Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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, 14 years ago, Albania was just emerging from decades of brutal isolation from Europe when they held their first genuinely contested elections in 1991. Not surprisingly, they fell short of the standards for free and fair elections as defined by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, as did subsequent elections for parliament and local government. The United States and other friends of Albania, however, remained engaged with the Albanian people throughout their turbulent transition. Today, Albania is at the point where the country can actually hold free and fair elections, something the citizens of that country deeply deserve. Parliamentary elections have been scheduled, as Members of this House know, for July 3, and the campaign period is well underway. Staff in the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, will be serving on the international observation mission. Albania has come far in reforming its election process and through these elections has the opportunity to jump a major hurdle not only towards completion of its transition to democracy, but in preparing for integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions. There is good reason to remain concerned, however, that the elections will fall short of international standards. The good things that have been adopted, such as the Code of Conduct adopted by key political parties, may not be carried out. The OSCE's election observer mission has reported receiving an increased number of allegations of legal misuse of state resources and personnel for campaign purposes. If found to be true, those engaged in this activity would be responsible for what would be regarded as a tremendous setback for the country. Hopefully, by passing this resolution, we can encourage Albanian authorities to respect the rule of law, to abide by their Code of Conduct, and respect the results of the upcoming election. When my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), and I first introduced this resolution, it was with the expectation the U.S. Congress could constructively make a difference by calling on the authorities, political parties, and others to do the right thing so that the real winners in the elections will be the people of Albania who make the effort to vote. Finally, I am hopeful these elections will meet international standards, because that is one of the first steps Albania will need to take on the path to full Euro-Atlantic integration. The new Albanian government will also need to tackle problems relating to official corruption and organized crime. Fortunately, beyond a good election process, we must see the development of civil society in Albania, with the youth groups and others pressing elected officials to address the every day problems that plague the lives of Albanian citizens. I hope my colleagues will support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to conclude. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for this partnership resolution, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and others. We had 27 cosponsors of this resolution. Last July in the Commission on Security Cooperation in Europe, we held a hearing in Albania. We heard from a number of important and prominent witness, including representatives of MJAFT! which is the youth organization that is doing some important pioneering and important work in Albania today. I want to thank them for their work as well.

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. 155.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 199) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues on the Committee on Ways and Means. I also commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for offering this legislation which would renew the Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 for Burma and the import restrictions that are contained in that important legislation. As my colleagues know, Burma today remains one of the most repressive military dictatorships in the world, where human rights are routinely and systematically repressed and violated. So it is fitting and necessary that Congress today is moving to renew this important legislation. The Burmese dictatorship today incarcerates 1,400 political prisoners and continues to harass and repress one of the bravest leaders of our time, Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who, by the way, turned 60 this past weekend. I, like many other Members in this body, have tried to get into Burma to press for human rights; and my visa, like others, has been turned down, denying Member of Congress the opportunity to even meet with the military junta that continues to repress its citizens. Madam Speaker, up to 70,000 child soldiers are exploited in Burma, more than any other country in the world. Up to 2 million people have been forced to flee the country as refugees and migrants. Burning of villages continues in eastern Burma, especially in Karen and Karenni states. And Aung San Suu Kyi continues to be persecuted and harassed by this brutal dictatorship. Sanctions do work, I say to my colleagues. But they often take time. Other countries, I'm happy to say, are beginning to follow the lead of the United States. In a major and important move, the European Union in October 2004 followed the lead of the United States and significantly strengthened its sanctions in Burma, including a ban on investments in enterprises of the ruling regime and a strengthened visa ban. The EU also pledged to join the United States in opposing loans