their country back from the abyss. I have increasing confidence that they will succeed in moving from what was admittedly a ``General Framework for Peace'' to a solid basis for unity, freedom, prosperity and integration. In the meantime, the international community has much it still needs to learn and develop. The conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina gave new purpose to NATO and enabled it to begin operating out of area. Fifty years after the Holocaust, those who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide no longer operate with complete impunity. Still, the international community--whether the United States and its allies, regional bodies or the United Nations--remains slow in responding to human suffering, or in recognizing the implications massive human rights violations can have on international security. It too readily accepts the reality of innocent people being attacked, brutalized and killed. Look at the response during the assault on Srebrenica and then at the response to Darfur today; the similarities are strong. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that Dayton's tenth anniversary is commemorated in a way that includes not only encouragement for Bosnia and Herzegovina to move beyond the agreement's limiting provisions, but encouragement for all policymakers to learn from the lessons of inaction in the face of evil.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, the district court in the Czech town of Ostrava reached a very important decision. The court concluded that, in 2001 after the birth of her second child, a local Romani woman was sterilized without informed consent. In fact, since last year, the Czech Ombudsman has been examining dozens of similar cases. Although he has not yet issued any public findings, it is expected that the Ombudsman will confirm that many other Romani women experienced similar violations of their rights, as documented by several Czech human rights groups and the European Roma Rights Center. Sadly, the issue of sterilizations without informed consent is not new in this region. As early as 1977, the dissident group Charter 77 reported on systematic efforts to target Romani women in Czechoslovakia for coerced sterilization. While the vast majority of sterilizations in the Czech Republic and Slovakia since 1989 were performed with informed consent, the Ostrava case demonstrates that the practice of performing sterilizations without informed consent did not completely end with the fall of the communist regime. That precedent-setting court decision sheds light on a number of legal points in one specific case. At the same time, there are many larger questions still at issue, including whether racism against Roma contributed to the abuse. Frankly, given the large percentage of Roma among the victims of sterilization without informed consent compared with the small percentage of the Czech population that Roma constitute, it is hard for me to believe that race did not play some role. There are, of course, other possible factors to consider: what role did a poor quality of medical care or training play in these cases of medical malpractice? Did a lack of respect for an individual's liberty--a hold- over mentality from the totalitarian period--also contribute to the abuse? I welcome the Ostrava court's decision and commend the plaintiff in that case, Helena Ferencikova, for her courage in bringing it forward. I have also been heartened by the apparent seriousness of the Ombudsman's investigation into this difficult and sensitive matter. Unfortunately, similar issues in neighboring Slovakia continue to be met with government denials and stonewalling. In 2003, the Slovak Government concluded a year-long investigation into allegations that some Romani women were sterilized without informed consent, even after the fall of communism. That investigation was deeply flawed. At one point, for example, a spokesperson for the Minister for Human Rights threatened that anyone bringing forward allegations of sterilization without informed consent would go to jail, one way or another. This is not the way to foster confidence in an investigation or to encourage victims to speak out. Significantly, the Czech investigation and the Slovak investigation both revolved around the same 1992 Czechoslovak law on sterilizations, put in place before the two countries split apart. Czech authorities have understood that law as requiring that sterilizations had to be requested by the person who was going to be sterilized, that there had to be evidence of consent by that person, and that consent had to be meaningfully informed. Being ``informed'' means, for example, that the expectant mother must be told why the procedure is necessary. If someone was given false information about the procedure, which was the case in many instances, then she was not meaningfully ``informed.'' When interpreting the same law, however, Slovak authorities maintained that consent did not have to be ``informed.'' Accordingly, Slovak investigators examined numerous cases where there was no informed consent but still concluded there was no violation of the 1992 law because, according to their twisted logic, consent didn't have to be informed! In reality, the Slovak Government seemed to organize its investigation into the sterilization cases in a way that was designed to cover up the magnitude of the problem. The Slovak Government's investigation revealed seven cases of Romani minors who were sterilized in violation of the then-existing Slovak law. In reality, the Slovak Government's interpretation of the concept of ``consent'' could not be reconciled with modern health norms and had to be changed to explicitly require that consent is informed. (The new law went into effect at the beginning of this year.) In reality, numerous international officials have repeatedly expressed concern over the sterilization practices in the Slovak Republic and the inadequacy of the Slovak Government's response to them, including in the April 2005 report on the situation of Roma issued by the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner. In light of all this, it is extremely frustrating to read that Slovak officials have, in recent months, made misleading statements about this important issue. Apparently one official has even declared that ``illegal sterilizations of Romani women never happened in Slovakia.'' Mr. Speaker, when the institutions of justice are perceived to follow one set of rules for the majority and another for minorities, this is a recipe for social unrest--as we know from our own painful history. I understand that it is always a difficult exercise for any government to admit its own wrongdoing or the wrongdoings of the majority society--we know this, too. But Romani mistrust of government institutions will only deepen if the Slovak Government persists in denying the wrongs perpetrated against their community.