Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Henry Hyde, in sponsoring this important and timely legislation that would grant Ukraine normal trade relations status. With the historic triumph of Ukraine's peaceful Orange Revolution President Viktor Yushchenko's determination to consolidate democracy in Ukraine, the time has come to graduate Ukraine from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. Since 1992, Ukraine has been certified annually as meeting Jackson-Vanik requirements on freedom of emigration. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have closely monitored developments and actively encouraged progress in Ukraine with respect to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Since independence, Ukraine has made considerable progress as a participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in ensuring religious liberties and respect for national minorities. Normal trade relations status is especially warranted given Ukraine's embrace of freedom and the new government's active steps to promote reform and build a genuinely democratic future for this important partner. Congress has been supportive of Ukraine's efforts to develop as an independent, democratic and economically prosperous country that respects human rights and the rule of law, enjoys good relations with its neighbors, and integrates with the Euro-Atlantic community of nations. Today, Ukraine is positioned to realize these goals under leadership committed to democracy at home and beyond. No doubt there are significant challenges ahead. The granting of NTR to Ukraine would represent a tangible expression of support for the new government in Ukraine as they move ahead on their important historic agenda for change. President Yushchenko and the people of Ukraine deserve our support.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler amendment and ask Members, especially on my side of the aisle, to join us in striking section 101. Section 101 purports to reform asylum--but it does not. Under the pretext that it mitigates terrorists' access to the United States, the provision actually does a grave injustice and disservice to the persecuted, such as religious believers, and all others who have a well-founded fear of persecution and who seek asylum in our country. Section 101 imposes onerous new requirements on the persecuted, including those who have been traumatized by rape, torture, trafficking, and religious hate and persecution, to prove the persecutor's motive. Read the language. You have got to prove that persecution was a central reason you left and why you are seeking asylum. I would remind my colleagues that I have been in Congress 25 years. Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes never persecute. It is always some other pretext, whether it be the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Cuba. When it was Romania many years back, there was always a false reason. Slander against the Soviet state was used over and over again, never because you were Jewish or Christian or because you were an evangelical or some other reason. They always have a pretext. I can guarantee if this is enacted into law that real asylum seekers will be denied, and then the piling on just begins to start. How many Members have met persecuted people, traumatized people who are coming to our borders? They get their stories wrong. According to this language, if they have any inconsistency, even if it is not germane to the issue at hand, if they get a date wrong, how many Members have forgotten their wife's birthday, date or year? We all make mistakes. Get one of those things wrong and the trier of facts can exclude you based on that single situation. This is an ugly provision. I say with respect to my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, I am against terrorism. 9/11 hurt people in my district. They were hurt big time. This is an ugly provision, Mr. Speaker. It has not had, in my view, the kind of hearing needed in terms of the consequences that it will impose upon true asylum seekers. I hope Members will vote against this. I have authored 3 Torture Victims Relief laws to help torture victims. I meet with a lot of torture victims. They forget; they have been traumatized. You forget something pursuant to these new requirements and you are a goner. You are being deported back to that country of origin where you have been persecuted. Please vote against Section 101. Vote for the Nadler amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 31st Anniversary of National Catholic Schools Week, a week in which Catholics spotlight the important mission of providing quality education and strong character building of the 7,955 Catholic Schools across the country. In conjunction with this important recognition as well as National Catholic Schools Appreciation Day, I have introduced legislation designed to ensure that the federal government appropriately assists parents with the financial burdens associated with their children's education at a public or private school. My legislation, the Education, Achievement and Opportunity Act will provide refundable tuition tax credits for the educational expenses incurred by parents of children enrolled in elementary and secondary school. The legislation offers parents of elementary school children up to $2,500 in tax relief, while parents of a child in high school could claim up to $3,500 in assistance. Parents who choose to send their children to a Catholic school, or any private school, already pay twice for their child's education: once through their taxes and a second time for the tuition. These out-of- pocket expenses can certainly add up for some families and may pose an enormous obstacle to others. Sadly, many parents struggle--and some may have to forgo a Catholic School education--or any religious based school education--for financial reasons. Recognizing the unique and enriching educational value that Catholic schools provide, I feel it is important that every parent have the option to send their children to such a school if they wish. It is important to note that not only parents of children in the Catholic School system will benefit from this legislation. The tax relief contained in my proposal can be utilized by parents of children in private and public schools to pay for a variety of educational expenses. Most significantly, the tax credits are designed to help parents with the cost of tuition. However, the tax credits can be used to help meet the costs of other educational needs: (1) computers, educational software, and books required for course of instruction; (2) academic tutoring; (3) special needs services for qualifying children with disabilities (4) fees for transportation services to and from a private school, if the transportation is provided by the school and the school charges a fee for the transportation; and (5) academic testing services. The Education, Achievement and Opportunity Act proposes a tax credit, not a voucher, so the total amount of educational resources available for all school age children will increase. Under a voucher system, if a school loses enrolled students to a competing school, that school may lose the funding along with the student. Under my plan, that negative outcome is avoided. There are over 59 million youngsters in elementary and secondary schools across the U.S. today--about 10 percent of these students are enrolled in private, parochial and rabbinical schools. If the public education system had to suddenly absorb all of these students, they would be financially unable to do so. Therefore, the public schools benefit from the existence of the private schools as well. As every child is unique, so are their educational needs. It is important to support our nation's public school systems which are critical in providing educational opportunities for all. At the same time, it is important to support those parents who have a desire to provide a secure academic education for their children but in a faith oriented setting. It is my belief that the tuition tax credit should be available to all, no matter what their race, color or national origin. And make no mistake: the public school system will and must continue to remain the backbone of our nation's education system. However, we must never forget that the public school system was created to serve students--not the other way around. If a student is performing poorly in a school for one reason or another, parents should have the opportunity to move their child to what may be a better setting. And the federal government should help--not stand in the way. To truly make good on our promise that ``No Child is Left Behind,'' ensuring that Catholic Schools are included