Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, I am.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and that he may control the time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the majority, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for offering this very, very important amendment. It will ensure that the U.N. is not using its funds to inadvertently fund terrorism or fraudulent companies. It is a very good amendment, and we accept it and support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. On behalf of the majority we are also very happy to accept this amendment. This amendment seeks to identify overspending due to possibly rigged contracts at U.N. buildings around the world. The U.S. generally pays 22 percent of those costs. The savings could be in the millions of dollars for U.S. taxpayers if other instances of building improprieties were found and, by connection, action taken to correct those improprieties. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his amendment, and we are accepting it again as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. He is in prison.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, May 12, 2005, I chaired a Capitol Hill briefing, ``Sex Trafficking in Eastern Europe: Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine,'' conducted for the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The Caucus heard testimony from a number of excellent witnesses regarding current efforts in Eastern Europe to combat human trafficking for forced economic or sexual exploitation. Since the late 1990s, I have worked to eradicate trafficking in the United States and around the world. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and as Special Representative on Human Trafficking for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), I have given particular attention to the situation in the 55 OSCE participating States, which include source, transit and destination countries for victims of trafficking, such as Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, The United States has been a solid supporter of the OSCE's role in generating the political will--and programmatic responses--necessary to stop trafficking in Europe and Eurasia. Among those briefing the Congressional Human Rights Caucus was Michele Clark, Head of the OSCE's Anti-Trafficking Assistance Unit in Vienna, Austria, and previously Co-Director of The Protection Project at Johns Hopkins University. Ms. Clark is a dedicated and knowledgeable anti-trafficking advocate. Her recognized expertise on human trafficking issues led to her appointment at the OSCE in which she is now at the forefront of the anti-trafficking movement in Europe. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Ms. Clark's prepared statement from the briefing be printed in the Congressional Record. Her statement was both visionary and practical and challenges all of us--Members of Congress and representatives of governments alike--to take bold, definitive steps to eradicate modem day slavery. Ms. Clark's statement also encourages us, and I believe rightly so, to evaluate carefully whether our current programs and strategies are effectively meeting that challenge. Testimony of Michele A. Clark, Head, Anti-Trafficking Assistance Unit, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe: Sex Trafficking in Eastern Europe: Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus Introduction I am Michele Clark, Head of the Anti-Trafficking Assistance Unit at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, Austria. The OSCE has a long history of combating all forms of human trafficking, including trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation as well as forced and bonded labor within the framework of prevention, prosecution and protection. A unique characteristic of the OSCE's Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings is the recognition of human trafficking as a complex, multidimensional issue with far reaching security implications. Consequently, the Action Plan enjoins all of the OSCE institutions and structures, including the Strategic Police Matters Unit and the Office of the Coordinator for Economic and Environmental Activities, as well as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, to work together toward combating trafficking in human beings. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today on the status of Trafficking in Human Beings in Eastern Europe with a focus on the countries of Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine. I would like to thank you, members of the Human Rights Caucus, for your sustained commitment to this noble cause and for keeping informed of the most current issues, trends and challenges. The OSCE looks forward to being of assistance to you in any way we can, and to continuing our good work together. The movement to Combat Trafficking in Persons is poised to become one of the most significant human rights movements in the past two hundred years, but it isn't there yet. I say this very carefully. For, notwithstanding the central position that human trafficking has occupied on the world stage for the past five years, the tragic, graphic stories by print and broadcast media, the high level of political visibility and, last but far from least, the hundreds of millions of dollars and Euros made available by donor countries, trafficking in human beings is in fact a growth industry. Obviously, this statement begs the question, ``Why?'' I would like to devote the bulk of my testimony today to providing some thoughts that might prove beneficial to policy makers as well as practitioners as we all attempt to ``get it right.'' I would like to begin with a real-life story. Mariana and Jana A year and a half ago, I went to Moldova. Although I went there to participate in an international conference, one of my personal goals was to visit with a family I had only heard about, but wanted very much to meet. Four months earlier, the eldest daughter, a beautiful young woman in her early twenties and herself the mother of a three-year-old daughter, tragically killed herself, by hanging in the country where she had been trafficked, abused, finally imprisoned as she waited to participate in the prosecution of her traffickers. I do not apply the word, ``rescue'' to such circumstances. She worked with the law enforcement officials of that country and her testimony resulted in a conviction and stiff sentence. The only option available to her, at the end of the legal proceedings, was return to her country, and for that she was asked to pay $80 for her travel documents. Return to what, however? A job that would pay about 30 dollars a month? A home without a father, because hers was absent 8 months of the year, a migrant worker in Western European countries, trying to make money to send home? For her daughter, a life with prospects not much different than her own? Rather than return to a future with no hope, Mariana as I will call her now, ended her own life. Her body was flown to Moldova, where she was buried. An international organization there as well as an NGO in the destination country contributed to the transport of the body and to the funeral costs. I went to see her mother, younger sister Jana, and her daughter Victoria. We spent many hours together over several days, but the family did not want to talk about Mariana--although everyone knew what had happened to her. The stigma of Mariana's life as a trafficked woman was a great burden for the family. Coupled with the suicide, it was too much to bear. There were no visible pictures of her in the home but I finally asked to see photos. The mother warmed to us then and for a few moments we all wept together as women and as friends. All except for little Victoria who continued to express anger that her mother came home in a box and that she was not allowed to see her. In particular, I was deeply moved by the younger sister, Jana, and became concerned for her future. Blonde (as much as it pains me, there is a stereotype), bright-eyed and quite lovely, she asked eagerly about life in the United States and wondered if I could help her get there. I thought, how easily swayed she would be by anyone who offered her a situation similar to her sister's. For weeks her image would not leave me and I made some inquiries, unwilling to accept that her plight had to be the same as her sister's. Was there in fact no hope for her? I learned that a year of university would cost about $USD 500; she would then need money for supplies and fees, and income to supplement the money she was making in a candy factory. I engaged with a social worker there, part of a large organization that assisted trafficked women. I asked them, what could happen, and what were the options? It took a long time to get answers, because the social workers have very little capacity to assist victims, or potential victims, to find long-term solutions, the focus being primarily on emergency care. Finally I was told that Jana could be sent to hairdressing school, and that she would receive assistance with job placement after she left. However, there was no money, not even the small