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations' push for global population control continues to lead to ugly and inhumane outcomes, especially for girls. China, as you know, imposes a barbaric ``one child per couple'' policy that relies on forced abortion, involuntary sterilization and ruinous fines to implement. But a UNFPA report sheds new light on sex selection abortion in India. According to the U.N. report, increasingly parents are using sex selection technologies that enable practitioners first to identify female unborn girls and then to abort them. As a result, fully 60 million girls are now missing according to the United Nations, effectively falling into a demographic black hole from which analysts fear there will be no return. The report says as many as 2 million unborn baby girls are aborted each year for no other reason than they happen to be female. In Punjab, the government claims that the numbers of missing girls will increase by 40 percent in the forthcoming generation. Mr. Speaker, abortion is violence against children. It relies on dismemberment of the baby. Abortion relies on chemical poisoning. Sex selection abortion in India or anywhere else is a particularly heinous crime. All children--boys or girls--are precious. None deserve death by abortion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief is a fundamental element of international human rights norms. It is inextricably intertwined with other fundamental rights, including the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Considering this, I am increasingly concerned by European trends to place limitations on religious speech under the guise of preventing offense or limiting hate speech. One such case concerns Ake Green, the pastor of a Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, who was sentenced to 1 month in prison for ``inciting hatred'' against homosexuals. Pastor Green's troubles began on July 20, 2003, when he expressed his disapproval of homosexuality in a sermon, founded upon his understanding of the Bible. He did not incite nor encourage his congregation on the small southeastern island of Oland to violence. He did, however, express his personal opinion of homosexuality and made a personal moral judgment that the lifestyle was sinful. He later circulated the sermon text to media outlets in an attempt to insert an alternative view into Sweden's ``marketplace of ideas.'' When prosecutors saw the sermon printed, they brought charges against Pastor Green for ``inciting hate'' toward homosexuals. A district court agreed in June 2004, finding his sermon to be criminal. One particularly alarming quote from the district court's decision stated, ``It is forbidden to use the Bible or similar material to threaten or express disrespect for homosexuals as a group.'' Mr. Speaker, should pastors really be sent to jail for sermons that a court deems ``disrespectful'' or ``offensive''? Should the state really dictate how a religious leader interprets the Bible, the Torah, or other religious texts? The district court's ruling raises the question of whether ministers and priests in Sweden are really free to preach their beliefs. I recognize that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and not all speech is protected. After 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings, we have all seen how criminals abuse religion to preach violence and lead others in criminal deeds. Authorities are within their rights to take legal action to curtail the speech when it rises to the level of posing an imminent threat of actual criminal action. The international community and the European Court of Human Rights have recognized this high threshold for limiting speech activity. Yet we must be careful to not limit religious liberties and speech rights. Thankfully, Pastor Green has not spent a night in jail while his case is on appeal. Also encouraging was the February decision by an appellate court to overturn the conviction, saying it is not illegal to preach a personal interpretation of the Bible. However, Sweden's chief prosecutor, Fredrik Wersaell, appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that Green violated Sweden's 2003 hate crimes law. The Supreme Court will hear the appeal on November 9th. Undoubtedly, Swedes enjoy tremendous religious freedoms and generally Sweden is a staunch defender of human rights. However, in this case, the government has sought to limit basic religious teachings. I believe the criminalization of the use of the Bible to express beliefs, if not overturned, will have frighteningly broad ramifications for the free practice of religion in Sweden and beyond.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I would like to reiterate my concerns regarding the rule of law, or the absence of it, in the Russian Federation today. The case of Mikhail Trepashkin, which I raised in the House last November, highlights the shortcomings and corruption that plague the Russian legal system. Trepashkin, an attorney and former Federal Security Service (FSB) officer, was arrested on October 24, 2003, just one week before he was scheduled to represent the American relatives of a victim of the 1999 bombings of two Moscow apartment buildings. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Trepashkin, at the behest of a Russian parliamentarian, had been investigating the bombings and was expected to present findings that suggested the involvement of elements of the FSB in the crime. Russian officials, however, had been quick to characterize the bombings as terrorist attacks, and blamed Chechen separatists. Trepashkin had publicly announced that his research had left him with many suspicious findings, including a statement by the landlord of one of the buildings that the FSB had forced him to falsify the identity of a basement apartment tenant, the suspected source of the blast. In addition, Trepashkin charged that a bomb discovered in an apartment building in the city of Ryazan and safely detonated before it was set to explode, was admittedly placed there by FSB officers who were reportedly conducting a ``readiness exercise.'' The weapon possession charge against Mr. Trepashkin fell apart in court as witnesses reported seeing a gun only in the hands of the arresting officer. However, the FSB seemed intent on derailing Trepashkin's independent inquiry, and subsequently claimed that Mr. Trepashkin had revealed classified material to unauthorized persons during the course of his investigation. In May 2004, a closed Moscow Military District Court found him guilty of divulging state secrets and sentenced him to four years in a labor camp. Mr. Speaker, it still seems that Mr. Trepashkin was prosecuted in order to prevent him from releasing potentially damaging information regarding FSB complicity in the bombings. In other words, the security services have apparently manipulated the Russian judicial system to ``get its man.'' As the U.S. State Department expressed it diplomatically, ``The arrest and trial of Mikhail Trepashkin raised concerns about the undue influence of the FSB and arbitrary use of the judicial system.'' Even though the United States and others had called for an honest and open investigation into the circumstances surrounding the case of Mr. Trepashkin, his situation remained unchanged until August 2005. Suddenly he was released early for good behavior after completing almost half of his original four-year sentence. Regrettably, his reprieve ended as abruptly as his release. Trepashkin was detained at his home and on September 16, 2005 the regional court of Sverdlovsk overturned the lower court's early release decision. The local prosecutor who assented to Mr. Trepaskin early release has now been fired. Trepashkin had written about the horrible jail conditions of his earlier imprisonment: hunger, sleep deprivation, withholding of medicine, and a substandard, lice-infested cell. It is now reported that conditions after his re-incarceration have become even worse. Apparently his comments to journalists during his brief release, detailing the poor jail conditions aroused the resentment of the prison guards and the administration. Trepashkin is reportedly in poor health, recently suffering an acute asthmatic attack. Mr. Speaker, the Trepashkin case appears fraught with blatant corruption by Russian law enforcement and unacceptable manipulation of the rule of law to satisfy political vendettas. If the FSB cannot endure criticism from outside and exposure of possible malfeasance within its ranks, how effective can it be in investigating and preventing genuine threats to Russia and beyond? I believe the Russian judiciary system would be better served if the court were to adhere to its original decision to release Mikhail Trepashkin from his unwarranted confinement and allow him to return to Moscow without fear of further reprisals. Persecution of those who seek the truth is not only a violation of an