in this national promise brings us closer to achieving this important goal. A child is a child, regardless of which school system they are enrolled. The children enrolled in Catholic, private and rabbinical schools deserve nothing less that our full support. I urge my colleagues to support the Education, Achievement and Opportunity Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is a struggle based on unconditional love, even for the proabortionists, unconditional empathy for the victims, both the child and his or her mother, and unconditional courage. We are a movement with deep hope and expectation, that with God's all-powerful grace, and through that all-powerful grace, the culture of death will soon be vanquished by the culture of life, where all human life is cherished and respected. We pray for the day when branding an unborn child as unwanted will no longer mean a death sentence in America. Mr. Speaker, I have always found the term ``unwanted child'' dehumanizing, for it relegates a child to the status of a commodity, an object, a thing, something that can be chosen or unchosen at will, not unlike any other consumer product. Mr. Speaker, with each passing year, the horrific toll of abortion on women's lives becomes more evident, and it is time the media especially stopped censoring the truth. Women deserve better than abortion, and the compelling stories of the brave women, the postabortive women who are silent no more need to be heard. These very special women bear witness not only to the agony and the trauma of their own abortions, but to the hope of healing, reconciliation and inner peace as well. Wounded women like Dr. Alveda King, the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, who has had an abortion, Jennifer O'Neill, singer Melba Moore, civil rights activist, like I said, Dr. King, and so many others, and cofounder of this group called Silent No More Awareness Campaign, Georgette Forney, have all called on us to listen to their heart-wrenching stories and take seriously our moral duty to protect women and children from the predators who ply their lethal trade in abortion mills throughout the land. These brave women are the new champions of life. They have refused to be silent any longer. They care too deeply about other women and their children, and they want others to be spared the anguish that they themselves have endured. And to the millions of women who have aborted, they are uniquely equipped to convey the breathtaking love and healing and reconciliation that God provides to those who ask. They do have a connection, the silentnomoreawareness.org, if those who might want to contact them just go on the Web and check them out. They are unbelievably full of compassion. Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that with each passing year, the child body count from abortion in America grows. Since the infamous decision in 1973, more than 46 million babies have been killed by dismemberment or chemical poisoning, a number fast approaching the total worldwide deaths attributable to World War II; that is civilian and military deaths. And as we have feared, Mr. Speaker, the much touted baby pesticide, RU-486, rushed to approval by a very biased FDA, is poison not only to the baby, but women are dying from it as well. And now we learn, Mr. Speaker, from science and medicine that due to nerve cell development, unborn children from at least 20 weeks onward, and most likely even earlier, feel excruciating pain, two to four times more painful than you or I would feel from the same assault. Today, along with 75 cosponsors, I have reintroduced legislation, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, to require in part that women seeking abortions at this stage of development be informed of this gruesome reality. These kids feel pain, and we need to make that known to those women who are procuring abortions at that gestational period. The bill would also require that women be given the option of having anesthesia administered directly to the unborn child, because indirect administration does not cross the placenta to numb the pain that the child feels as they are being slowly dismembered by these later-term abortion methods. One of those methods, the D and E, takes about 30 minutes as the arms and the legs and the body and the torso are all hacked off. And the baby feels pain during this hideous procedure. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the partial-birth abortion legal trials in various courts around the country drew new attention to the pain that unborn children feel during an abortion. In expert testimony during these trials, Dr. Sunny Anand, Director of the Pain Neurobiology Lab at Arkansas Children's Hospital, said, and I quote him, ``The human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain that is perceived by a fetus is more intense than that perceived by newborns or older children.'' He went on to explain that the pain inhibitory mechanisms, in other words the fibers that dampen and modulate the experience of pain, do not begin to develop until 32 to 34 weeks of gestation. Thus these children feel pain, and they feel it excruciatingly so. Abortion is violence against children, Mr. Speaker, and these kids feel that pain. Abortion clinics, if we look at them as what they really are, are not only killing centers, they are torture chambers as well. I hope that we all can move on this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 100,000 human rights advocates endured the numbing cold and snow in a great witness for life here in our Nation's Capital. Their presence on behalf of those who have no voice of their own was truly inspiring. It was gratifying beyond words to see so many teenagers full of idealism and full of compassion and love for their littlest brothers and sisters and for all human life that is at risk. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the pro-life movement is the greatest human rights movement on Earth.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for his leadership on Ukraine and on so many other important human rights issues around the world. And for the resolution that he offered and gave us the opportunity to vote on in the latter part of last year, calling on the Ukrainian Government to respect the democracy process and to have a fair and free election which, thankfully, on the second go around, they indeed did. I also want to thank Chairman Hyde for H. Con. Res. 16, which gives us as a body the opportunity to congratulate the people of Ukraine for conducting a democratic, transparent, and fair run-up election. The historic triumph of the Ukrainian people, Mr. Speaker, in what has come to be known around the world as the Orange Revolution, did not come about easily. There were many moments of uncertainty. Congratulations to Victor Yushchenko on his election as Ukraine's president. President Yushchenko displayed remarkable personal courage and dignity as he led the struggle for democracy and freedom, despite the debilitating dioxin poisoning attempt on his life and numerous other attempts that were designed to thwart him. He deserves our admiration for his incredible persistence in carrying out the fight for Ukraine's democratic future. Mr. Speaker, I chaired the Helsinki Commission during the last 2 years, and we followed very closely the developments in Ukraine. We ourselves tried to influence and to bring to light many of the problems associated with the run-up to the election and the first election which thankfully was nullified. In various statements and speeches leading up to that election, and in hearings of the commission we noted that this election when conducted freely and fairly was perhaps the most important event in Ukraine since the restoration of independence. Accordingly, we sent members of the commission staff to Ukraine to act as poll watchers to try to ensure that ballot stuffing and a myriad of devices used to steal an election did not happen. I would also point out to my friends that in a remarkable display of people power, more than a million Ukrainians took to the streets of Kiev and elsewhere in a historic, peaceful and well-organized protest, a protest that caught the attention and the imagination of the world, and many people in dictatorships noted as well. This people power intention was to compel a second election. We got the run-off election, and thankfully, that was judged to be free and fair, and the outcome is beyond dispute. With the stunning success of the Orange Revolution, Mr. Speaker, Ukraine is now firmly on the path to fulfill its quest to become a thriving democracy in which human rights are honored and the rule of law prevails. The model of Putin's Russia