sum $800 that would take care of all costs. Together with a few friends, we paid for Jana to go to school, and learn a trade. I was deeply disappointed at how few options were available and by the lack of attention to the long term. Parenthetically, I must say how exasperated I get when I hear that vocational training for trafficked women consists of beauty school. This is certainly a fine trade, but how many beauticians can small countries support? Another important fact is that many of these women are intelligent and resourceful, and would do well in business or any of the other professions. To summarize this story, I would like to quote my colleague Antonia DeMeo, who is the Human Rights and Senior Anti- Trafficking officer at the OSCE Mission to Moldova: ``If the economic situation in Moldova would improve, then I believe that the trafficking problem would decrease. People are looking for work and money, and better opportunities for the future, and will take significant risks to get them. [While working in the Balkans] I saw numerous asylum and residency petitions filed by Moldovans and none of them wanted to return to Moldova. Why? Because they saw no future there. You can provide them with all the counseling you want--it will not solve the problem of creating a viable future. Characteristics of Countries of Origin Today we are talking about three different countries: Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine. I would like to identify common elements among each of these countries in an effort to assist our policy and programmatic initiatives. These three countries are among the top ten countries of origin for trafficking for prostitution in the world, according to a United Nations report dated May 2003. It is interesting here to note that these countries have all undertaken serious efforts towards legislative reform to address trafficking in human beings. Laws alone do not stop trafficking, although they are a necessary place to start. These countries share many of the same routes, and many of the same countries of destination, including but not limited to Italy, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Czech Republic, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, France, Finland, the Netherlands, Hungary, Poland and the United States. These countries are primarily countries of origin for women trafficked for purposes of commercial sexual exploitation. However, recent studies of trafficking patterns in these countries indicate new trends, notably trafficking of children (boys and girls), trafficking for labor, and the development of local sex tourism. This particular trend is very unsettling. The sex tourism is a by-product of coveted commercial development necessary to the betterment of the collapsing economic infrastructures. Numbers of trafficked persons are very difficult to come by, with most information being provided by countries of destination. Victim identification remains inadequate. Most trafficked persons return to the same conditions which initially compelled them to seek employment elsewhere. The hardship is compounded, however, by the fact that they are often stigmatized as a result of their trafficking experiences. Furthermore, criminal status that ensues from being considered an illegal immigrant, or being in possession of fraudulent documentation further marginalizes these women and shuts them out of the formal economy. Overall, there is a lack of protection and re-integration programs for returning trafficked persons. Most programs provide short term assistance only and are not equipped to provide long-term support to trafficked persons. Failure in identification of trafficked persons and the subsequent dearth of long-term assistance appear to be factors which contribute to re-trafficking. Each country has experienced a period of great political instability. Challenges to Combating Trafficking in Human Beings I believe that both countries of origin and of destination have a responsibility for providing protection and assistance to victims of trafficking, for the plight of women like Mariana, and to ensure that Jana, and even Victoria, will be able to contemplate a future with options and possibilities, much in the way all of us in this room approach the future. In countries of origin, root causes need to be considered. These run very deep, and comprise social and economic push factors that drive women to seek employment overseas, including the absence of alternatives, the social stigma that leaves trafficked persons marginalized, and the on-going need to provide financial assistance to their families. It is also necessary to consider wide-spread corruption, the lack of a human rights approach, mistrust towards the police and judiciary, the absence of a tradition to resolve issues through court procedures, lack of co-operation between the State and the civil society, widely spread distrust towards NGOs as foreign agents and representatives of political opposition, inadequate funding for the implementation of anti-trafficking programs and projects, lack of co-operation with countries of destination. This list goes on. Countries of destination, on the other hand,--and this includes us--will have to concretely recognize that they create the demand which encourages human trafficking and enables organized criminal groups to generate billions of dollars annually in tax-free revenue at the cost of human misery. Furthermore, countries of destination need to develop humane and compassionate approaches to victim identification, victim protection, and long-term victim assistance. Successful reintegration begins at the country of destination. After making this distinction, I personally believe that it is no longer adequate to talk about solutions, policies and practices directed exclusively towards countries of origin and destination, for these countries are in fact linked by very complex relationships that include financial institutions, border and immigration police, law enforcement, the tourist and transportation industry, and other equally significant commercial and professional enterprises. To address only a country of origin without looking at where the reward comes from for criminal activity is an incomplete approach, and will therefore yield incomplete results. Regional approaches to combating trafficking in persons, linking countries of destination and origin, have the best potential for arriving at comprehensive and systemic solutions. In addition to the challenge of complex political and commercial relationships mentioned above, I would like to talk briefly about the great challenge of victim identification, underscoring why there is such urgency in addressing this topic. From 1 January 2000 to 31 December, 2004, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and other nongovernmental organizations assisted 1,464 trafficking victims to return to Moldova, and this number includes 81 minors. In 2004, one destination country alone documented repatriation of 1,774 Moldovan women. These women were listed as illegal immigrants; however, human rights groups in this country attest that the majority of Moldovan women who are arrested for violations of immigration laws are victims of trafficking. Similar discrepancies can be found among the other countries we are talking about. In one year, one country reported more Moldovan women than other reports claim were helped in five years. These discrepancies require our serious consideration. Why the discrepancy? What needs to be changed in order for women to seek out assistance? Are the right groups providing the assistance so that trafficked persons feel protected? Is the assistance appropriate to the need? Policy Implications Here I would like to ask two more questions: (1) What about the present? Are we really making progress? If trafficking, as all indicators tell us, is in fact a growth industry, then what do we not know? What are we getting wrong? What in fact is the real impact of anti- trafficking funding? (2) What about the future? Are our current efforts helping to lay a foundation that will enable prevention, protection and prosecution to continue after donor funds have decreased? I am particularly concerned about the need to think about investing in the creation of sustainable grass roots initiatives as opposed to reactive project development. The question of funding is of particular concern to me right now. Wealthy nations have responded generously both by making funds available and by elevating this issue to one of high political visibility. But let us be realistic. History shows us that in time, another world crisis will capture world attention as well as money, even though human trafficking itself will not disappear. Will there be organizations, movements, trained personnel in rural communities, small towns and big cities who will be able continue to pressure their governments and work to assist individuals? Let us look again at Moldova. This small country with a population of barely 4 million people is now receiving between $USD 10M-12M over several years to combat trafficking in persons. Here are some questions we need to think about, not only for Moldova, but for all