individual's human rights; it further erodes Russia's already weakened democracy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following testimony for the Record. Good morning. It's a pleasure for me to speak before you today, the Middle East and Central Asia subcommittee. I want to commend the subcommittee for organizing this important hearing and for your work concerning the ongoing problems in Central Asia. The peoples of Central Asia are largely Muslim, with a history of living under Russian rule for centuries. Despite our hopes and modest expectations that these nations would matriculate from dictatorships to democracies, from my vantage point as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the disappointing reality over the last fifteen years is that most are moving in the wrong direction. Moreover, in all countries of the region ``super-presidents'' dominate the political arena while their families, friends and favored few exploit the country's natural resources. Corruption among the elite is pervasive, as is cynicism among the populace. Legislatures and judiciaries have languished while the authorities maintain tight control of the most important media outlets. Yet despite these similarities, the five countries of Central Asia run the gamut from the standpoint of democratization and human rights observance; I would like to offer quick character sketches of each and then suggest some policy options. Kyrgyzstan represents one positive advance, as the only country in Central Asia where the head of state won his job in a fair contest. In last March's Tulip Revolution, opposition leaders mobilized popular resistance to yet another rigged election and ousted Askar Akaev. He was replaced by President Kurmanbek Bakiev, who won in a genuine landslide. Media outlets which were under pressure can now report freely on events. All this proves that Central Asians are ready for democracy. But Kyrgyzstan faces many problems. Parliament was elected in a rigged vote, and criminal elements are increasingly influential. A series of assassinations of parliamentarians has unsettled the Kyrgyz and their friends abroad. Moreover, leaders in nearby states have been disturbed by the precedent of ``people power'' in their neighborhood. On the other hand, under the megalomaniac ``president for life'' Saparmurat Niyazov, gas-rich Turkmenistan is the last one-party state in the former Soviet bloc. No dissent or religious freedoms are allowed and all media glorify the ``great'' leader. Citizens must study Niyazov's Rukhnama--a pseudo bible-mishmash of history, folklore and anthropology which seeks to supplant traditional Turkmen sources of spirituality. No other institutions or individuals have been allowed to emerge. Not only are all human rights violated, none of the bases of modem statehood have been fostered, leaving Turkmenistan's people ill-prepared for the day when Niyazov inevitably leaves the scene. Tajikistan is the only state in Central Asia where Muslim political parties are legal, an outcome of the bloody civil war fought between 1992 and 1997. The agreement ending those hostilities brought opposition parties into government, a major step forward for Central Asia. But lately President Imomali Rakhmonov has been concentrating power. In 2004, he orchestrated a referendum that will allow him to remain in office until 2020, if he wins next year's presidential election--he is preparing by clamping down on potential rivals. Two weeks ago an opposition figure was sentenced to 23 years in prison on charges many see as politically motivated. At the same time, Rakhmonov has been muzzling the media, with various independent newspapers closed down or under constant pressure. In oil-rich Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev has been President since the late 1980s and is running for re-election in December. Opposition parties are registered but have no representatives in parliament. Independent and opposition newspapers are harassed or fined for libel. The new and regressive national security amendments limit religious freedoms by increasing registration requirements, banning unregistered religious groups, greatly curtailing missionary activity, and permitting the suspension of registration of a religious organization. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan wants to be Chairman of the OSCE in 2009, a consensus decision that will have to be made in 2006. While I would like to see a Central Asian country in that position, chairmanship of the OSCE must be earned. A grade of ``excellent'' from OSCE election monitors on the presidential contest in December is the minimum requirement. Many more improvements in human rights performance will be needed before U.S. backing for Kazakhstan's candidacy could be given in good conscience. Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov has banned all opposition. Censorship remains in effect, torture is pervasive and thousands of people are in jail on political or religious grounds--Islamic observance is permitted only within state structures. Lagging economic reform has crimped business development and aggravated widespread poverty, all of which was recently documented by a very thorough Human Rights First report. Demonstrating the lows the regime will take to squash dissent, Uzbek authorities last week subjected one of the country's most prominent human rights defenders, Elena Urlaeva, to forcible psychiatric treatment, injecting her against her will with powerful psychotropic drugs. Her troubles began when she was put under house arrest in May to prevent her protesting the violence in Andijon. Last May, armed men assaulted a prison in Andijon where local businessmen were being held for alleged Islamic radicalism. Troops responded the next day by shooting indiscriminately at large crowds. According to eyewitnesses, hundreds, perhaps thousands were killed. The U.S. Government, along with the OSCE, UN and European Union, has called for an independent investigation into Andijon. President Karimov has refused and state-run Uzbek media outlets have accused the U.S. of assisting with Islamic terrorists. The allegation would be funny if it weren't so chilling. Andijon has been a watershed in Uzbekistan's post- independence history and in U.S.-Uzbek relations. As of today, our bilateral ties are in a deep freeze and Tashkent has demanded that our military base at K-2, which was supplying coalition forces in neighboring Afghanistan, be shut down. As you can see, the countries of Central Asia have much in common but have different prospects of future development. I believe the United States can help move them in a positive direction, while balancing the priorities of security cooperation, energy supplies and democratization. It is worth recalling President Bush's 2003 Whitehall Palace speech during his trip to the United Kingdom in which he acknowledged past mistakes in U.S. foreign policy: ``in the past, [we] have been willing to make a bargain; to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability . . . yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.'' Considering this, U.S. policy must support those Central Asian governments which have made progress towards democratization, especially Kyrgyzstan. We must also use our influence to urge those in the middle to improve their performance and those on the extremes to begin moderating their behavior. If we are to defeat terrorism and instill democracy and human rights in this region, we must do more. That is why I've introduced H.R. 3189, the Central Asia Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2005. If there is to be lasting success in fighting terrorism, the U.S. must break away from policies that back dictators who suppress and terrorize their own people, as repression will mostly likely breed future terrorism. The United States Government should therefore use every means at its disposal to move the countries