or Lukashenka's Belarus have been rejected resolutely by the Ukrainian people. Ukraine has made its choice for democracy and freedom and for integration with the Euro- Atlantic community versus reintegration with Eurasia, with all of the implications of that choice for Ukraine's independence and its freedom. Mr. Speaker, throughout much of the 20th century, the Ukrainian people were the victims of unspeakable suffering, most notably the genocidal Ukrainian famine of the early 1930s, perpetrated by brutal dictatorships and various invaders. Toward the end of that century, the promise of renewed independence, for which so many had sacrificed, at long last came to fruition. The Orange Revolution and the victory of Viktor Yushchenko have brought Ukraine its freedom and, despite the formidable challenges that lie ahead, the true promise of a bright future. Mr. Speaker, finally, while listening to President Bush's inaugural address, I could not help but think of the recent events in Ukraine as a powerful example of what he called, and I quote him, ``one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant people, and that is the force of human freedom.'' We have seen, Mr. Speaker, this happen in Ukraine, and we must stand ready to offer our help and support and assistance to President Yushchenko and the Ukrainian people as they consolidate their free, democratic future. I thank my good friend for this resolution, for his great leadership, and for my good friends, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) on the Helsinki Commission, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member. We are united as a Congress on this very important issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this resolution. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who along with his wife is a survivor of the Holocaust. He is to be commended for his clear and unmistakable and nonambiguous condemnation of these horrific occurrences that occurred 60 years ago and before; and for his leadership today in Congress and around the world on behalf of the plight of Jews, who are still subjected to a gross anti-Semitism all over the world. Mr. Speaker, perhaps no other single word evokes the horrors of the Holocaust as much as the name Auschwitz, the most notorious death camp in the history of humanity. On January 27, the Government of Poland will mark the liberation of that camp by the Soviet Army some 60 years ago. Leaders from across the globe, including our Vice President Dick Cheney, will rightly and solemnly remember the victims of Auschwitz and the sacrifices of those who fought against Nazism. This resolution, H. Res. 39, recognizes the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz in German-occupied Poland. We also seek to strengthen the fight against racism, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, and anti-Semitism. The Congress of the United States joins those in Poland and elsewhere who are marking this solemn occasion. I particularly support, Mr. Speaker, this resolution's call for education about what happened during the Holocaust in general and at Auschwitz in particular. At that single camp, an estimated 1.1 million men, women, and children were slaughtered. All in all, more than 60 percent of the pre-World War II Jewish population perished during the Holocaust. Others drawn into the Nazi machinery of death included Poles, Roman and other nationalities, religious leaders and religious minorities, the mentally or physically handicapped individuals, those who were considered inferior by the Nazis. The lives of countless survivors were forever broken. When Soviet troops entered Auschwitz, they found hundreds of thousands of men's suits, more than 800,000 women's suits, and more than 14,000 pounds of human hair, a silent and grim testimony to the magnitude of the crimes that had been committed there. Mr. Speaker, throughout the last several years, the Helsinki Commission, which I chaired during the last 2 years, has tried to focus on this terrible rising tide of anti-Semitism that has been occurring throughout Europe, among the OSCE's 55 countries, and really throughout the world. I am very glad that the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2004, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and I and Senator Voinovich and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) all worked so hard to enact, now has given us its first installment, including a very comprehensive report, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) just read from, and which I would like to make a part of the Record as well. Members need to read this, Mr. Speaker. Anti-Semitism is on the rise, and it must be countered. A tourniquet must be put on this hate every time it reappears.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished Democrat whip for his very kind remarks; but note that this has been a very strong bipartisan effort, and he has been very much a part of that Parliamentary Assembly. When we first began to raise this issue, one of the focuses we brought to bear on the Parliamentary Assembly was the importance of Holocaust education. And I would ask every American when they visit Washington to go down to the Holocaust Museum and walk through that museum. Look at the pictures of the people doing the hail to Hitler, the Hail Hitler salute. Seemingly normal, everyday people who, whether they knew it or not, were buying into this extermination campaign that is the most horrific in all of human history. We would hope that when the Parliamentary Assembly comes to Washington in July that the 220-plus members of Parliaments from each of the countries will spend at least half a day going through the Holocaust Museum to remember so that the past does not become prologue. I would also point out to my colleagues that my own sense of Holocaust remembrance and education began when I was a young teenager, and a man who used to visit a store right next to my family's sporting goods store who was a survivor himself. I will never forget when he rolled up his sleeve one day and showed us that tattooed mark, the number. He was one of the lucky ones, like our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who survived this terrible time when hell was in session. So, again, this is another one of those issues that we all are deeply concerned about. There is no division between Democrat or Republican. And again I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his leadership on this as well. It has been extraordinary. Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith the ``Report on Global Anti-Semitism'' referred to earlier. Report on Global Anti-Semitism July 1, 2003-December 15, 2004, submitted by the Department of State to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on International Relations in accordance with Section 4 of PL 108-332, December 30, 2004. Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, January 5, 2005. Executive Summary I. anti-Semitism Anti-Semitism has plagued the world for centuries. Taken to its most far-reaching and violent extreme, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews and the suffering of countless others. Subtler, less vile forms of anti-Semitism have disrupted lives, decimated religious communities, created social and political cleavages, and complicated relations between countries as well as the work of international organizations. For an increasingly interdependent world, anti-Semitism is an intolerable burden. The increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe, has compelled the international community to focus on anti-Semitism with renewed vigor. Attacks on individual Jews and on Jewish properties occurred in the immediate post World War II period, but decreased over time and were primarily linked to vandalism and criminal activity. In recent years, incidents have been more targeted in nature with perpetrators appearing to have the specific intent to attack Jews and Judaism. These attacks have disrupted the sense of safety and well-being of Jewish communities. The definition of anti-Semitism has been the focus of innumerable discussions and studies. While there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses. For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered to be hatred toward Jews--individually and as a group--that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character. The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue. Global anti-Semitism in recent years has had four main sources: Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world. Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism. Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq. Criticiam of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both. II. harassment, vandalism and physical violence Europe and Eurasia Anti-Semitism in Europe increased significantly in recent years. At the same time it should be noted that many European countries have comprehensive reporting systems that record incidents more completely than is possible in other countries. Because of this significant difference in reporting systems, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between countries or geographic regions. Beginning in 2000, verbal attacks directed against Jews increased while incidents of vandalism (e.g. graffiti, fire bombings of Jewish schools, desecration of synagogues and cemeteries) surged. Physical assaults including beatings, stabbings and other violence against Jews in Europe increased markedly, in a number of cases resulting in serious injury and even death. Also troubling is a bias that spills over into anti-Semitism in some of the left-of-center press and among some intellectuals. The disturbing rise of anti-Semitic intimidation and incidents is widespread throughout Europe, although with significant variations in the number of cases and the accuracy of reporting. European governments in most countries now view anti-Semitism as a serious problem for their societies and demonstrate a greater willingness to address the issue. The Vienna-based European Union Monitoring Center (EUMC), for 2002 and 2003, identified France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and The Netherlands as EU member countries with notable increases in incidents. As these nations keep reliable and comprehensive statistics on anti- Semitic acts, and are engaged in combating anti-Semitism, their data was readily available to the EUMC. Governments and leading public figures condemned the violence, passed new legislation, and mounted positive law enforcement and educational efforts. In Western Europe, traditional far-right groups still account for a significant proportion of the attacks against Jews and Jewish properties; disadvantaged and disaffected Muslim youths increasingly were responsible for most of the other incidents. This trend appears likely to persist as the number of Muslims in Europe continues to grow while their level of education and economic prospects remain limited. In Eastern Europe, with a much smaller Muslim population, skinheads and other members of the radical political fringe were responsible for most anti-Semitic incidents. Anti- Semitism remained a serious problem in Russia and Belarus, and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, with most incidents carried out by ultra-nationalist and other far-right elements. The stereotype of Jews as manipulators of the global economy continues to provide fertile ground for anti- Semitic aggression. Holocaust and tolerance education as well as teacher training provide a potential long-term solution to anti- Semitism; however, the problem is still rapidly outpacing the solution. At the end of 2003, and continuing into this year, some Jews, especially in Europe, faced the dilemma either of hiding their identity or facing harassment and sometimes even serious bodily injury and death. The heavy psychological toll in this increasingly difficult environment should not be overlooked or underestimated. Middle East Jews left the countries of the Middle East and North Africa in large numbers near the mid-point of the last century as their situation became increasingly precarious. This trend continues. Today few remain, and few incidents involving the remaining members of the Jewish community have been reported. Nonetheless, Syria condoned and, in some cases, even supported through radio, television programming, news articles, and other mass media the export of the virulent domestic anti-Semitism. The official and state-supported media's anti-Zionist propaganda frequently adopts the terminology and symbols of the Holocaust to demonize Israel and its leaders. This rhetoric often crosses the line separating the legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies to become anti-Semitic vilification posing as legitimate political commentary. At the same time, Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization efforts find increasingly overt acceptance as sanctioned historical discourse in a number of Middle Eastern countries. Other Regions The problem of anti-Semitism is not only significant in Europe and in the Middle East, but here are also worrying expressions of it elsewhere. For example, in Pakistan, a country without a Jewish community, anti-Semitic sentiment fanned by anti-Semitic Articles in the press is widespread. This reflects the more recent phenomenon of anti-Semitism appearing in the countries where historically or currently there are few or even no Jews. Elsewhere, in Australia, the level of intimidation and attacks against Jews and Jewish property and anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric decreased somewhat over the past year. This year, New Zealand experienced several desecrations of Jewish tombstones and other incidents. In the Americas, in addition to manifestations of anti-Semitism in the United States, Canada experienced a significant increase in attacks against Jews and Jewish property. There were notable anti- Semitic incidents in Argentina and isolated incidents in a number of other Latin American countries. III. Media The proliferation of media outlets (television, radio, print media and the Internet) has vastly increased the opportunity for purveyors of anti-Semitic material to spread their propaganda unhindered. Anti-hater laws provide some protection, but freedom of expression safeguards in many western counties limited the preventive measures that governments could take. Satellite television programming easily shifts from one provider to another and Internet offerings cross international borders with few or no impediments. In June, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) organized a separate meeting in Paris dealing with intolerance on the Internet, and subsequently approved a decision on ``Promoting Tolerance and Media Freedom on the Internet.'' The decision is prescriptive in nature and carefully caveated to avoid conflict with the varied legal systems within the countries of the OSCE. It calls upon Participating States to investigate and fully prosecute criminal threats on violence based on anti-Semitic and other intolerance on the Internet, as well as to establish programs to educate children about hate speech and other forms of bias. Critics of Israel frequently use anti-Semitic cartoons depicting anti-Jewish images and caricatures to attack the State of Israel and its policies, as well as Jewish communities and other who support Israel. These media attacks can lack any pretext of balance or even factual basis and focus on the demonization of Israel. The United States is frequently included as a target of such attacks, which often assert that U.S. foreign policy is made in Israel or that Jews control the media and financial markets in the United States and the rest of the world. During the 2004 United States presidential campaign, the Arab press ran numerous cartoons closely identifying both of the major American political parties with Israel and with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon. ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' a text debunked many years ago as a fraud perpetrated by Czarist intelligence agents, continued to appear in the Middle East media, not as a hoax, but as established fact. Government-sponsored television in Syria ran lengthy serials based on the Protocols. The representations emphasized blood libel and the alleged control by the Jewish community of international finance. The clear purpose of the programs was to incite hatred of Jews and of Israel. Copies of the Protocols and other similar anti-Semitic forgeries were readily available in Middle Eastern countries, former Soviet republics and elsewhere. Similarly, allegations that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks were widely disseminated. In November 2004, Al-Manar, the Lebanon-based television network controlled by Hizballah featuring blatantly anti- Semitic material, obtained a limited 1-year satellite broadcast license from the French authorities. This was revoked shortly thereafter due to Al-Manar's continued transmission of anti-Semitic material. Al-Manar is now off the air in France. Other Middle East networks with questionable content, such as Al-Jazeerah and Al-Arrabiya, maintain their French broadcast licenses. IV. actions by governments In Europe and other geographic regions, many governments became increasingly aware of the