countries receiving large amounts of external assistance. To what extent are these funds actually reaching trafficked persons or developing grass roots capacity? To what extent are these funds being invested to ensure sustainable anti-trafficking initiatives? To what extent is there coordination among donors to ensure that there are no duplicated efforts? Who is around the table at these coordinating meetings? Are the right partners present in order to make sure that these efforts are able to continue into the future, long after grant money has decreased? Are the faith communities involved? It is well known at this time that faith communities have the capacity to reach trafficked persons which are normally outside of the grasp of other organizations; this comes from the fact that they are closely linked to the communities and have the trust of the local populations--including the trust of trafficked persons. Recommendations 1. Coordinate initiatives of major donors to ensure that there will be no duplication of efforts, and that there will be monitoring of grant activities. Make sure that grants provide for a broad representation of local NGOs. Make sure that funded projects ensure provision of benefits directly to individuals and to the empowerment of small local NGOs. Many budgets give only token amounts to local initiatives while having large budgets for travel and foreign consultants. This is the time to develop the grass roots work force. Develop existing capacity and cultivate potential/future capacity. Are there sufficiently trained service professionals? Do countries' economic development plans foresee the training of new members of the work force taken from returning trafficked persons? Develop a long-term perspective to finding long-term solutions rather than only addressing immediate needs. Give priority to programs that work towards social inclusion--the forgotten stepchild of the anti-trafficking movement. Make reintegration a long-term policy. Members of the Human Rights Caucus, I will end where I began, challenging us to consider that we could be part of the greatest human rights movement of the past two hundred years, with a legacy of freedom, redemption and hope that will serve as a model for generations to come. Do we have the courage, the discipline, and the wisdom to make it happen? May it be so. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, for about a year now a myth has been promoted that abortions have increased since President Bush was elected in 2000. This myth was launched publicly when Glen Stassen and Gary Krane published a piece in October of 2004, called ``Why abortion rate is up in Bush years'' that attempted to make the case that President Bush's pro-life policies have not been effective in decreasing abortion. This mantra was picked up and repeated by many public figures and organizations who do not hold pro-life positions, but the facts simply do not support their claims. In fact, abortion has continued to decrease while President Bush has been in office, as demonstrated by an Annenberg Political Fact Check piece posted yesterday at www.factcheck.org and called ``Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be and lives on.'' To debunk the myth that the number of abortions have increased over the last 5 years, I am submitting the Annenberg Political Fact Check analysis to the Congressional Record: [From the Annenberg Political Fact Check, May 25, 2005] The Biography of a Bad Statistic--Abortions Rising Under Bush? Not True. How That False Claim Came to be -and Lives On Summary Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001. This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 States. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 States found that abortions have actually decreased. Analysis A number of politicians and organizations have been circulating an interesting and surprising idea: that abortions have gone up under George W. Bush's watch. The claim is repeated by supporters of abortion rights as evidence that Bush's anti-abortion policies have backfired, or at least been ineffective. But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took office, as shown in this graph: Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, ``Trends in Abortion in the United States'' Here's the story of how a false idea took hold. The Birth of a Bad Statistic The claim that abortions are rising again can be traced back to an opinion piece by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. His article originally appeared in a web and e-mail publication of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, in October 2004. Several other outlets, including the Houston Chronicle, also ran a similar piece co-authored by Stassen and journalist Gary Krane. The articles generated a good deal of discussion on a number of both liberal and conservative blogs. Describing himself as ``consistently pro-life,'' Stassen reported that he ``analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency'' and reached some ``disturbing'' conclusions. ``Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed,'' he said. ``Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.'' Stassen's broad conclusion wasn't justified by the sketchy information he cited, however. Furthermore, a primary organization he cited specifically as a source for historical data now contradicts him, saying abortions have continued to decline since Bush took office. More about that later. Hillary Clinton Uses It Stassen offered his article as evidence that Bush's economic policies were driving pregnant women to abortion. And although he opposes abortion, his claim was soon picked up and repeated uncritically by the other side--supporters of abortion rights. In a speech to family-planning providers in New York on January 24, 2005, Sen. Hillary Clinton recounted decreases in the abortion rate that occurred in her husband's administration, then lamented that the situation had changed. She repeated exactly some of the figures that Stassen had given in his Houston Chronicle article. Clinton: But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and common sense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states. In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3 percent average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us. Clinton was careful not to state flatly that abortions were increasing nationally. She spoke only of ``some States'' in which the rate had increased. However, she omitted any mention of other States where abortions were going down, inviting her listeners to conclude that the national trend to fewer abortions had reversed itself since Bush took office. And in fact a few days later, in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press on January 30, 2005, Senator John Kerry claimed that abortions were up, period: Kerry: And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have. . . . A Kerry spokesman confirmed at the time to FactCheck.org that Kerry was relying on the Stassen article for his information. Finally, as recently as May 24, 2005, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean also asserted on NBC News' Meet the Press: Dean: You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President? Dean's ``statistic'' went unchallenged by moderator Tim Russert, so millions of viewers probably got the impression that Dean's very specific 25 percent figure was correct. But Dean was wrong--and by a wide margin. We asked the Democratic National Committee repeatedly where Dean got his 25 percent figure, but we got no response. Even if Stassen's estimate of 52,000 additional abortions were correct, that would figure to an increase of less than 4 percent. And in any case the rate is going down, not up, according to the most authoritative figures available. Cherrypicking Data A close reading of Stassen's article makes clear that he didn't even pretend to have comprehensive national data on abortion rates. He said he looked at data from 16 States only--and didn't even name most of them. Stassen said that in the four States that had already posted statistics for three full years of Bush's first term, he found that abortion was up. Twelve more States had posted statistics for 2 years of Bush's term--2001 and 2002--and here the picture was mixed. According to Stassen, ``Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3 percent average).'' A version of the piece in the Houston Chronicle reported instead that four saw a decrease with a 4.3 percent average. So Stassen was projecting findings onto the entire country from 12 States that he said had showed an increase and 5 (or maybe 4) that he said had shown a decrease. That leaves a total of 34 other States for which Stassen had no data whatsoever. Furthermore, Stassen is contradicted by one of the very organizations whose data he cites. The only primary source of data that Stassen cites specifically in the article is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that conducts a periodic survey of all known abortion providers, which numbered nearly 2,000 at last count. Guttmacher's statistics are widely used and respected by all sides in the abortion