of Central Asia to greater respect for democracy and human rights. U.S. engagement should support American values, promote long-term stability and security in the region, and ensure that all assistance programs support and reinforce these goals. In short, the bill facilitates engagement with those countries that want to engage. In President Bush's second inaugural speech, he declared ``it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.'' My bill fulfills this policy directive by providing constructive foreign assistance to support democratization and human rights, while conditioning all non- humanitarian U.S. assistance to the individual governments of Central Asia, both economic and military, on whether each is making ``substantial, sustained and demonstrable progress'' towards democratization and full respect of human rights in keeping with their OSCE commitments. The legislation would require that the President make an annual determination whether such progress is being made by examining five categories: democratization; free speech; freedom of religion; torture; and rule of law/trafficking in persons. If a country is not certified, economic and military assistance would be withheld in a graduated format. My bill provides greater flexibility to the President, as it allows the U.S. to express dissatisfaction in a significant way while not immediately ending all aid programs to the central governments in this strategic region of the world. The President is also provided with a national security waiver. Notably, withheld money is not lost. The President is authorized to reallocate withheld funds to provide financial assistance (including the awarding of grants) to foreign and domestic individuals, NGOs, and entities that support democracy, the promotion of democracy and/or full respect of human rights. The United States should use every means at its disposal to encourage democratization in Central Asia. Democracy in that part of the world will ultimately promote long-term stability and security in the region. That's the objective of my legislation. I hope the Members of the Middle East and Central Asia subcommittee will join me and cosponsor H.R. 3189.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. ``Do you think it is possible when you have lost your humanity to ever find it again?'' So asks Helena, a fictitious but all too real human trafficking victim from Prague after describing how she was raped and abused to ICE law enforcement agent Kate Morozov, played brilliantly by Academy Award-winning actress Mira Sorvino in Lifetime TV Network's mini series Human Trafficking, to be aired next week. My wife Marie and I have watched the entire trafficking movie last night, and we were moved to tears by this extraordinarily accurate portrayal of sex slavery from the eyes of victims, and the dedicated law enforcement agents trying to effectuate their rescue. My wife and I and my staff have been fighting sex trafficking, Mr. Speaker, since the late 1990s, when there was utter disbelief about whether or not it even existed. Sadly, it does. I would note parenthetically that I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, a comprehensive landmark law that provides for prevention, protection or victims, and prosecution and incarceration of the traffickers. I also sponsored the TPVA Reauthorization Act of 2003 as well as pending Legislation--H.R. 972. The movie tells the individual stories of exploited young women and girls from the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Philippines, Romania, Russia, and a 12-year-old girl, an American girl, Annie Gray, who was abducted by traffickers in Manila. ICE agent in charge Donald Sutherland joins Sorvino in bringing down a powerful but clever sex trafficking boss and others who use force, fraud, coercion, and even murder to enslave women. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that the ignorance, the indifference and complicity in human trafficking came to an end. Every year 800,000 people are trafficked around the world. Millions more are trafficked intra-country. And up to 18,000 are trafficked into the U.S. each year. Watch this powerful movie next week, Lifetime TV, 9 p.m., Monday and Tuesday.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations studied the terrible situation facing India's Dalits and tribal peoples. Taken together, Dalits and tribal peoples constitute as many as 250 million people. The Dalits, whose name means ``the oppressed,'' are much better known as ``untouchables,'' although this demeaning name is not the one they choose for themselves. They are also often referred to in official documents as ``Scheduled Castes, and occasionally as ``Harijans,'' or ``Children of God,'' a name given them by Gandhi. The tribal peoples are often referred to as Scheduled Tribes, or Adivasis, which means indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants. The Dalits and tribal peoples are treated as virtual non-humans, and suffer pervasive discrimination and violation of their human rights. This topic has taken on a special relevance. India's reformist government has made great strides to open its economy, and improve the lot of all its citizens. It has also played a leading role in the Community of Democracies and the U.N.'s Democracy Caucus and the U.N. Democracy Fund. In June and July of this year the U.S. and India announced a series of agreements that represent a quantum leap in cooperation between the world's two most populous democracies after decades of estrangement during the Cold War. On July 18th, U.S. and Indian leaders issued a joint statement resolving to establish a ``global partnership'' between the two nations through increased cooperation on a wide range of issues. We heartily welcome all of these actions. However, there is still a long road to travel. Most observers have focused on the nuclear proliferation implications of our announced agreements as potential stumbling blocks to a true strategic partnership between the U.S. and India. But as we seek to develop a strategic partnership, we must not lose sight of India's serious human rights problems. These problems are amply documented in the three current State Department reports: the 2004 Human Rights Report on India, the 2005 Report on Trafficking in Persons, and the 2004 Report on Religious Freedom. All three are massive catalogues of human rights violations which the Government of India condones, ignores, and in some instances, has even promoted. To quote the 2004 Human Rights Report on India: Security force officials who committed human rights abuses generally enjoyed de facto legal impunity . . . violations included: torture and rape by police and other government agents; . . . harassment and arrest of human rights monitors; . . . forced prostitution; child prostitution and female infanticide; trafficking in women and children; . . . serious discrimination and violence against indigenous people and scheduled castes and tribes; widespread intercaste and communal violence; religiously motivated violence against Muslims and Christians; and widespread exploitation of indentured, bonded, and child labor. Further, the 2005 Report on Trafficking in Persons has this to say. Again I quote: India is a source, transit, and destination country for women, men, and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual and labor exploitation . . . Internal trafficking . . . for . . . sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, bonded labor, and indentured servitude is widespread . . . the vast majority of females in the Indian commercial sex industry are currently victims of sexual servitude or were originally trafficked into the sex trade. India is also home to millions of victims of forced or bonded labor. The Government of India does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. India was placed on Tier 2 Watch List for human trafficking a second consecutive year