to Burma's regime from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Support at the United Nations is growing as well. Burma was one of the few countries on the resolution's list that passed at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I was there in Geneva working that resolution as well as resolutions on Cuba, Sudan, and Belaurus, and it was as one of the few that made it through. After the United States Senate and the House passed resolutions in October 2004 calling on the Security Council to address the situation in Burma, the Parliament of Australia followed suit. Their motion called on the government to support the Burmese National League for Democracy's call for the U.N. Security Council to convene a special session to consider what further measures the U.N. can take to encourage democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma. Additionally, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council to address the situation in Burma as a matter of urgency. Additionally, 289 members of our friends in the British Parliament tabled a motion calling on the U.N. Security Council to address the situation in Burma. There has even been unprecedented action within the ASEAN countries. Whereas in the past they refused to even comment on what they deemed to be Burma's internal affairs, many members of that organization are now publicly pressing Burma to step aside as the chair of the association in 2006. The tough approach maintained by the U.S. toward Burma, including import sanctions and a possible boycott of 2006 meetings, is encouraging many Asian countries to rethink whether the Burmese regime should assume that rotating chairmanship. There is widespread belief within the leadership of the ASEAN countries that Burma has failed, and failed miserably, to deliver on its promises to the region. All in all, and I point to these above-mentioned instances, the strong stand of the United States, and I commend President Bush and former President Clinton because both have been united in their belief that Burma needs to be sanctioned and isolated in a way that hopefully leads to reform and change. Moreover, our resolution to promote freedom and democracy in Burma has stiffened the backbones of many countries around the world. Today the EU, the U.N., and ASEAN countries are moving in the right direction to take a strong stand against Burma's dictatorship. And to Aung San Suu Kyi: Your courage and goodness and persistence are beyond extraordinary. Our prayers are with you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today in the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and Africa, I chaired a timely and critical hearing that examined the government of Vietnam's respect for human rights and religious freedom. Our witnesses included Ms. Nina Shea, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Ms. Minky Worden, Media Director, Human Rights Watch; Ms. Helen Ngo, Chairwoman Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam; Dr. Nguyen Than, Executive Director, Boat People S.O.S.; Mr. Vo Van Ai, President, Vietnam Committee on Human Rights; Mr. Y Khim Nie, Executive Director, Montagnard Human Rights Organization. The excellent testimony these witnesses provided can be found online (http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/) Before I report on the human rights crisis in Vietnam, let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I remain deeply concerned about obtaining a full, thorough and responsible accounting of the remaining American MIAs from the Vietnam conflict. As my colleagues know well, of the 2,583 POW/MIAs who were unaccounted for--Vietnam, 1,921; Laos, 569; Cambodia, 83; and China, 10--just under 1,400 remain unaccounted for in Vietnam. While the joint POW/MIA accounting command normally conducts four joint field activities per year in Vietnam, I remain deeply concerned that the government of Vietnam could be more forthcoming and transparent in providing the fullest accounting. It is our sacred duty to the families of the missing that we never forget and never cease our pursuit until we achieve the fullest possible accounting of our MIAs. Today's hearing on human rights abuses in Vietnam must be reviewed in the context of the official visit this week to Washington by Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai. Designed to mark 10 years of diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam, the visit is the highest-level since the end of the Vietnam War. Khai will meet with President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, conclude intelligence agreements on terrorism and transnational crime, as well as begin IMET military cooperation, meet with Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, and ring the bell on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Vietnam hopes to gain U.S. support to join the World Trade Organization this year. Trade with the United States has exploded in the past decade, from $1.5 billion to $6.4 billion in 2004. Vietnamese exports to the United States have also jumped from $800 million in 2001 to $5 billion last year. An outside observer looking at all of this activity would in all likelihood conclude that Vietnam is a close business and political partner of the United States in Asia. And that observer, if asked, would also likely deduce that in order to cooperate so closely, Vietnam must also share the core values of the United States that make our country great. Values such as the promotion of democracy, respect for human rights, and the protection of religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of