debate. It is the only organization to compile and publish national abortion-rate data other than the federal Center for Disease Control. CDC's official statistics, however, run only through 2001, so they shed no light on what has happened since Bush took office. And Guttmacher--as we shall see--now says abortion rates have decreased since Bush took office. And that's based on data from 43 States, not just 16. De-bunking the statistic Stassen's numbers, and the widespread acceptance they seemed to be getting, prompted the Guttmacher Institute to conduct a special analysis to update its comprehensive census of abortion providers for the year 2000. The increases that Stassen reported ``would be a significant change in a long- standing trend in the U.S.,'' Leila Darabi of the institute explained to Factcheck. Besides the fact that Stassen claimed to have data only from 16 States, the Guttmacher Institute said it is likely that many of the States Stassen picked have higher abortion rates historically, have a higher concentration of population subgroups that tend to have more abortions, and see abortion rates rise more quickly when they do go up. Stassen himself named only Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado among the 16 States he says he studied, but his co-author on the Houston Chronicle article listed each State in a separate article posted on the Internet. The Guttmacher Institute found that two of the States Stassen used had unreliable reporting systems. In Colorado, for instance, where Stassen claimed that rates ``skyrocketed 111 percent,'' the reporting procedure had been recently changed in order to compensate for historic underreporting. Guttmacher also found Arizona had an inconsistent reporting system. The Facts The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher analyzed available government data ``as an interim measure until another provider census can be conducted'' according to a news release. The interim study analyzed data from 43 States determined to have reliable State reporting systems. What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide--by 0.8 percent in 2001 and by another 0.8 percent in 2002. The abortion rate, which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also decreased 1 percent in 2001 and 0.9 percent in 2002. That's not as rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless. We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions in 2000. Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti- abortion policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and describes its mission as being ``to protect the reproductive choice of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world.'' Had Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute ``would have reported and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates,'' said Darabi. But facts are facts.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I congratulate him for his courage in leading the battle on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, 90 percent of the hospitals in the United States today refuse to abort unborn children, and the trend is for hospitals to divest themselves of this violence against children. It is outrageous that as hospitals in our country repudiate abortion, the Davis amendment seeks to turn our overseas military hospitals into abortion mills. With all due respect to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the amendment she offers will result in babies being brutally killed by abortion. It will harm women, and it will force pro- life Americans to facilitate and subsidize the slaughter of innocent children. We want no part of the carnage. Abortion is violence against children and it harms women. Some methods of abortion dismember and rip apart the fragile little bodies of children. Other methods chemically poison kids. Abortion has turned children's bodies into burned corpses, the direct result of the caustic effect of the chemicals. Now we learn, Mr. Chairman, from science and from medicine that due to the nerve cell development, unborn children from at least 20 weeks onward, and most likely even earlier, feel excruciating pain. They feel pain, two to four times more pain than you and I would feel from the same assault. One of those methods depicted to my left on this poster board, the D and E method, it is a common, later-term method of abortion, takes about 30 minutes to commit as the arms and the legs and the torso are painfully hacked into pieces. Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, the partial- birth abortion legal trials in various courts around the country drew attention to the pain issue that children feel during an abortion. Dr. Sunny Anand, Director of the Pain Neurobiology Lab at Arkansas Children's Hospital said, ``The human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation onward, if not earlier, and the pain that is perceived by a fetus is more intense than that perceived by newborns or by older children.'' He went on to explain that the pain inhibitory mechanisms, in other words, the fibers that dampen and modulate the pain or the experience of it, do not begin to develop until about 32 to 34 weeks. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, has said, ``How can the dream survive if we murder the children?'' Dr. King, who has had an abortion herself, but is now pro-life and bravely speaks out, says, ``We can no longer sits idly by and allow this horrible spirit of murder to cut down and cut away our unborn. This is the day to choose life,'' Dr. King goes on to say, ``We must allow our babies to live. If the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King is to live, our babies must live.'' There is nothing benign or nurturing or curing about abortion. It is violence against children. It dismembers them. It chemically poisons them. Vote down the Davis amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and for his leadership on this bill and for cosponsoring it, along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) on the other side of the aisle for his leadership over the last 3 years as we crafted this legislation. It is finally on the floor after almost 3 years of work; and again I thank my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for his leadership. One of the best kept secrets in America today is that umbilical cord- blood stem cells and adult stem cells are curing people of a myriad of terrible conditions and diseases. One of the greatest hopes that I have is that these current-day miracles, denied to many because of an insufficient inventory and inefficient means of matching cord-blood stem cells with patients, will now become available to tens of thousands of patients as a direct result of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, H.R. 2520. Amazingly, we are on the threshold of systematically turning medical waste, umbilical cords and placentas, into medical miracles for huge numbers of very sick and terminally ill patients who suffer from such maladies as leukemia and sickle cell anemia. And because this legislation promotes cord-blood research as well, we can expect new and expanded uses of these very versatile stem cells. For the first time ever, our bill establishes a nationwide stem cell transplantation system. It also authorizes the national bone marrow transplant system and combines both under a new program, providing an easy, single-access point for information for doctors and patients and for the purpose of collecting and analyzing outcomes data. The new program created in our legislation is named for our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), because of all of his great work on bone marrow transplantation over the last 2 decades. Mr. Speaker, cord-blood stem cells are already treating and curing patients. Unlike embryonic stem cell research that has not cured one person, cord-blood stem cells are treating patients. The New York Blood Center, for example, has treated thousands of patients with more than 65 different diseases, including sickle cell disease, leukemia and osteoporosis. Some of those patients came and told their stories yesterday at a press conference, and they are in the gallery watching this debate right now. One of those men, a young man named Keonne Penn was here to tell his story of how he was cured of sickle cell anemia, and he said, ``If it wasn't for cord-blood stem cells, I would probably be dead by now. It is a good thing I found a match. It saved my life.'' Stephen Sprague, another man who was cured of leukemia, said he too was lucky to find a cord-blood match. And 22-year-old Jaclyn Albanese, who just graduated from Rutgers University from my State, said, ``If the New York blood center had not been there, I do not know what kind of shape I would be in.'' She is thankful as well. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, cord-blood has also been used to treat Hurler's disease and Krabbe's disease, both neurological conditions, which blows away the idea that cord-blood stem cells are limited in the potential and the capacity to turn into other kinds of cells. That is not too surprising, I say to my colleagues, when you simply read the published literature on the flexibility of cord-blood stem cells. According to a July 2004 study published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, a research group led by Dr. Kogler found ``a new human somatic stem cell from placental cord-blood with intrinsic pluripotent differential potential,'' which means it can become any type of cell in the body. In addition, they found that the cells could expand to 10 quadrillion, or 10 to the power of 15, cells before losing any pluripotent abilities. And cord-blood stem cells are not only ahead in treating real human patients, they are also able to turn into different kinds of cells for research. One company has already turned cord-blood stem cells into representatives of three germinal layers, including neural stem cells, nerve stem cells, liver/pancreas precursors, skeletal muscle, fat cells, bone cells and blood vessels. Last month, Celgene Corporation announced that cord-blood cells ``are `pluripotent', or have the ability to become different types of tissue.'' So we are just on the beginning of realizing the vast potential of what was formerly medical waste and has now been turned into these medical miracles. Let me just say to my colleagues that this idea that research on bone marrow and cord-blood stem cells has been researched on for decades and that embryo stem cells have only been researched for a short time is ludicrous and an unfair attack on cord-blood stem cell research. During the entire period where research has been happening in this area of regenerative medicine, the idea that cells can change types and repair organs, both adult and embryo cells have been around in animals. And, again, great progress has been made in the cord-blood and the adult stem cell. My bill needs to be passed.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that some misinformation perhaps inadvertently is being spread on this floor, that these stem cells that are derived from cord blood only have a blood application. That is unmitigated nonsense. It is not true. And I pointed out in my opening comments that in the Celgene Cellular Therapeutics first reported back in 2001 that placental stem cells turned into nerve, blood, cartilage, skin and muscle cells, and that since that time other studies have confirmed cord blood's pluripotent capability. Surely there needs to be further research.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, I support aggressive stem cell research and the judicious application of stem cells to mitigate and to cure disease. That is why I sponsored the Stem Cell Therapeutic Research Act of 2005 and I have been pushing it for almost 3 years. That is why those of us who oppose H.R. 810 strongly support pouring millions of dollars into Federal funds to support ethical stem cell research to find cures, to alleviate suffering, to inspire well-founded hope and to do it all in a way that respects the dignity and sanctity of human life. I strongly oppose the Castle bill, however, because it will use Federal funds to facilitate the killing of perfectly healthy human embryos to derive their stem cells. Human embryos do have inherent value, Mr. Speaker. They are not commodities or things or just tissue. Human embryos are human lives at their most vulnerable beginning stages, and they deserve respect. Parents of human embryos are custodians of those young ones. They are not owners of human property, and the public policy we craft should ensure that the best interests of newly created human life is protected and preserved. The Castle bill embraces the misinformed notion that there is such a thing as left-over embryos, a grossly misleading and dehumanizing term in and of itself, that they are just going to be destroyed and thrown away and poured down the drain. That is simply not true. The cryogenically frozen male and female embryos that the genetic parents may feel are no longer needed for implanting in the genetic mother are of infinite value to an adoptive mother who may be sterile or otherwise unable to have a baby. Mr. Speaker, just one adoption initiative, the Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program, has facilitated the adoption of 96 formerly frozen embryos with more adoptions in the works. I have met some of those kids. They are not leftovers, even though they lived in a frozen orphanage, perhaps many of them for years. They are just as human and alive and full of promise as other children. Let them be adopted, not killed and experimented on. They are not throwaways.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill, and I commend Mr. Lantos and Mr. Tancredo for bringing this matter before the Congress. The process of providing restitution or compensation for property confiscated by former regimes in Romania has been slow, complicated and difficult. We have raised concerns about this with Romanian authorities for many years now. As of July 2003, more than 200,000 claims for property restitution had been filed in Romania by individuals, and more than 7,000 claims had been filed by religious denominations and communal groups. As the bill indicates, the historic Hungarian churches--including the Evangelical Lutheran, Hungarian Reformed, Roman Catholic and Unitarian--lost more than 2,000 schools, hospitals, orphanages and other institutions under the communist regime in Romania. Jewish communal properties were decimated by the Fascist regime that ruled Romania during World War II, and those confiscations were reaffirmed by the postwar communist government. Mr. Speaker, the status of more than 1700 Jewish communal properties remains unresolved. Further, the plight of Romania's Greek Catholic (Uniate) Church, which was banned by the communist government in 1948, is particularly distressful. More than 2,000 churches and other buildings seized from the Uniates were given to Orthodox parishes. The government decree that dismantled the Greek Catholic Church was abrogated in 1989; however, fewer than 200 of their confiscated properties have been returned. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the new government of Romania recently announced the creation of the National Authority for Property Restitution to implement Romania's property restitution laws, and it is my understanding that next week a legislative package designed to remedy these property issues is expected to be introduced. Apparently special attention will be paid to properties once belonging to religious communities and national minorities. The goal is for all outstanding claims to be resolved by the end of 2006. This would be a welcomed achievement. For 15 years, these property claims have been a source of anguish and frustration for so many Romanians. The political will being demonstrated by President Basescu and his government is commendable. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in this action today, encouraging the Romanian authorities to provide equitable, prompt, and fair restitution of the confiscated properties.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I chaired the third in a series of hearings of my Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations, on the topic of reform at the United Nations, and the second hearing we are holding on peacekeeping reform. On March 1st, just 12 weeks ago, my committee met to examine credible evidence of gross sexual misconduct and exploitation of refugees and vulnerable people by U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel assigned to the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Human rights groups and the U.N.'s own internal investigations had uncovered over 150 allegations against Mission personnel, typically involving peacekeepers' sexual contact with Congolese women and girls, some as young as 11-14, in exchange for food or small sums of money. Further, the U.N. had struggled to deal with similar sexual exploitation and abuse allegations in recent years in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea, as well as on the European continent in Kosovo and Bosnia. Yet despite many well-meaning gestures, there had not been one successful prosecution of U.N. civilian or military personnel, either in the Congo or elsewhere. At that hearing, the United Nations made available Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, Dr. Jane Holl Lute to brief the Subcommittee on steps the U.N. Secretariat and Department of Peacekeeping Operations were taking to address the problem. As Members of this Subcommittee may recall, Dr. Lute declared, ``. . . The Blue Helmet has become black and blue through self-inflicted wounds of some of our number and we will not sit still until the luster of that Blue Helmet is restored. . . . It is unacceptable. It is simply unacceptable. The United Nations peacekeepers owe a duty of care to the people we serve. We owe this duty of care to the member states who place their trust in us when they send us to a mission. We owe this duty of care to the aspirations and hopes for the future that everyone has when they invest a peacekeeping mission in places like the Congo. It will be stamped out.'' Since that time, I am pleased to report that I am seeing signs