in 2005. Many of us believe it should be a Tier III country. The State Department's 2004 Report on Religious Freedom also had many harsh words for India's respect for religious freedom. It noted that the Indian government, despite India's constitutional commitment to religious freedom and secular government, was often lax in protecting religious minorities from attack, and in punishing their persecutors. Religious extremists have taken such laxity as a signal that they can attack with impunity. Missionaries were often harassed, and the right to freely choose one's own religion was often violated. Finally, there is abortion. In theory, India only allows abortions for risk to the life of the mother, or ``grave risks'' to her health, or for ``substantial risk'' of fetal impairment. Yet like so many countries where the absolute right to life of the unborn child has been disregarded in a misguided attempt to provide a so-called ``limited'' abortion license, the reality is that there is abortion on demand. Estimates of abortions run as high as 7 million a year. There are some estimates that 17 percent of maternal deaths are due to abortion: so much for ``safe, legal and rare.'' And abortion is not just at the demand of the mother, but often at the demand of relatives who don't want girl babies. The incidence of ``sex-selection abortions'' has reached staggering proportions. As many as 50 million girls and women are missing from India's population as a result of infanticide and abortion. In most countries in the world, there are approximately 105 female births for every 100 males. In India, there are less than 93 women for every 100 men in the population. In one wealthier area of the capital of New Delhi, the sex ratio at birth has dropped to 762 girls for every 1,000 boys, one of the lowest in the entire country. The problem is getting worse as scientific methods of detecting the sex of a baby and of performing abortions are improving. These methods are becoming increasing available even in rural areas. India banned sex-selection abortions in 1996, but the health minister recently admitted that not a single person has ever been convicted or otherwise punished for having carried out sex selective abortions. UNICEF has warned that unless steps are taken to address the problem, India will soon face severe social problems, not least increased trafficking of women, which is already an enormous problem. As more and more girls are aborted or murdered after birth, more and more poor women and girls will be trafficked. All of this background will provide the context for today's hearing. India's Dalits and tribal peoples are victims of all the human rights violations prevalent in India, and to a far greater extent than most other Indians. According to India's caste system, Dalits are impure, and even their shadow can pollute. Dalits are discriminated against, denied access to land and forced to work in degrading conditions. Dalit men, women, and children numbering in the tens of millions work as agricultural laborers for a few pounds of rice or less than a dollar a day. Their upper-caste employers frequently use caste as a cover for exploitative economic arrangements. In India's own version of ``apartheid,'' entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste. Dalits dare not even walk in the part of the village occupied by higher castes. They may not use the same wells, visit the same temples, drink from the same cups in tea stalls, or lay claim to land that is legally theirs. Dalit children are frequently made to sit in the back of classrooms. Most Dalits continue to live in extreme poverty, without land or opportunities for better employment or education. India has a policy of quotas in education and government jobs to benefit Dalits and tribal peoples. But most cannot afford primary education, so their literacy rates remain very low and only a small minority can benefit from these quotas. Dalits are routinely abused at the hands of the police and of higher caste group that enjoys the state's protection. According to India's National Crime Records Bureau, in 2000, the last year for which figures are available, 25,455 crimes were committed against Dalits. Every hour two Dalits were assaulted; every day three Dalit women were raped, two Dalits were murdered, and two Dalit homes were torched. And most experts believe that these numbers are grossly underreported, since Dalits are afraid to report crimes to police, and when they do, police often refused to register or investigate their complaints. In 2001 Amnesty International estimated that only about 5 percent of sexual assaults were registered, and that police officers dismissed at least 30 percent of rape complaints as false. Approximately eighty percent of the tribal population lives below the poverty level. Despite constitutional safeguards, the rights of indigenous groups in the eastern parts of the country are often ignored. In recent years, crime against the tribes has risen. Indigenous peoples suffer discrimination and harassment, are deprived of their land, and subjected to torture and to arbitrary arrest. Mob violence, lynching, arson, and police atrocities against tribal persons occur in many states. Dalits and tribal peoples suffer horribly from human trafficking. Dalit girls have been forced to become temple prostitutes as devadasis, or ``servants of god,'' a practice where they are ``married'' to a deity or temple where they are then forced to have sex with upper caste men and are eventually sold into prostitution. In 2001, more than 40,000 tribal women were forced into situations of economic and sexual exploitation. An estimated 40 million people, most of them Dalits, are bonded workers, many working to pay off debts that were incurred generations ago, according to a 1999 report by Human Rights Watch. These people work under slave-like conditions for less than U.S. $1 per day. Fifteen million are children, and according to UNICEF, the majority are from the lowest castes. Dalits and tribal peoples are often the targets of Hindu religious extremism as well. Over the years, many Dalits and tribal groups have converted from Hinduism to other faiths to escape widespread discrimination and achieve higher social status. However, such converts often lose benefits conferred by the Government's affirmative action programs because these, according to the Constitution, are reserved only for those having scheduled caste status. Converts to Christianity are particularly targeted. Christian missionaries have been operating schools and medical clinics for many years in tribal areas and among the very poor, and tribal peoples and Dalits have made great strides as a result. Hindu extremists resent these gains for disturbing the traditional social order, since better educated Dalits and tribals no longer accept their disadvantaged status as readily as they once did. Some Hindu groups fear that Christians may try to convert large numbers of lower caste Hindus, using economic or social welfare incentives. Many acts of violence against Christians stem from these fears, and most go unpunished. Many states have also adopted anti-conversion laws, in violation of India's constitutional protection for religious freedom. In many cases, India has very good laws to protect the human rights of its citizens, although new and tougher legislation against trafficking is clearly necessary. But the best laws in the world are useless unless there is vigorous enforcement, and all too often, enforcement of laws protecting human rights is weak or non-existent. As an American I can easily understand the difficulty in a democratic, federal system of confronting deeply ingrained social prejudices against a minority, but that difficulty must be faced and overcome in any nation which aspires to its rightful place as one of the great nations in the world. To keep nearly a quarter of one's population in subhuman status is not only a grotesque violation of human rights, but it is a formula for economic and political stagnation as well. Once in America, we deprived African Americans of the most basic rights and opportunities. This was especially true in our Southern states, which were once a byword for poverty and backwardness among people of all races. For a long time we refused to act at a national level to stop lynchings, often arguing that it was a local problem. Yet we all suffered the consequences of shutting off a huge segment of our population from equality and justice. Now, after the civil rights movement ended all legal basis for discrimination, and lynching is only a shameful memory, the Southern states are among the most economically dynamic in America, and all regions of America enjoy unprecedented prosperity. By fulfilling its promises of equality and justice for all, India will also benefit in every way imaginable.