minorities. A quick look at the State Department's annual Human Rights report on Vietnam, however, reveals the opposite. According to the 2004 report released just three months ago: ``Vietnam is a one-party state, ruled and controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). . . . The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses. The Government continued to deny citizens the right to change their government. Several sources reported that security forces shot, detained, beat, and were responsible for the disappearances of persons during the year. Police also reportedly sometimes beat suspects during arrests, detention, and interrogation. . . . The Government continued to hold political and religious prisoners. . . . The Government significantly restricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. . . . Security forces continued to enforce restrictions on public gatherings and travel in some parts of the country, particularly in the Central Highlands and the Northwest Highlands. The Government prohibited independent political, labor, and social organizations. . . . The Government restricted freedom of religion and prohibited the operation of unregistered religious organizations. Participants in unregistered organizations faced harassment as well as possible detention and imprisonment. The Government imposed limits on freedom of movement of some individuals whom it deemed a threat. The Government did not permit human rights organizations to form or operate. Moreover, in September 2004, the State Department designated Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' or ``CPC'' for its systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom. Congress has also expressed its grave concern about the state of human rights in Vietnam. The House of Representatives has twice passed legislation authored by me on human rights in Vietnam. H.R. 1587, The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004, passed the House by a 323-45 vote in July of 2004. A similar measure passed by a 410-1 landslide in the House in 2001. The measures called for limiting further increases of non-humanitarian U.S. aid from being provided to Vietnam if certain human rights provisions were not met, and authorized funding to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia and funding to support non- governmental organizations which promote human rights and democratic change in Vietnam. Regrettably, both bills stalled in Senate committees and have not been enacted into law. I regret that no one from the State Department was available to participate in today's hearing to explain the incongruity of United States support for the government of Vietnam, as expressed in our close and growing-ever-closer trade and military relations, and U.S. concern for the appalling lack of respect for the basic human rights of its citizens that the Vietnamese government has consistently demonstrated. The Human Rights Reports, the Report on International Religious Freedom, the Trafficking in Persons Report, the reports of leading international human rights organizations, and countless witnesses, some of whose testimonies were provided today, give evidence to the fact that the government of Vietnam has inflicted and continues to inflict terrible suffering on countless people. It is a regime that arrests and imprisons writers, scientists, academics, religious leaders and even veteran communists in their own homes, and lately in Internet cafes, for speaking out for freedom and against corruption. In fact, the comments I am making right now would easily fetch me a 15-year prison sentence replete with torture if I were a Vietnamese national or Member of Parliament making these comments in Vietnam. It is a government that crushes thousands of Montagnard protestors, as they did in the Central Highlands during Easter weekend in 2004, killing and beating many peaceful protestors. The government has forcibly closed over 400 Christian churches in the Central Highlands, and the government continues to force tens of thousands of Christians to renounce their faith. I would note here that it is inspiring but not unexpected that many of these Christians have steadfastly resisted those pressures and refused to renounce Christ. One pastor estimated that 90 percent have refused to renounce their Christian faith, despite government efforts to compel them to do so. This is a government that has detained the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and continues to attempt to control the leadership of the Catholic Church. This is a government that imprisoned a Catholic priest by the name of Father Ly and meted out a 10-year prison sentence. Father Ly was imprisoned in 2001 when he was arrested after submitting testimony to a hearing of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. In his testimony, he criticized the communist government of Vietnam for its policies of repressing religious freedom. In fact, I was the author of H. Con. Res. 378, which called for the immediate release of Father Ly and cleared Congress 424-1 on May 12, 2004. Thankfully Father Ly, along with Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, were released from prison earlier this year, in all likelihood due to the pressure from the United States with its CPC designation. Their release was part of a process called for in the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, which I cosponsored, which mandates that the U.S. government engage in dialogue with severe violators of religious freedom to improve conditions or face ``Presidential actions,'' which could include sanctions or withdrawal of