of real change in the way the United Nations goes about peacekeeping, certainly in the area of preventing human rights abuses. Investigations into allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse involving 96 peacekeeping personnel have been completed, with 66 military personnel repatriated on disciplinary grounds. On the civilian side, 3 U.N. staff have been dismissed; 6 others are undergoing disciplinary process; and 3 have been cleared. Missions have put into place a broad range of measures to prevent misconduct, from establishing focal points and telephone hotlines to requiring troops to wear uniforms at all times. Moreover, the Fourth Committee of the U.N. General Assembly on April 18th unanimously endorsed the reform proposals of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, which include: training on standards of conduct; development of established units for peacekeeping rather than those assembled on an ad hoc basis; commitments by all troop contributing countries to pursue investigations and prosecutions of peacekeeping personnel for credible instances of sexual allegation and abuse; creation of a database to track allegations and ensure that prior offenders are not rehired; organization, management and command responsibility to create and maintain an environment that prevents against sexual exploitation and abuse; establishment of a professional and independent investigative capacity assistance to victims; and development of a model MOU for troop contributing countries to encompass these recommendations. The General Assembly must now act on these recommendations, providing the necessary financial and political support to fully and promptly implement them. It was my desire that the hearing stimulate the same sense of commitment and urgency at the U.N. to undertake broader reforms in peacekeeping. Peacekeeping has changed significantly since the creation of the United Nations and the first peacekeeping missions, which were largely limited to ``traditional'' nonmilitary functions, such as monitoring of cessation of hostilities agreements, deployment of observer missions, and the maintenance and patrol of borders. With the end of the Cold War, the number of peacekeeping missions ballooned, as the Security Council deployed 20 new missions between 1988 and 1994. Tasks of peacekeepers have also evolved and now include more complex assignments such as nation-building, protection of vulnerable populations, and establishment and maintenance of security in post-conflict environments. Our collective memories are still painfully sharp in recalling the peacekeeping fiascos of Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia. Thankfully we have some notable successes to balance the picture out, in which stability was restored and substantial contributions made towards economic and political development, in U.N. missions in Kosovo, Sierre Leone and East Timor. What these examples illustrate is the importance of getting the mandate ``right,'' matching the mission to the mandate, ensuring adequate staffing and funding, and providing for a transition to a sustained peace. U.S. officials have endorsed Secretary General Annan's proposal for a Peacebuilding Commission and Support Office to undertake post-conflict transition and coordinate donor assistance and activities. But has a global audit of existing peacekeeping missions ever been conducted to review mandates and right-size missions? Has there been an examination of whether peacekeeping tasks could be outsourced to professional private security companies to perform tasks more cost-effectively or deploy into difficult situations where Member States have demonstrated a reluctance or inability to go? What are we doing to widen the donor support base for peacekeeping missions? And finally, what should the United States do if necessary reforms are not being implemented, either by the U.N. or by troop contributing nations? In this regard, I have introduced legislation, The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, H.R. 972, which contains several provisions specifically targeted at preventing trafficking in persons, sexual exploitation, and abuse by military personnel and in peacekeeping operations. H.R. 972 would require the State Department to certify to Congress, before it contributes U.S. logistical or personnel support to a peacekeeping mission, that the international organization has taken appropriate measures to prevent the organization's employees, contractors, and peacekeeping forces from engaging in trafficking in persons or committing acts of illegal sexual exploitation. The provision builds on two prior laws I have authored to combat trafficking in persons and reduce sexual exploitation, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003. Other measures in this bill to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons by military and peacekeepers are: Amending the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit the use or facilitation of persons trafficked for sex or labor; Establishing a Director of Anti-Trafficking Policies in the Office of the Secretary of Defense; Reporting of steps taken by the U.N., OSCE, NATO and other international organizations to eliminate involvement of its personnel in trafficking; Requiring certification that safeguards are in place to prevent military and civilian personnel from trafficking or committing acts of sexual exploitation before a U.S. contribution to a peacekeeping mission is made. In conclusion, the progress since our last hearing is encouraging, but we are only at the beginning of the necessary reform process. What comes out at the other end I hope will be a United Nations equipped for the unique challenges of this new century, with peacekeeping leading the way for reforms in other vital areas.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a concurrent resolution which calls for the July 3 parliamentary election in Albania to be free and fair. Joining me in the introduction of this resolution is Mr. Engel, and I want to thank my colleague from New York for his efforts over the years to help Albanians throughout Southeastern Europe be able to exercise human rights and fundamental freedoms that for so long had been denied them. This resolution notes that Albania is a participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, better known as the OSCE. It further notes that all OSCE participating States have accepted standards which define free and fair elections but that Albania has repeatedly fallen short of those standards. Some elections have been seriously flawed, while others demonstrated a clear and sometimes significant improvement. As Albania approaches its next parliamentary elections on July 3, however, the resolution argues that meeting OSCE election standards is not only possible but a virtual necessity. Meeting these standards is possible, fortunately, because Albanian authorities and political parties have adopted electoral reforms recommended by the OSCE. While Albanian stakeholders made the right and sometimes difficult decisions regarding reform, credit also needs to go to the OSCE Presence, or field mission, in Albania which facilitated the dialogue and encouraged cooperation, as well as the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights which provided technical expertise to the reform effort. The OSCE was patient yet firm in pressing for change, while other international groups gave needed expertise. Meeting these standards is necessary not only because Albania is committed to those standards, but also because a failure to do so will cost the country dearly in terms of integration into NATO and the European Union. While there are strong ties between the United States and Albania, which this resolution recognizes, it would be a mistake to excuse Albania from its OSCE commitments. Our desire to see Albania succeed, in fact, is why our expectations regarding the elections need to be made so clear. Successful elections will certainly strengthen Albania's ties with the United States and Europe. More importantly, successful elections are something the people of Albania deserve. After centuries of foreign rule, decades of severe communist repression and isolation, and now more than a decade of transition hindered by official corruption, organized crime and civil strife, the people of Albania must finally be allowed to determine their own future by making their leaders accountable to them. Free, fair elections can make this possible. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues agree and will therefore support this resolution. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have focused on the situation in Albania for many years, and I am confident that sending the message contained in this resolution will make a difference.