threat presented by anti- Semitism and spoke out against it. Some took effective measures to combat it with several countries, including France, Belgium, and Germany, now providing enhanced protection for members of the Jewish community and Jewish properties. For the most part, the police response to anti-Semitic incidents was uneven. Most law enforcement officials are not specifically trained to deal with hate crimes, particularly anti-Semitic hat crimes. Police sometimes dismissed such crimes as hooliganism or petty crime, rather than attacks against Jews because of their ethnicity or religion, or because the assailants identified the victims with the actions of the State of Israel. In countries where anti-Semitism is a serious problem, specialized training for police and members of the judiciary remains a pressing need. Many nations still do not have hate crimes laws that address anti-Semitic and other intolerance- related crimes. In some instances where such laws already exist, stronger enforcement is needed. V. multilateral action Anti-Semitism is a global problem that requires a coordinated multinational approach. Thus far, the most effective vehicle for international cooperation has been the OSCE, comprised of 55 participating states from Europe, Eurasia and North America plus Mediterranean and Asian partners for cooperation. The OSCE organized two groundbreaking conferences on anti-Semitism--in June 2003, in Vienna and in April 2004, In Berlin. These were the first international conferences to focus high-level political attention solely on the problem of anti-Semitism. The Vienna Conference identified anti-Semitism as a human rights issue. OSCE Foreign Ministers gave further high-level political acknowledgment to the seriousness of anti-Semitism at their December 2003 meeting in Maastricht. There they took the formal decision to spotlight the need to combat anti-Semitism by deciding to task the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to serve as a collection point for hate crimes information. ODIHR is now working with OSCE member states to collect information on hate crimes legislation and to promote ``best practices'' in the areas of law enforcement, combating hate crimes, and education. ODIHR established a Program on Tolerance and Non- Discrimination and now has an advisor to deal exclusively with the issue. At their December 2004 meeting in Sofia, OSCE Foreign Ministers welcomed the Chair-in-Office's decision to appoint three special representatives for tolerance issues, including a special representative for anti-Semitism, to work with member states on implementing specific commitments to fight anti-Semitism. In addition, the Foreign Ministers accepted the Spanish Government's offer to host a third anti-Semitism conference in June 2005 in Cordoba. The United Nations also took important measures in the fight against anti-Semitism. One was a June 2004 seminar on anti-Semitism hosted by Secretary General Kofi Annan. Another measure was a resolution of the United Nations Third Committee in November 2004, which called for the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, explicitly including anti-Semitism. Education remains a potentially potent antidote for anti- Semitism and other forms of intolerance. Following the first Stockholm Conference in 1998, convoked out of concern for the decreasing level of knowledge of the Holocaust particularly among the younger generation, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States decided to address the issue collaboratively. The Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research (ITF) emerged from this initial effort. Today the ITF, an informal international organization operating on the basis of consensus, and without a bureaucracy, consists of 20 countries. ITF member states agree to commit themselves to the Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust and to its implementation. Current members of the ITF include Argentina, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States. In addition four other countries (Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Slovakia) maintain a liaison relationship with the ITF. vi. U.S. Government Actions to Monitor and combat anti-semitism The U.S. Government is committed to monitoring and combating anti-Semitism throughout the world as an important human rights and religious freedom issue. As President Bush said when he signed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act on October 16, 2004, ``Defending freedom also means disrupting the evil of anti-Semitism.'' Annually, the U.S. Department of State publishes the International Religious Freedom Report and the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Both detail incidents and trends of anti-Semitism worldwide. The State Department's instructions to U.S. Embassies for the 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices explicitly required them to describe acts of violence against Jews and Jewish properties, as well as actions governments are taking to prevent this form of bigotry and prejudice. In multilateral fora, the Department of State called for recognition of the rise of anti-Semitism and the development of specific measures to address it. The Department played a leading role in reaching agreement in the OSCE to hold the two conferences on combating anti-Semitism noted above in Section V. Former New York City Mayors Rudolph Giuliani and Edward Koch led the United States delegations to the conferences in Vienna and Berlin, respectively. Each brought a wealth of knowledge and experience in fostering respect for minorities in multicultural communities. Key NGOs worked productively with the Department to prepare for these conferences. In his address to the Berlin Conference, Secretary Powell said: `` We must not permit anti-Semitism crimes to be shrugged off as inevitable side effects of inter-ethnic conflicts. Political disagreements do not justify physical assaults against Jews in our streets, the destruction of Jewish schools, or the desecration of synagogues and cemeteries. There is no justification for anti-Semitism.'' At the United Nations, the United States has supported resolutions condemning anti-Semitism both at the General Assembly and at the UN Commission on Human Rights. An important lesson of the Holocaust is that bigotry and intolerance can lead to future atrocities and genocides if not addressed forcefully by governments and other sectors of society. The United States is committed to working bilaterally to promote efforts with other governments to arrest and roll back the increase in anti-Semitism. President Bush affirmed that commitment during his visit to Auschwitz- Birkenau in 2003, stating: ``This site is a sobering reminder that when we find anti-Semitism, whether it be in Europe, in America or anywhere else, mankind must come together to fight such dark impulses.'' U.S. Embassies implement this commitment by speaking out against anti-Semitic acts and hate crimes. Ambassadors and other embassy officers work with local Jewish communities to encourage prompt law enforcement action against hate crimes. In Turkey, the U.S. Embassy worked closely with the Jewish community following the November 2003 bombing of the Neve Shalom Synagogue. In the Middle East, our embassies have protested to host governments against practices that have allowed their institutions to promote anti-Semitism, such as the heavily watched television series Rider Without a Horse and Diaspora that respectively promoted the canard of the blood libel, and ``The Protocols of Elders of Zion.'' U.S. bilateral demarches were effective in specific instances, but more remains to be done to encourage national leaders to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism and in support of respectful, tolerant societies. Building on the success achieved to date, the Department of State is accelerating its efforts with its partners globally to improve both monitoring and combating anti-Semitism in three specific areas: education, legislation, and law enforcement. The Department will continue to promote the development of Holocaust education curricula and teacher training programs. A successful program in this area has been summer teacher training partially funded through U.S. Embassies in cooperation with the Association of American Holocaust Organizations (AHO) and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM). At the October 2004 OSCE Human Dimension Meeting, the United States and France hosted a seminar on methodologies for teaching the Holocaust in multicultural societies. The United States also supports the work of NGOs in promoting educational programs abroad, in part based on successful seminars in the United States that teach respect for individuals and minority groups. Additionally, the U.S. State Department has supported efforts to promote tolerance in the Saudi educational system including by sponsoring the travel of religious educators to the United States to examine interreligious education. The roots of anti-Semitism run deep and the United States does not underestimate the difficulty of reversing the recent resurgence of this ancient scourge. The legislative and executive branches, together with NGOs, constitute an important partnership in continuing the vital effort to find creative ways to monitor, contain, and finally stop anti- Semitism.