non-humanitarian assistance. The Vietnamese government also took some other positive steps in response to the CPC designation, including a new law streamlining the application process for religious groups registering with the government and prime ministerial directives which prohibit forced renunciations of faith and allow Protestant ``house churches'' in ethnic minority provinces to operate if they renounce connections to certain expatriate groups, particularly the Montagnard Foundation, which is based in the United States. And in May, the State Department announced it had reached an agreement on religious freedom with Vietnam. Under the agreement, the Vietnamese government committed to: Fully implement the new legislation on religious freedom and to render previous contradictory regulations obsolete; Instruct local authorities to strictly and completely adhere to the new legislation and ensure their compliance; Facilitate the process by which religious congregations are able to open houses of worship; and Give special consideration to prisoners and cases of concern raised by the United States during the granting of prisoner amnesties. Time will tell whether the government will respect this agreement and comply with its provisions, or whether there will be a return to business as usual once the spotlight is removed. But the agreement does shows that the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act seem to be helping to improve the respect for religious freedom in some of the worst violator countries. The more important point is that religious freedom is not a matter of compliance with an agreement, but an attitude of respect for citizens who choose to worship and peacefully practice their religious beliefs that extends from the highest government leaders down to local authorities and the village police. In a recent interview given prior to his visit to the United States, Prime Minister Khai stated, ``we have no prisoners of conscience in Vietnam,'' and declared that ``political reforms and economic reforms should be closely harmonized.'' His statement is typical of the attitude of the government of Vietnam, which has scoffed at the Vietnam Human Rights Act and dismissed charges of human rights abuses, pleading the tired mantra of interference in the internal affairs of their government and that our struggle is some way related to the war in Vietnam. They say, Vietnam is a country, not a war. That is their protest, and I would say that is precisely the issue. The hearing we held today was about the shameful human rights record of a country, more accurately, of a government that abuses the rights of its own people. And, of course, Vietnam is a country with millions of wonderful people who yearn to breathe free and to enjoy the blessings of liberty. We say, behave like an honorable government, stop bringing dishonor and shame to your government by abusing your own people and start abiding by internationally recognized U.N. covenants that you have signed. When is enough, enough? Vietnam needs to come out of the dark ages of repression, brutality and abuse and embrace freedom, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental human rights. Vietnam needs to act like the strategic partner of the United States we would like it to be, treating its citizens, even those who disagree with government policies, with respect and dignity. Human rights are central, are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any region of the world.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for offering this very important amendment, which would hopefully lead to the creation of a code of conduct to ensure that U.N. employees and officials, as well as U.N. member states, reduce, hopefully eliminate absolutely, anti-Semitic language and anti-Semitic resolutions. I point out to my colleagues, we have had an ongoing series of hearings in my subcommittee, as well as in the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, concerning this spike in anti-Semitism that we have seen. The first hearing we held was back in 1995, and then in 2002 we saw a particularly alarming spike in countries that make up the OSCE region, particularly in France and the Netherlands and some of these other countries. Part of it is some of the hatred is being carried by emigres into their new home, that is to say, France and places like that; and as was pointed out by my colleague, some of the absolute, some of the most despicable, slanders against Jewish people are being carried uncontested. We now, in the OSCE, have had three major summits. Last week in Spain in Cordova at a summit, nations sent ambassadors and heads of states and foreign ministers to Spain, as we did in Vienna and as we did in Berlin last year, to look at what the best practices ought to be to try to end this scourge of anti-Semitism; and very good action plans have been adopted. The U.N. needs to take a page out of the OSCE and develop the kind of action plans and sensitivity to this terrible prejudice because, if left unchecked, it will fester and lay the seeds for acts of violence against Jews as well as desecration of cemeteries, as well as synagogues. So let me finally say that last year, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), Senator Voinovich, and I all crafted the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which created an office within the State Department and also mandated that global reports be done. I urge Members to read those reports, one of which just came out earlier this year. It is a very, very disturbing read about this growing menace of anti-Semitism; and the U.N., rather than being a part of the solution, has for too often been part of the problem. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is, without a doubt, tough but necessary medicine designed to effectuate systematic and sustainable reforms at the United Nations bureaucracies, its missions, and programs. It is serious and refuses to accept business as usual. And nowhere is the need for massive reform more compelling than in the realm of human rights. Over the years we have heard calls for reform. Time and again they have fallen on deaf ears. In a bizarre rendition of George Orwell's Animal Farm, countries which severely violate human rights of their own citizens are members in good standing at the U.N. Human Rights Commission and as such sit as judge and jury of human rights conditions around the world. ECOSOC, the United Nations body which appoints states to the Human Rights Commission, facilitates this cruel hoax, which guarantees dysfunction at the human rights body, and allows violators and violating countries to continue to be placed on the Commission with no accountability whatsoever because of its secret voting procedures. Even U.N. officials have admitted the Commission is not doing its job. A U.N. high-level panel in December of 2004 concluded that the UNCHR's credibility and professionalism has been undermined due to the active undermining of the work of the Commission by members with poor human rights records. In March, U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan told the Commission, and I quote him, ``unless we remake our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations.'' Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in March I was in Geneva for the Human Rights Commission for the umpteenth time. I first started going back when Armando Valladares, that great human rights leader in Cuba, was appointed as our ambassador by Ronald Reagan. And I had seen over these many years that that body has gone from bad to worse. There was no resolution, for example, this year on Zimbabwe, called an outpost of tyranny by Secretary Rice. There was no resolution on Turkmenistan, the most repressive of the 55 countries of the OSCE, whose government bulldozes mosques, tortures Christians and closes rural hospitals. And there is no resolution on the People's Republic of China, despite the fact that they have an egregious human rights record and routinely torture and maim, especially those who are political dissidents, and those who practice their faith, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Tibet or the Muslims. China persecutes all of those individuals, by the tens of thousands, including the Falun Gong, and yet there was no resolution on China. Resolutions, I am happy to say, against Belarus and Cuba were approved, but that was because President Bush himself and Rudy Boschwitz, who led our delegation, and Ambassador Moley and others did a Herculean job of getting countries that were likely not to support them to do so, but it took their personal lobbying. It was not about their human rights records, it was about trying to motivate these countries to do the work that they should have done otherwise. Even the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court Justice from Canada, told me in a conversation I had in Geneva just a few weeks ago that she believes the atmosphere at the Commission on Human Rights is surreal, her word, and that there is, quote, no intellectual engagement or serious consideration on the issues. The current model is ill-suited to the task, she noted, in which the Commission is both the adjudicator and the implementor of human rights. She said, and I quote her again, the process needs to reinvent itself, and that is precisely what Congressman Hyde is trying to do with this, very strong language, very strong piece of legislation; to finally say, time to put away the games and speak truth to power, especially to these dictatorships. I would just point out to my colleagues anecdotally that the Commission on Human Rights so often turns human rights on its head. Bob Fu, the president of China Aid Association, and a victim of the Chinese gulag himself, who testified before my subcommittee in April, is just one more example of the hypocrisy of that body. Mr. Fu was physically expelled from the Commission when the Chinese delegation objected and said they felt threatened by the electric shock device that Mr. Fu was showing at a demonstration on how China mistreats and tortures its prisoners. His credentials were taken away, and he was given the boot. But it is not just the Commission on Human Rights that is broken; other human rights bodies that deal with human rights have also strayed from their core mandates and have failed to act against severe human rights violators. Mr. Chairman, despite almost universal acknowledgment of the problems which exist at the U.N. human rights system, there has been little reform; lots of lip service, lots of we will do it next week, we will do it next year; nothing tangible. In fact, it has actually gotten worse over these many years. It is clear more pressure is needed, and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is intended to end this deplorable state of affairs. The legislation mandates that the U.N. adopt criteria for membership on any human rights body. It should be a no-brainer, but this legislation stipulates that countries which fail to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be ineligible for membership. You would think that would be a given. Well, it is not. This legislation tries to ensure that it is a given. Likewise, countries that are subject