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 193, which expresses support for the courageous advocates of freedom in Cuba, who are gathering ten days from now in Havana for the first Assembly to Promote the Civil Society conference which will focus on bringing democracy, liberty, and the rule of law to this enslaved island. Madam Speaker, in recent years, this House has overwhelmingly passed numerous resolutions condemning the egregious human rights violations of the Castro regime. These violations, which have been continually cited through comprehensive, compelling reports, include the pervasive use of torture and vicious beatings of political prisoners. We know that this year the UN Convention on Human Rights in Geneva also passed a resolution condemning the government of Cuba's deplorable human rights record. Today, we celebrate those brave Cubans who have been undaunted by Castro's reign of terror and who continue to speak out fearlessly for freedom in Cuba. Mr. Speaker, I note that on March 3, three of the main organizers of the Assembly to Promote the Civil Society testified via telephone at a joint hearing I chaired with the Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operation Subcommittee and the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. The hearing was appropriately entitled ``Year Two of Castro's Brutal Crackdown on Dissidents.'' The three who spoke at this hearing were Martha Beatriz Roque, an internationally renowned Cuban economist; Felix Bonne, a Cuban engineering professor; and Rene Gomez Manzano, a Cuban attorney. All three have spent time in Cuba's prisons for their pro-democracy activities and co-authored a book, ``The Homeland Belongs to Us.'' The courage they demonstrated through testifying was truly inspiring and they provided a tremendous witness of the desire of the Cuban people to be free. Martha Beatriz Roque was arrested in the now infamous March 2003 crackdown of Cuba's bravest and brightest were rounded up, paraded before kangaroo courts on trumped up charges and given harsh prison sentences with sickening speed. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison but released in July of 2004 because of poor health. In an interview after her release, Roque said: ``I leave prison without having accepted any sort of conditions. I am a dissident and I will remain one.'' Madam Speaker, we gather today in support of Roque, Bonne, Manzano, and these other brave leaders as they prepare for this historic event. I have been invited to participate in the Assembly to Promote the Civil Society and sent my visa application through the Department of State to Cuba through the US Interest Section. Madam Speaker, I note that in March of 2003, I also requested to travel to Cuba along with my colleague, Congressman Frank Wolf, but we were denied visas. This is a regime that has strongly advocated for trade and travel with the United States, and yet the government of Cuba would not give visas to two Members of Congress, each of whom have served in the House of Representatives for nearly 25 years. What do they hide? What do they fear? I hope that the Cuban government will allow me to travel. I hope to be with the brave leaders of freedom in Cuba on this day of peaceful advocacy. The world will be watching next week Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the regime will allow this event to take place. If they fail to do so, they will continue to experience alienation from the world community. Our hopes and prayers are with the brave leaders of the Assembly to Promote the Civil Society next week. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this resolution that supports the brave advocates for freedom in Cuba.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, as chairman of the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operation subcommittee, I convened a hearing on the precarious situation involving Ethiopia and Eritrea. Seven years ago this month, the East African nations of Eritrea and Ethiopia began a devastating two-year conflict that cost the lives of as many as 100,000 soldiers and civilians. The war, which largely took place on Eritrean territory, displaced a third of that country's population and caused massive destruction. The deprivation in both countries continues long after the war ended, and the suffering goes on. Eritrea's economy has been battered by four years of drought, which has further diminished this country's ability to feed its people. The U.S. Department of State estimates that large budget deficits have been caused by continued high defense spending. If not for remittances from Eritreans living abroad, the country's economy would be hard-pressed to sustain itself. In Ethiopia, the United Nations Children's Fund has identified 25 hot spots around the country where people are facing serious risk of malnutrition. This current crisis, according to UNICEF, is at least partly caused by delays in the start of the government's safety net program, and continued military spending will only further exacerbate the problems with an economy now surviving due to foreign assistance. Human rights and democracy also are diminished by the concentration of both governments on resolving the border issue. In the current U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Eritrea was cited for its poor human rights record: ``Citizens did not have the ability to change their government. Security forces were responsible for unlawful killings; however, there were no new reports of disappearances. There were numerous reports that security forces resorted to torture and physical beatings of prisoners, particularly during interrogations, and security forces severely mistreated army deserters and draft evaders. The Government generally did not permit prison visits by local or international groups, except the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Arbitrary arrests and detentions continued to be problems; an unknown number of persons were detained without charge because of political opinion.'' Congress has been particularly interested in the case of Aster Yohannes, an Eritrean national who has been held incommunicado without due process since trying to visit her husband in jail in December 2003. A number of my colleagues and I sent a letter to Eritrean President Isaias (EE-SIGH-US) Afwerki (AF-WORK-EE) on January 6, 2004, concerning this matter: ``We respectfully urge you to release Aster Yohannes immediately and allow her to return to her family,'' the letter stated. ``Web will regard this as a first step toward restoring human rights in Eritrea. We look forward to resolving this and other important issues in the very near future.'' I personally have met with Eritrean officials at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva and here in the United States specifically on this issue last year and only a few weeks ago. Yet, more than a year later, Mrs. Yohannes is still imprisoned with no trial in sight, as are two U.S. Embassy personnel held without trial since 2001. Eritrea's half Christian-half Muslim population has coexisted peacefully, but there are tensions that could lead to serious problems. There have been incidents of violence involving Muslim extremists and even violent incidents involving Coptics and other Christian groups. Government concern over the rapidly growing Pentecostal group has led to mistreatment of believers. On the whole, security issues seem to have put religious freedom aside in the priorities of the Eritrean government. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was unable to be with us today, but they have submitted for the record a statement and report that details troubling limitations on religious freedom in Eritrea. For the first time last year, the Secretary of State designated Eritrea as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' under the International Religious Freedom Act for particularly severe violation of religious freedom. Finally, after a promising start to its democracy at independence, Eritrea cracked down on the political opposition in September 2001 and continues to seriously limit the ability of citizens to express themselves through the vote. The State Department human rights report noted improvements in Ethiopia's human rights record, but it continues to note serious remaining problems: ``Security forces committed a number of unlawful killings, including alleged political killings, and beat, tortured, and mistreated detainees. Prison conditions remained poor. The Government continued to arrest and detain persons arbitrarily, particularly those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the OLF. Thousands of suspects remained in detention without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights, and the law regarding search warrants was often ignored. The Government restricted freedom of the press; however, compared with previous years, there were fewer reports that journalists were arrested, detained or punished for writing articles critical of the Government. Journalists continued to practice self censorship. The Government at times restricted freedom of assembly, particularly for members of opposition political parties; security forces at times used excessive force to disperse demonstrations.'' In Ethiopia, Human Rights Watch has documented incidents of murder, rape and torture committed by the Ethiopian military against the Anuak (ANN-YOU-AK) people in the southwestern region of Gambella. As our witness will detail in his testimony, hundreds of Anuak villagers