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that this legislation is a victory for the 9/11 families who lost loved ones, heroes, on September 11, 2001. Those family members who were the ones who were instrumental in creating the 9/11 Commission in the first place and who have been tenacious and persevering in making sure that we do the right thing deserve the credit. I want to commend them on their great work on this. Let me also respond to the previous speaker. By any measure, this legislation will improve our Nation's ability to protect against terrorism. The 9/11 Commission pointed out so well, and I quote them, ``Travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In a provision that I have long advocated for, and that was put in this legislation by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we now have provisions that fortify the visa application process and ensure that our consuls abroad have to thoroughly interview those who are applying for a nonimmigrant visa and meticulously inspect their documents. Let me remind my colleagues that those who committed the atrocities of 9/11 entered the U.S. legally. They got their visas. They went to one of our consuls in Saudi Arabia and, regrettably, the personnel there were giving out visas like cotton candy. The terrorists exploited a weakness in the system. So they came here legally. They were not illegal immigrants. And that point needs to be underscored. This legislation with Chairman Hyde's language closes that loophole so that terrorist will be stopped before they get their visas. That's a critical provision in a bill with many, many new programs and I support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. This legislation represents a hard-won victory for the family survivors of 9/11 and for all Americans. They have placed their hopes in us to make the structural changes necessary to prevent another intelligence failure on the scale of September 11th. It is fitting and appropriate that we consider this legislation on December 7th because prior to 9/11, Pearl Harbor represented the largest single day loss of human life to an attack on American soil. This is, Mr. Speaker, the survivors' bill. If not for the hard work, tenacity and dedication of the families of the victims of 9/11--those 3,000 heroes who lost their lives in that horrific attack--we would not be here today. Still, there has been much controversy surrounding this bill. Some critics charge that this legislation is not really needed; others contend that it was developed in a rush and should have been considered more thoroughly in committee and subcommittee hearings before being brought to the floor. Neither of these criticisms are valid. In fact, this legislation is the product of a comprehensive process that began over 2 years ago with the appointment of the 9/11 Commission. I was an early and consistent advocate for the 9/11 Commission because I believed the families deserved answers and the Nation needed a chronicled ``lessons learned'' and a way to move forward to make us safer. In pursuing its wide-ranging mandate to investigate the facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Commission reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents and interviewed more than 1,200 individuals in ten countries, including nearly every senior U.S. government official from the current and previous administrations who had responsibility for topics covered under the Commission's mandate. The Commission's recommendations were nonpartisan, unanimous, and published to wide acclaim this past summer. No less than 13 House committees held more than two dozen hearings on the Commission's report and subsequent legislation. In the Committee on International Relations, I chaired a critical hearing on visa reform and recommendations for enhanced U.S. diplomacy. In the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on which I serve as chair, we held a hearing on Emergency Medical Preparedness. Today's historic bill addresses and responds to the Commission's major recommendations, and will bring much needed reforms to our intelligence funding, gathering, sharing, and analytical processes. Anyone who questions whether or not these reforms are needed should read the Commission's report. It is filled with information--available to us at the time--that terrorists were actively plotting against us. But instead of our country being on a war footing, the investigations were treated as mere law enforcement cases, and information was not shared between the FBI and CIA. When Predator unmanned drones captured video feed of Osama bin Laden himself in the mountains of Afghanistan, the Pentagon and the CIA bickered for months about who should pay for upgrading the drones to carry Hellfire missiles. The opportunity to take out bin Laden before September 11th was thus squandered by bureaucratic infighting. Mr. Speaker, on December 7th, 1941 Americans said `never again' will we be caught so unprepared for a sneak attack. But it did happen again. It happened on September 11th, 2001, and nearly 3,000 men, women, and children lost their lives because of it. This legislation will finally create a national intelligence director who will have direct authority over our intelligence agencies and who will have the power to redirect assets and resources as necessary. The position of national intelligence director should have been created after Pearl Harbor, but J. Edgar Hoover, the powerful FBI director at the time, blocked its creation. Later, the Defense Department blocked similar intelligence reforms over the next several decades. Indeed, the same fate nearly befell this very bill before us today, and it was only the timely and persuasive intervention of President Bush which salvaged this historic package of reforms from being yet another casualty of perennial agency turf battles. Further, this bill creates a National Counterterrorism Center with the authority to plan intelligence missions and counterterrorism operations. The White House has worked with the conferees to ensure that neither the Director nor the Counterterrorism Center will interfere with the flow of military intelligence to the battlefield and the military's need to preserve its chain of command. By any measure, the conference report will improve our Nation's ability to protect against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission's report states that for terrorists, ``travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In a provision which I have long pushed for, this bill will require all aliens applying for a non-immigrant visa to completely and accurately respond to any request for information contained in the application, in order to prevent the disastrous series of events in which the 9/11 terrorists failed to provide the most basic of information on their visa applications, yet were still issued visas. It is important to remember that the hijackers were not illegal immigrants. They had valid visas because they exploited the weaknesses of our visa system. With this new legislation, we close those gaps. Consular officials must interview, in person, all appplicants for non- immigration visas unless a special waiver is granted. This bill includes provisions targeted at preventing terrorism overseas before it reaches our shores. I have been working in this area ever since our embassies were first bombed in Africa in 1998 when I authored the Embassy Security Act. Under the conference report, it directs the State Department to seek international agreements to track and curtail terrorist travel through the use of fraudulent documents and to establish international standards for travel documents, transliteration of names into the Roman alphabet, and common name-based watch list systems. Programs to screen threatening individuals before they reach the U.S. will put U.S. immigration experts at foreign airports. In order to address the root causes of anti-American incitement overseas which breeds terrorists and sympathizers, the conference report will provide