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 248, I am very pleased to bring this timely resolution before the House today. I thank the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of the Committee on International Relations, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a Holocaust survivor himself, for crafting this measure in honor of an extraordinary man who has passed from our midst, Simon Wiesenthal. Known as the ``Conscience of the Holocaust,'' Mr. Wiesenthal deserves recognition and the deepest respect by the Congress of the United States. Simon Wiesenthal died at the age of 97 in Vienna, Austria on September 20, 2005. A Ukrainian architect and civil engineer by training, he survived five Nazi death camps during World War II. Yet, he lost a staggering 89 relatives in the Holocaust. Mr. Wiesenthal lived by his own words. ``There is no freedom without justice,'' he would say. Living in Europe, almost literally among the ashes of the 6 million victims of the Holocaust, he began the tedious work of tracing and tracking war criminals who had been overlooked by the first waves of prosecutions by the allies and the new European governments. He worked meticulously and judiciously, sticking to the evidence at hand and avoiding any sensationalism. This occasionally brought him in conflict with others, but that was his way. The killers who managed Hitler's factories of death could never rest. Simon Wiesenthal was tireless in his pursuit of them. His dedication and dogged determination was instrumental in the capture and conviction of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Nazi plan to annihilate European Jewry, as well as Karl Silberbauer, the Gestapo officer who committed many heinous crimes including the arrest of Anne Frank. While many Nazis eluded immediate justice at the end of World War II, many did not escape it forever, thanks to Simon Wiesenthal. Today, as we fight anti-Semitism across the OSCE region, Europe and the Middle East and in Asia, we remember his legacy and act on the lessons of the Holocaust. His noble work was fueled by a passion for justice that has and will inspire others. In the United States, his example and inspiration led to the establishment of the Office of Special Investigations which allowed war criminals who found their way to our shores to be brought to justice. As noted in the resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has offices in L.A., Paris, New York, Toronto, Miami, Jerusalem and Buenos Aires, which has become a leading institution in advocating both remembrance and tolerance so as to help prevent future genocides, was named in his honor. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris, I would point out to my colleagues, testified at two Helsinki hearings that I chaired, and we inducted Shimon Samuels, who provided expert testimony on the deterioration of respect for Jews in Europe, the United States and Canada. Also, I would point out to my colleagues that the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center participated this past June in the U.S. delegation to the Cordoba OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism and Other Forms of Intolerance. Mr. Speaker, Congress honored Simon Wiesenthal with a Gold Medal, and he won countless other forms of recognition from grateful individuals in governments from around the world. Simon Wiesenthal confronted humanity with the truth about those who masterminded and carried out the Holocaust. As a testament to the memory of the millions of victims, he gave meaning to the words ``never again'' by helping us to learn from the lessons of the past. Now that he has passed away, we must resolve to continue his work, as is urged upon us in this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, I would especially like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as I said earlier, a Holocaust survivor himself, for his very clear and unambiguous statement in support of human rights globally, but especially as it relates to a very disturbing trend with regards to anti-Semitism, and for his eulogy today, on the floor, to his dear friend, Simon Wiesenthal.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 248) honoring the life and work of Simon Wiesenthal and reaffirming the commitment of Congress to the fight against anti-Semitism and intolerance in all forms, in all forums, and in all nations, 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. 248.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that October is National Spina Bifida Awareness Month and to pay tribute to the more than 250,000 Americans in the Spina Bifida Community, including family members and caregivers. There are an estimated 70,000 people in the United States who are currently living with Spina Bifida, the most common permanently disabling birth defect. I am proud to be the Co-Chairman, along with Representative Bart Stupak, of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus and encourage all of my colleagues to join the caucus. Together we can help to improve the quality of life of those living with Spina Bifida and their families. The Spina Bifida Association of America (SBAA) is the organization that has helped those living with and affected by this debilitating disease for over 30 years. The SBAA was founded in 1973 and is the nation's only organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the Spina Bifida community. Through their almost 60 chapters in more than 125 communities, the SBAA brings expectant parents together with those who have a child who suffers from this disease. This interaction helps to answer questions and concerns, but most importantly it lends much needed support. The good news is that due to breakthroughs in research and improvements in health care and treatment, children with Spina Bifida are now living to become adults with Spina Bifida. Together the SBAA and the SBA of the Tri-State Region work tirelessly to help the families of those living with Spina Bifida meet the challenges and enjoy the rewards of raising their children to adulthood. I would like to commend the local chapter of SBAA in my State of New Jersey for all they have done and all that they will continue to do. As we recently were reminded, in the wake of a natural disaster, people with disabilities are the most vulnerable. The SBAA chapter in my State of New Jersey is a partner in the SB Hurricane Emergency Lifesupport Program, which was established to help get vitally needed supplies to the estimated 10,000 people with Spina Bifida and their families who were victims of the hurricanes in the Gulf Region. Spina Bifida is a neural tube defect that happens in the first month of pregnancy when the spinal column doesn't close completely. Spina Bifida is a birth defect that can happen to anyone. There are 60 million women at risk of having a baby born with Spina Bifida. Everyday, an average of 8 babies are affected by Spina Bifida or a similar birth defect of the brain and spine. Each year, about 3,000 