have been killed in a series of attacks by soldiers and civilian mobs since December 2003. Beatings and torture of Anuaks have become all too commonplace in Ethiopia under a government whose attention is not focused on such egregious human rights violations. Concerns over a repeat of the irregularities surrounding Ethiopia's 2000 and 2001 elections prompted some of my colleagues to introduce H.R. 935 to urge the Government of Ethiopia to ensure free and fair elections on May 15th. I commend the sponsors of this legislation and support the call for orderly, peaceful, free and fair elections in Ethiopia. The short time remaining may limit the impact of this important piece of legislation, which is aimed specifically at the upcoming elections. Therefore, I would like to work with the cosponsors of this bill on legislation soon after the elections in Ethiopia that would allow us to be more comprehensive and develop a legislative response that is consistent with the importance of this country in America's overall Africa policy. Today, a number of colleagues joined me in sending a letter to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, urging him to rescind the expulsion of three American NGOs helping to build democracy--the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. For the sake of continuing democratic progress in Ethiopia, we hope the Prime Minister will respond positively to our request. Again, Eritrea and Ethiopia are concentrating on building their military forces, and they are neglecting the very pressing needs of their people. Now their mutual militaries seem poised to renew open warfare due to unresolved issues involving their common border. Both nations have increased their deployment of troops on the security zone border. Ethiopia recently added 30,000 troops for an estimated total of 90,000 armed men, most said to be within 40 kilometers of the frontier. While it is unclear exactly how many troops the Eritreans have deployed, they feel empowered to threaten military action if the current stalemate concerning the international border commission's ruling is not accepted fully by the Ethiopian government. As recently as Tuesday of this week, Eritrean President Isaias announced at his ruling party conference that war with Ethiopia is imminent. President Isaias said his upcoming budget would be planned with war in mind. Presumably that budget will include funding for the arms the Eritreans agreed last month to buy from Russia. If the war resumes, Ethiopia's Tekeze dam and Eritrea's port of Assab will be prime targets, which will only make worse an already precarious state of development in both nations. It is difficult to understand why these formerly friendly nations would risk further devastation for territory not particularly blessed with natural resources. However, one must keep in mind that this border dispute actually dates back to the somewhat vague borders drawn by Italy, the former colonial power. So long as Eritrea and Ethiopia were united under colonial or dictatorial rule, the border issues were not pressing. The peace process that eventually ended the war was predicated on an international commission impartially ruling on the demarcation of the 1000 kilometer border between the two countries. However, the decision of the commission has only been accepted ``in principle'' by the Ethiopians, who stand to lose their access to the Red Sea. The Ethiopian government is publicly complaining about loss of the town of Badme, hardly a strategic center. Meanwhile, the Eritreans refuse to even discuss the matter further. U.S. policy should be clear on the Eritrea-Ethiopia dispute, but it appears to have depended on the old paradigm. We are supportive of both Eritrea and Ethiopia; however, issues such as the fight against global terrorism and the effort to contain Sudan's hostile government have caused American policy to tread lightly on development, democracy and human rights issues in those countries. We should not have to choose between security and democracy and human rights. It is not an ``either- or'' situation but ``both-and.'' We must find a new framework for U.S. policy in the Horn of Africa, and we called this hearing partly to see how the Administration is addressing the full range of our concerns in this region. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia make themselves more vulnerable to internal turmoil by their inability to address the many other vital issues they face even if there is a stalemate in the border dispute. This is neither in the short term interest of these two nations nor in the long term strategic interest of the United States. Identifying a more effective policy toward resolving the Eritrea-Ethiopia dispute was the focus of today's hearing.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back, I just want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) again for his eloquent statement. He truly, he and his wife, Annette, are the personification of liberation. They are survivors of the Holocaust; and he just has been a great champion for human rights. And so many Members of this body have served in World War II as well, including the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on International Relations, who served in the Pacific theatre and was very active in the liberation, obviously, against Imperial Japan. But, again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership and his very eloquent statement.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. 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. Res. 233.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my good friend and colleague for authoring this resolution, which calls on the government of Nigeria to transfer the former President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and for bringing it before us today. In August of 2003, as a vicious war engulfed the Liberian capital of Monrovia, the government of Nigeria made a bold offer. In the interest of peace, they would offer asylum to Liberia's pariah President, Charles Taylor. The decision to host an indicted war criminal that had terrorized his people and fomented conflict throughout West Africa could not have been an easy one. I shudder to think of the countless lives which surely would have been lost had Charles Taylor been allowed to remain in Liberia and continue his reign of terror. Thanks in no small part to Nigeria, the war in Liberia now has ended, a transitional government is preparing for historic elections, and Liberians, at long last, may have the opportunity to live in peace. But Taylor's asylum deal did not come without conditions. Under the terms of the agreement, Taylor reportedly is prohibited from communicating with anyone engaged in political, illegal, or governmental activities in Liberia. By all accounts, he repeatedly and unabashedly has violated that agreement. Further, the asylum did not grant Taylor amnesty for his past crimes. This warlord-turned-President-turned-war criminal has worked long and hard to earn the reputation of ``the cancer of West Africa.'' He is alleged to be cooperating with international terrorist organizations. He has engaged in the illicit trade in blood diamonds in violation of U.S. sanctions. He is linked to the proliferation of small arms throughout the region. He has fomented conflict not only in Liberia, but also in neighboring Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Cote d'Ivoire. In sum, Charles Taylor has destabilized the entire sub-region of West Africa, leaving thousands dead and millions displaced in his wake. But it was Taylor's active support for the Revolutionary United Front, or the RUF, of Sierra Leone, a rebel group notorious, as my colleague pointed out just a moment ago, for hacking off the limbs of innocent civilians, including women and children, which earned him an indictment by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. That indictment, which included 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, reads like a grotesque horror novel. The Special Court for Sierra Leone, a court which this Congress actively supports, is expected to conclude its work this year. That cannot be done, however, if Taylor is not transferred from Freetown immediately. Furthermore, there can be no peace in Liberia or in West Africa so long as Taylor is allowed to maintain influence and act as a menace to his neighbors. The clock is ticking, Madam Speaker, while the legitimacy of the Special Court and the stability of West Africa hang in the balance. The time to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for prosecution is now. Charles Taylor, Madam Speaker, has repeatedly violated the terms of his asylum in Nigeria, as the government of Nigeria itself has acknowledged. Consequently, the government of Nigeria would be justified in ending that asylum and turning Taylor over to the Special Court, as we now are urging him to do. This bipartisan resolution, which has been given due consideration by the Committee on International Relations, deserves every Member's support and, hopefully, we will pass it unanimously on the floor today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.