to sanction by the Security Council, countries that are subjected to country-specific human rights resolutions, or countries that violate the principles of the human rights bodies they aspire to join would be ineligible for membership. In addition to the other criteria, the bill mandates that no human rights body has a standing agenda item that relates only to one country or region. We all know what that is all about. Every time I have been over in Geneva, and I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others have been concerned about this as well, there is a whole agenda item that focuses on Israel. And the Israel bashing is unconscionable, while China and other countries get by scott-free. We had to fight to ensure that Sudan, as the killing and maiming was occurring in Darfur, was even on the agenda. Then there was this attempt made by a number of countries including Sudan and Cuba to water down the language. Genocide is being committed, and they are worrying about upsetting the apple cart and using language that might cause somebody in Khartoum to be upset. H.R. 2745 also mandates that the Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, abolish secret voting, which is an outrage. That is one of the things that ensures that these violator states, these rogue states, get on to the Commission on Human Rights. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that in the Hyde bill there is very strong support for the work of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the need to strengthen and expand its authority to go into regions where human rights monitors are most needed, such as Darfur and eastern Congo. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and to enact the human rights reform contained in this legislation. We need a United Nations which speaks strongly and clearly for the universal respect for and observance of fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of each and every human person, and equal rights of men and women as a foundation for freedom and justice and peace in the world. More high-sounding words will not help the U.N. reform itself. We need the strength of this legislation to do it, and we have a responsibility to do it as the largest donor and as a world leader in the realm of human rights. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2745, pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), or his designee, may be permitted to offer the amendment numbered 5 in Part 2 of House Report 109-132 out of the specified order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Lantos- Shays substitute and to direct Members' attention to a serious flaw in the peacekeeping section, which I respectfully submit are reasons enough to vote against the substitute. The substitute amendment gives the U.N. until 2007 to complete even the most basic tasks. This is completely unnecessary, and I submit only encourages some states who view rape and exploitation of young women and children by U.N. peacekeepers as a mere public relations problem and thus an opportunity to dig in their heels and stall the reform process. Prince Zeid has told some of us, I met with him last week, that sustained pressure is needed to get results. We have been here before. In 2002, we knew about the exploitation of children by U.N. personnel in the Congo. I have already chaired two hearings on it myself in my subcommittee. Yes, the U.N. is moving in the right direction, but there needs to be considerable pressure brought to bear to make this happen. What is perhaps most troubling about the substitute is that it authorizes an up to 10 percent withholding of U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. I want to be clear on this point. The Hyde bill supports full funding of all existing missions, while the substitute authorizes up to a 10 percent cutoff of our assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. The withholding is linked to a certification requirement which is, plain and simple, bad policy. The intent is good. I have no doubt about that. But it is flawed. The substitute requires the Secretary of State to certify that the U.S. permanent rep at the U.N. has made every effort to ensure the formal adoption and implementation of mechanisms to suspend the membership of a member state if genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity are determined to be occurring in that member state regardless of whether the acts are being committed by the government or by a third party. ``Third party'' is the problem. There are countries like the Congo, and we have also seen it in Uganda, where there are ``third-party'' groups of terrorists and killers and maimers who the government would like to see done away with and are actively cooperating with the international community and the U.N. itself to try to mitigate this terrible problem. Under this language, which is very different than the language that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) offered, we would be in a strange and, I think, even bizarre situation where even where there has been an effort made by the state, there could be an explusion and a cutoff of peacekeeping money, 10 percent assessed contribution cutoff. It would be wrong for a state to lose their membership when there was no omission, no commission on their part with regards to crimes against humanity and that is where the Fortenberry amendment got it right. I think we can all agree that genocidal governments do not deserve to have an equal voice at the U.N. with other peacekeeping and peace- loving nations. But we should not punish those governments which are fighting against those who would commit such heinous acts. I think that language is, as I said, egregiously flawed. The Hyde amendment does get it right.