scholarships for Muslim students, more funds for broadcasting and democracy building programs to the Islamic world, and targets aid for strategic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, which were described by the September 11th Commission as absolutely vital to the success in the war on terrorism. Today's legislation also includes several important, overdue measures to bolster our national security here at home. New programs and pilot projects to upgrade airport and aviation security include explosives detection screening for carry-on baggage, training for foreign air marshals, additional screening of airport workers, and blast-resistant cargo and baggage containers. We will enhance our border security by adding 2,000 full-time border patrol agents, 800 Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators, 150 consular officers per year for the next 3 years, and advance the use of new technologies such as remotely piloted aircraft to ensure the systematic surveillance of our northern and southern borders. Moreover, this bill will grant the FBI the authority to conduct surveillance and wiretaps on suspected terrorists, even if they have no known ties to any foreign country or entity. In other words, if the FBI is aware of a person trying to produce anthrax, but he appears to be working alone, they can still monitor his activities. For the first time, a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be created to ensure that privacy and civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered in the implementation of laws, regulations and government policies to protect our Nation against terrorism. This conference report also tightens our Nation's immigration laws to close loopholes. For instance, officials will be able to deport any alien who has received military training from a designated terrorist organization, was well as rendering inadmissible aliens who have committed acts of torture, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, extrajudicial killing or genocide. It is important to note that a crucial reform that the September 11th Commission recommended, but which is notably absent from this conference report, is to change the first responder grant formula and make the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants awarded and assessed based on risk and intelligence data. The House-passed bill which I cosponsored and voted for (H.R. 10), contained an excellent package of reforms to the illogical grant system that allocates nearly 40 percent of all of the DHS first responder grants strictly on a state minimum basis, rather than risk assessment, and divides most of the rest of the funds on a rote population basis without any risk-analysis. The H.R. 10 reforms would have benefited high-risk, high-population density urban states like New Jersey enormously, while at the same time scaling back grants to states like Wyoming that have fewer terror risks. It would have truly implemented the Commission's recommendation to ensure first responder funding was analyzed and prioritized strictly on risk. The state minimums were reduced substantially. The Senate passed bill and the Menendez substitute were either much weaker or put too much money into the state minimums, but still represented improvements over current law. Incredibly, the final conference report dropped both sets of improvements and essentially retains current law. Mr. Speaker, the failure to reform the deeply flawed current first responder grant program is a major missed opportunity for Congress. I pledge to work with similarly-minded colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fix this formula in the upcoming 109th Session of Congress. While the bill creates general national standards for driver's licenses, birth certificates, and social security cards in order to prevent the identity fraud that terrorists can exploit, as well as improves the physical security of the documents, I remain disappointed that the bill does not prohibit the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The idea of giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens is not only unsound, it is just not safe for the country. I will continue to push for limitations on the validity of licenses for those individuals temporarily in the United States. I am pleased that provisions I opposed in the House bill, H.R. 10--to expand expedited removal and basically eliminate appeals for asylum-- are not included in the conference report. These provisions would have dramatically altered our asylum procedures and would have had an extraordinarily harmful effect on true asylum seekers, human trafficking victims, women and children who are victims of domestic violence, and others seeking protection against persecution. We must continue to maintain the delicate balance between ensuring our safety and preserving our country as a safe haven for the persecuted and oppressed. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard over the last several years with the widows, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children and other relatives of the victims of September 11th to help establish a meaningful investigation and produce comprehensive reform. Today we mark the furthest milestone in this long, difficult journey. And while no amount of legislative reform can completely heal their hearts, they can take some comfort in knowing that their government has responded and Americans will be safer because of their hard work and great efforts.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3818) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to improve the results and accountability of microenterprise development assistance programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute in lieu of the amendment reported by the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3818, ``The Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004.'' I introduced this bill at the beginning of the 108th Congress, and this final product represents the culmination of months of hard work and discussion by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate, members of the microenterprise community, and USAID, to build upon one of our most progressive and successful foreign aid programs. I would like to thank Mr. DeLay and our leadership for scheduling this bill. We know that the House has been considering numerous important pieces of foreign affairs legislation in recent months--from the Foreign Aid appropriations bill to legislation reorganizing our intelligence community and better securing our borders to fight the War on Terrorism--and I am grateful that our leadership took time to schedule this important measure. I would like to thank Chairman Hyde, who has shown strong support for this bill every step of the way and moved it promptly at the beginning of this year. I would also like to thank Mr. Lantos, Mr. Weldon, and 81 other Members of Congress who cosponsored this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is primarily about ensuring better results, not authorizing additional money. A comprehensive GAO report completed in November 2003 revealed that oversight and accountability of microenterprise programs administered by AID is weak, and that programs are not having the desired effect of reaching the very poor-- those earning less than the equivalent of $1/day--to the greatest extent possible. In response to those concerns, H.R. 3818 builds-in accountability through a focus on cost-effectiveness and efficiency. H.R. 3818 establishes a dedicated Microenterprise Office within USAID which will approve strategic plans of field missions, establish a monitoring system in order to maximize the impact of programs and measure results, and coordinate preparation of a yearly report to Congress. The legislation also ensures that more funds go to the ``poorest of the poor'' through the development and implementation of easy-to-use, cost- effective poverty assessment techniques. Identifying and targeting the poorest potential clients who would stand to benefit most from microenterprise loans has proven to be more difficult than originally anticipated. I am hopeful that once developed, these poverty assessment techniques may prove useful not only for microenterprise but also in other areas of our foreign aid. This bill also stipulates that USAID should emphasize the use of global microfinance networks and other non-profit voluntary organizations in the implementation of microenterprise and microfinance programs. In the last two years, I am concerned that USAID has been shifting its focus away from non-profit organizations and networks to contractors in the implementation of the Agency's microenterprise program. While