pregnancies are affected by these birth defects. While we do not know the exact cause of Spina Bifida, research has shown that if a woman takes 400 micrograms of folic acid every day and before she becomes pregnant, she reduces her risk of having a baby with Spina Bifida or another neural tube defect by as much as 70 percent. The cause of the remaining cases is unknown, but it is believed genetics and environment may play a role. Today, approximately 90 percent of all babies diagnosed with Spina Bifida live into adulthood, approximately 80 percent have normal IQ's, and approximately 75 percent participate in sports and other recreational activities. With proper medical attention and family care these people can live productive full lives with the assistance of braces and/or a wheelchair. There are breakthroughs every year that benefit the quality of life for those living with Spina Bifida. Research is the key to a better life for those who live with Spina Bifida. Our goals are to develop better treatments, better understanding of causes and new ways to prevent Spina Bifida. The SBAA has many special events throughout the year to engender greater support for the Spina Bifida community. I congratulate them on occasion of their 17th annual Washington event for the media that is taking place this week. I again wish to thank the SBAA and its chapters for all of their hard work to prevent and reduce suffering for those 70,000 individuals living with Spina Bifida throughout the nation. We all owe a great debt to the SBAA for what they have done.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to help poor farmers in African nations who are being undercut and devastated by the continued subsidies some of the world's wealthiest countries offer to their own farmers. Developed world subsidies drive down global prices for farm products. For farmers in wealthy nations, this often involves the amount of profit possible; for African farmers, this involves their very survival. Since more than 70 percent of Africans depend on the agricultural sector for their livelihoods, normalizing global agricultural trade is an issue of life or death for many African farmers who have few, if any, alternatives to farm Income. For every six dollars daily the United States and the nations of the European Union spend on agricultural subsidies in their own nations, we spend one dollar on official aid to developing countries. This means that the positive impact of our aid programs is being undercut by trade-distorting subsidies, which are crushing the very people our aid is intended to help. Developed countries agreed to negotiate a multilateral end to agricultural subsidies through the World Trade Organization with a target date of January 1st of this year. That deadline was missed, and the current Doha round of WTO trade talks may fail, largely because of the issue of continuing agricultural subsidies. President Bush recently reiterated America's commitment to accelerate the end of all developed world agricultural subsidies. American cotton subsidies have been said to endanger the welfare of African cotton farmers in several African nations, but European dairy and meat subsidies pose an even broader threat to African farm incomes. When a Japanese cow can produce more daily revenue than even the most industrious African farmer, something is seriously wrong with the economic order. Curtailing developed world agricultural subsidies will allow Africans to be more self-sufficient. It is estimated that such a change would result in as much as a 45 percent increase in the net agricultural trade by sub-Saharan Africa and a 5.1 percent increase in African farm income. It is the responsibility of our government, as well as other governments, to address the needs of our farmers, but it should not be done at the expense of low-income African farmers. This resolution, cosponsored by Mr. Payne, Mr. Royce, Mr. Flake and Mr. Meeks, calls for a multilateral end to agricultural subsidies as quickly as possible and for developed nations to work with African nations to mutually remove remaining impediments to equitable agricultural trade in the global marketplace.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Chairman Gutknecht), for offering this legislation. It is very timely and extremely important. I also thank him for his sensitivity to our Nation's Gold Star Mothers who have suffered so much. I am proud to rise today, Mr. Speaker, to strongly support H.J. Res. 61, which recognizes a group of very, very special women, American's Gold Star Mothers. These women are from different parts of our great country and have different backgrounds, are of varying age, hold different beliefs, and practice different religions. Despite so many differences, they share the same experience. Each of these women raised a young man or woman who served their country in the Armed Forces. Their children helped to bring freedom and promote peace and justice for those who have never felt its touch. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, each raised a young man or woman who gave their life for their country, the ultimate sacrifice. These special women, the Gold Star Mothers of America, are members of a congressionally chartered organization. They are part of a group that had its beginning in the first great conflict of the 20th century, World War I. At the time, service flags were displayed on homes that had family members serving the country and blue stars were displayed for each family member in the Armed Forces. Eventually, as casualties grew, the blue stars were turned to gold stars in recognition of each servicemember who died for their country. In 1936, as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Chairman Gutknecht), said, Congress designated the last Sunday in September as Gold Star Mothers Day. Mr. Speaker, as we know, their loss is unimaginable, their pain is unspeakable; yet these women find the spirit to walk together simply for the benefit of others and to work very hard for the benefit of others, to make sure that each of us remembers the sacrifice of their son or beloved daughter. They have a unique ability to remind us of our noble cause, ensuring that we will forever remember that America's freedom originated and is maintained through a constant struggle that is still being fought today. In addition, they remind us that the decision to send troops into harm's way is made with severe consequence, the loss of the precious life of a young American. The way in which these ladies channel their sorrow, their grief, their anger, to further the ideals to which their sons and daughters gave their lives, is truly remarkable. The actions of these women are amazing. I have met them for years as a Member of this Congress. Every year we would have them testify before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and then in meetings afterwards, as well as in my own district and State, and I have met with so many Gold Star Mothers who tell their stories of their son or daughter, often accompanied with tears. But they can also teach us a very important lesson, Mr. Speaker. At a time when overt partisanship seems rampant, while our country yearns so desperately for its people to come together on so many fronts, the Gold Star Mothers represent the very best of American values and ideals. If they, despite their grief, can come together to provide so much to other veterans and the community at large, surely we can all take the time to let them know that their country is proud of them and salutes them on their Mothers Day.