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for accepting it in advance because it is a very important amendment. Let me make two very brief points. The Convention against Torture could not be more clear in proscribing any kind of torture. It is never acceptable. The United States is a signatory and has ratified that convention, and that includes, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) pointed out, the outsourcing of torture, and I think his amendment is very, very important. It comes at a very important time. Let me also make the point, too, that next Thursday I will be holding a hearing on the victims of torture. I have written three laws on torture, The Torture Victims Relief Act, as it is called, and two reauthorizations over the last several years, and during the course of hearings that we have held, and we have one set for next Thursday in my subcommittee, we heard from people who actually suffered, the psychological scars that they bear, the post-traumatic stress, the sleepless nights that they endure because they have had to endure severe torture. We want absolutely no part of torture in any manifestation. This amendment makes it very clear. This is already law. This makes it very clear that there is an absolute bright line of demarcation between interrogation methods that are real, that are listed, that are ethical and those that cross that line. So I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. He is in his mid-70s. Twenty-seven years in prison.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. For 25 years, the United Nations Population Fund has been an aggressive and shameful accessory to gross crimes against women and babies in the People's Republic of China. Despite being admonished to do otherwise on countless occasions, the U.N. Population Fund continues to be the chief apologist and enabler for both past and ongoing crimes against humanity. Now the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is offering an amendment that would suspend all U.S. laws, including all of our human rights laws, in order to compel U.S. taxpayer funding for the U.N. Population Fund. The Maloney amendment is written in such a way to immunize UNFPA from having to obey any U.S. law or funding restrictions, including the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion amendments. I strongly urge its defeat. Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the UNFPA has whitewashed, sanitized, and facilitated--it has been an accomplice--in China's barbaric one-child-per-couple coercive population program that has victimized hundreds of millions of women and murdered hundreds of millions of children. As a direct result, there is this exceedingly dangerous statistical demographic anomaly known as the ``missing girls.'' There may be as many as 100 million missing girls in China today, a tragedy beyond words. As a result, there are also on any given day, according to the Country Reports For Human Rights Practices, the human rights report by the State Department, 500 women in China who commit suicide every day. Five hundred. This coercion has a terrible, deleterious effect on Chinese women. As violations of human rights go, coercive population control in China is among the worst and most degrading systematic abuse in human history. Let us not forget or be naive, I say to my colleagues, about the fact that in China today, brothers and sisters are illegal and children can only be born if permission is granted by the state. We all know that in the United States, families get State and Federal tax credits and deductions for their children so they can better cope with economic pressures. In China, on the other hand, there is no welcome mat for children, and Chinese parents have huge fines imposed upon them if they try to bring their children into the world. Unwed mothers are also severely punished in China, and are compelled to abort, even if it is their only one child, the one that they are supposedly permitted to have. China's eugenics policy, which compels the murder of disabled babies, is clearly reminiscent of the Nazis. Those who violate these cruel, inhumane, antichild policies are fined up to 10 times the annual salary of both husband and wife, a draconian penalty that usually ensures that the child, at the end of the day, is aborted. This is China's national policy, Mr. Chairman. In all counties, including UNFPA-supported counties, severe fines are imposed on women who have babies out of plan. Some women do resist. Some women have their children on the run, as they say. Some resist or pay bribes or endure the harsh penalty, the so-called ``social compensation fee.'' Others are forcibly aborted, trussed, and brought into the so-called family planning clinics to have their babies aborted, and some are even tortured, and some are jailed. Last December I chaired yet another hearing on forced abortion in China. I have had about 18 or more hearings over the last several years, and we heard from a woman by the name of Mrs. Mao Hen Feng, a Chinese woman who had been imprisoned and tortured because of her resistance to coercive population control. I would point out to my colleagues, I met with Peng Peiyun, the woman who runs this program, and, during the course of that several-hour conversation, she kept coming back to the fact that, oh, the UNFPA is here. They do not see any coercion. The UNFPA clearly enables the PRC to practice this draconian program, and then they resort to the whitewash and say, but the UNFPA is here, and, again, they do not find any of this. Amazingly, Mr. Chairman, the UNFPA calls China's massive violence against women like Mrs. Mao voluntary family planning, as if cheap sophistry makes it all okay. Just call it voluntary family planning, and it is all okay. It makes the definition of ``voluntary'' a joke. To make matters worse, Mr. Chairman, UNFPA spokesmen gleefully encourage other countries to follow China's disgraceful lead. I hope the majority of our colleagues will have no part in enabling either China or its best friend, the UNFPA, in these horrible abuses. Instead of funding the UNFPA, both they and China should be on trial at the International Criminal Court for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. Talk to these women who have suffered. Look at the terrible loss of life, millions upon millions of babies killed, often right at the ninth month as women try to conceal their pregnancy, and the UNFPA is there on the ground enabling this terrible abuse. They provide cover, respectability, tangible support, and technical capabilities that predictably results in massive acts of cruelty and murder in China. Defeat the Maloney amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. One of the difficulties we had when involved with the arrearage issue some years ago was the fact that for many Americans, it was a shock to learn how much of the voluntary and in- kind contributions the United States did make, which were justified, but for which we got no credit. I think by getting all of the information on assessed, voluntary and in-kind contributions, I think Americans will be amazed, as will international friends around the world in like manner will be amazed, how much the U.S. Government does provide. So often in-kind contributions like airlift for military operations in no way gets on the ledger, so we do not have a thorough and a full accounting of the U.S. contribution and how the money is spent. I commend the gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, the Small Quantities Protocol frees countries from reporting the possession of up to 10 tons of uranium, up to 20 tons of depleted uranium, depending on enrichment, and up to 2.2 pounds of plutonium. Some experts suggest that 10 tons of natural uranium can be processed into sufficient material for up to two nuclear warheads. Iran has already reportedly utilized much smaller quantities of uranium or plutonium in laboratory experiments with suspected links to nuclear arms programs. A recent IAEA internal memorandum reportedly recommended that the agency's board approve no further small quantity protocols and that it grant the IAEA chief the authority to ask that all signatories to the protocol agree to cancel them. This amendment seeks to close the loophole from the inspections regime by, number one, calling for the IAEA to rescind the Small Quantities Protocol; secondly, to require that any nation that has signed the Small Quantities Protocol to have implemented and be in compliance with the additional protocol providing for more stringent inspections; and, third, to prohibit any IAEA members from receiving any nuclear-related material, technology, equipment, or assistance and be subjected to penalties if they do not adhere to the higher inspection standards. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the protocol is out of date in an era marked by secret nuclear programs that have been discovered in Iran, Libya and North Korea, and where the bar is set much higher for suspicions of possible atomic activities. By rescinding the Small Quantities Protocol, the IAEA will have additional access to evaluate the nuclear program of an IAEA member state and to confirm that the state is in full compliance with its safeguards obligations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to my friends and colleagues that this is a good amendment, and, on behalf of the majority, we would like to accept it. I would say very briefly that unless states which are in noncompliance with their nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations, or which seek to withdraw from the treaty, are forced to give up their peaceful nuclear capabilities legally acquired under the treaty, they can use these to illegally develop nuclear weapons. As was pointed out by my colleague, such states as North Korea and Iran have already used their status as nuclear nonproliferation treaty parties to develop nuclear weapons, and this closes the loophole. It is a good amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005. It is tough but necessary medicine designed to finally at long last reform the United Nations so that they can realize the noble dream of its founders. Today the United Nations is rife with scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, and missed opportunity. Clearly there are bright and committed people at the U.N., and I applaud them. But others with less laudable motives often hijack the U.N. mission, its programs, and undermine the vital missions of the United Nations. Those of us who believe the U.N. can and must do better refuse to accept the status quo. Business as usual just does not cut it. The Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 injects real and measurable accountability into the United Nations, and that is exceedingly important in a myriad of areas including the area of peacekeeping operations and in human rights. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his great leadership on this and on so many human rights issues around the world. This is important legislation. I hope the body will support it.