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I chaired a hearing examining the implementation of PL 108-484, the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004. Earlier this year, I traveled to coastal areas of Indonesia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka which had been devastated by the tsunami. The destruction from those 50-foot-high waves was almost total, and the vast majority of individuals affected were fisherman and other working poor whose boats and nets and livelihoods had been completely swept away. While they gratefully received the emergency food, aid and shelter which our military and our USAID disaster relief teams so efficiently provided, in the medium term, what these folks really needed and wanted was a small loan to enable them to rebuild their businesses and become self-sufficient again. The same could be said of areas in our own country which have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. While I am not aware of any microloan programs operating in New Orleans, having read Dr. Morduch's testimony which he will give later today, I do know that a microcredit group, Accion New York, serves over 6,000 customers in the New York metropolitan area. Whether here or abroad, I have long been a fan of microcredit programs because I have seen them work. The term ``foreign aid'' often has a bad connotation--and there are some good reasons why, too. Many times in the past, foreign aid was delivered in a topdown manner to corrupt governments and organizations, where it never really reached the intended recipients. Microenterprise, on the other hand, takes a totally different approach. It's a ``trickle-up'' approach that focuses on helping the poorest people on the planet build themselves up, little by little, into self-sufficiency by giving them access to financing. The success of microenterprise lending programs to empower entrepreneurs and borrowers in the developing world cannot be overstated. Over two million clients are currently benefiting from USAID-assisted programs that provide the necessary capital through small loans, usually of a few hundred dollars or less, for entrepreneurs to start and expand their own small businesses. It is estimated that 97 percent of microenterprise loans are successfully repaid and 70 percent go to women, who are often very vulnerable, subjected to abuse, and in need of economic opportunities in the developing world. Microenterprise is a key vehicle to assist victims of trafficking and to raise the social and economic status of women around the world. Microenterprise also complements the principles President Bush has outlined for more effective foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Account, and is a key component for fulfilling the UN's Millennium Development Goals to eradicate world poverty by the year 2015. Business owners assisted by micro-lending are not only able to increase their own incomes, but through their own efforts, they create jobs and help economies grow. Success stories from the beneficiaries of microenterprise are quite numerous. Take for example, Dorothy Eyiah from Ghana. Dorothy was resourceful, but she had no idea how she was going to support her AIDS- stricken sister and family when she brought them into her home in Ghana. She used to support herself selling ice, but that wasn't going to pay for the food and medicines she now needed. She started praying. All doors seemed shut until Dorothy met some women within her village who were part of an Opportunity International Trust Bank. The Trust Bank could help her grow a small business--providing her with financing, training, support. Five loans later, Dorothy is the secretary of her Trust Bank and runs three businesses, employing nine people from her village. She is content. Her sister is comfortable, all the children are in school, and their needs are being met. ``God has been so good to me,'' she says. Success stories such as this are what microfinance and the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004 are all about. By building the best possible microenterprise program, we will be able to reach the greatest possible number of poor people with services that truly have an impact on their lives. As we compare the effectiveness of various methods of implementing microcredit programs, success will be measured by the ability to reach very poor people and other underserved populations, including women, and by the kind of impact these programs have on poor families. We are concerned not only with the efficient delivery of financial services, but also with the well-being of those who receive those services. We want to see poor people work their way out of poverty, increase their income, build their assets, and grow their businesses, and we also want to see them educate their children, achieve greater self-esteem, strengthen their families, and improve the quality of their lives. I introduced the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004 at the beginning of the 108th Congress, and the final product represents the culmination of months of hard work and discussion by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate, members of the microenterprise community, and USAID, to build upon one of our most progressive and successful foreign aid programs. This legislation is primarily about ensuring better results, not authorizing additional money. A comprehensive GAO report completed in November 2003 revealed that oversight and accountability of microenterprise programs administered by USAID is weak, and that programs are not having the desired effect of reaching the very poor-- those earning less than the equivalent of $1/day--to the greatest extent possible. In response to those concerns, PL 108-484 builds-in accountability through a focus on cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The law establishes a dedicated Microenterprise Office within USAID which will approve strategic plans of field missions, establish a monitoring system in order to maximize the impact of programs and measure results, and coordinate preparation of a yearly report to Congress. The legislation also ensures that more funds go to the ``very poor'' through the development and implementation of easy-to-use, cost- effective poverty assessment techniques. Identifying and targeting the poorest potential clients who would stand to benefit most from microenterprise loans has proven to be more difficult than originally anticipated. I am hopeful that once developed, these poverty assessment techniques may prove useful not only for microenterprise but also in other areas of our foreign aid. PL 108-484 also stipulates that USAID should emphasize the use of global microfinance networks and other non-profit private voluntary organizations in the implementation of microenterprise and microfinance programs. In the last two years, I am concerned that USAID has been shifting its focus away from non-profit organizations and networks to contractors in the implementation of the Agency's microenterprise program. While for-profit entities such as consulting firms are making excellent contributions in the areas of technical assistance, research and policy reform, global microfinance networks and non-profit private voluntary organizations have the operational experience and track record in microenterprise and microfinance service delivery to poor people. These organizations are able to get resources directly to clients, and are well positioned to reach the very poorest economically active entrepreneurs in the countries where they work. Further, such networks have built self-sustaining microfinance institutions that now cover, on average, almost all of their operating costs. More than $150 million in earned revenue was captured by these institutions in 2002 to cover their operating costs, in addition to private donations that have added significant leverage to USAID's investments. These networks have excelled in rapidly developing microfinance institutions in volatile and risky situations, including during the early stages of a country's transition from war to peace. When we provide microloans for the developing world, we export values upon which our nation is based upon, including the ideal that if you work hard and dream big, you can succeed.