for-profit entities such as consulting firms are making excellent contributions in the areas of technical assistance, research and policy reform, global microfinance networks and non-profit voluntary organizations have the operational experience and track record in microenterprise and microfinance service delivery to poor people. These organizations are able to get resources directly to clients, and are well positioned to reach the very poorest economically active entrepreneurs in the countries where they work. Further, such networks have built self-sustaining microfinance institutions that now cover, on average, almost all of their operating costs. More than $150 million in earned revenue was captured by these institutions in 2002 to cover their operating costs, in addition to private donations that have added significant leverage to USAID's investments. These networks have excelled in rapidly developing microfinance institutions in volatile and risky situations, including during the early stages of a country's transition from war to peace. However, while H.R. 3818 also encourages the use of indigenous governmental organizations as implementing partners for microenterprise and microfinance programs, these governmental organizations should be used only when necessary, efficient and effective, and, in particular, only when they use the best practices in this field. Since the reforms in H.R. 3818 are so comprehensive, we expect USAID will work in close consultation with the appropriate Congressional committees and offices regarding this and other issues. The term ``foreign aid'' often has a bad connotation--and there are some good reasons why, too. Many times in the past, foreign aid was sent in a ``top-down'' manner to corrupt governments and organizations where it never really reached the intended recipients. Microenterprise, on the other hand, takes a totally different approach. It's a ``trickle-up'' approach that focuses on helping the poorest people on the planet build themselves up, little by little, into self-sufficiency. The success of microenterprise lending programs to empower entrepreneurs and borrowers in the developing world cannot be overstated. Over two million clients are currently benefiting from USAID-assisted programs that provide the necessary capital through small loans, usually of a few hundred dollars or less, for entrepreneurs to start and expand their own small businesses. It is estimated that 97 percent of microenterprise loans are successfully repaid and 70 percent to women, who are often very vulnerable, subjected to abuse, and in need of economic opportunities in the developing world. Microenterprise is a key vehicle to assist victims of trafficking and to raise the social and economic status of women around the world. Microenterprise also complements the principles President Bush has outlined for more effective foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Account. Business owners assisted by micro-lending are not only able to increase their own incomes, but through their efforts, they create jobs and help economies grow. Success stories from the beneficiaries of microenterprise are quite numerous. Take for example, Dorothy Eyiah (EYE-ee-ah) from Ghana. Dorothy was resourceful, but she had no idea how she was going to support her AIDS-stricken sister and family when she brought them into her home in Ghana. She used to support herself selling ice, but that wasn't going to pay for the food and medicines she now needed. She started praying. All doors seemed shut until Dorothy met some women within her village who were part of an Opportunity International Trust Bank. The Trust Bank could help her grow a small business--providing her with financing, training, support. Five loans later, Dorothy is the secretary of her Trust Bank and runs 3 businesses, employing 9 people from her village. She is content. Her sister is comfortable, all the children are in school, and their needs are being met. ``God has been so good to me,'' she says. Success stories such as this are what microfinance and H.R. 3818 are all about. By building the best possible microenterprise program, our goal is to reach the greatest possible number of poor people with services that truly have an impact on their lives. As we compare the effectiveness of various methods of implementation of funds, success will be measured by the ability to reach very poor people and other underserved populations, including women, and by the kind of impact these programs have on poor families. We are concerned not only with the efficient delivery of financial services, but also with the well- being of those who receive those services. We want to see poor people work their way out of poverty, increase their income, build their assets, and grow their businesses, and we also want to see them educate their children, achieve greater self-esteem, strengthen their families, and improve the quality of their lives. When we provide micro loans for the developing world, we export values upon which our nation is based upon, including the ideal that if you work hard and dream big, you can succeed. Again, I thank my colleagues who have supported this legislation and I urge the rest of my colleagues to do the same. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Patrick Ryan, Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, retires from government service, I rise today to pay tribute to his extraordinary career and accomplishments. After more than two decades working for the Committee, and a decade before that working for the Veterans Administration, Patrick is ending his public service career to pursue new personal and professional challenges. Mr. Speaker, one of the first actions I took when I was elected chairman 4 years ago was to name Pat the chief counsel and staff director for the committee. Having been a member of the committee for 20 years, I was already familiar with the expertise, knowledge, judgment, compassion, and devotion that Patrick had displayed throughout his career. A graduate of the University of Maryland, Pat went to work for the Veterans Administration in 1974 as a benefits counselor at the D.C. regional office. In this job, Pat learned firsthand about the challenges facing our Nation's veterans, especially those returning from the conflict in Vietnam. He also learned in detail about the programs and services that VA provided to help improve their lives. Among those Pat worked with at that time was a DAV benefits representative named Jesse Brown, who later became Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the 1990s. Shortly after Pat went to work for VA, he also enrolled in the evening program at Georgetown University Law School. Over the next 4 years, he continued to work at VA, moving up to the position of budget analyst, while attending law school at night, earning his law degree in 1978. He then moved to a new position in VA's Office of General Counsel, where he worked for the next 5 years. In 1983, Pat Ryan began working for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, serving as counsel for the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care. He later served as counsel for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, as well as for the full committee. Over the years, Pat was promoted to serve as both deputy chief counsel and finally, as chief counsel and staff director. For the past 22 years, Pat Ryan has made tremendous contributions to many of the most important new veterans laws approved by Congress. He worked on numerous bills to expand services for aging veterans and those in need of long-term care. He was instrumental in helping to establish domiciliaries for homeless veterans and was the principal drafter of legislation to authorize VA's transitional housing guarantee program to benefit homeless veterans. Pat played a central role in helping to establish the Department of Veterans Affairs and in creating the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Pat has been deeply involved in numerous successful committee initiatives that have expanded and strengthened the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC, program, survivor health care services, and educational assistance benefits available to surviving spouses and children of servicemembers killed in action or who later die of a service-related cause. And over the past 20 years, Pat has played a role in increasing the Montgomery GI bill benefit for qualified veterans from $300 when he joined the committee to over $1,000 today. Using his budget expertise, Pat has been invaluable in helping Congress ensure that VA's budget has been both appropriate and sufficient. His extensive knowledge of the law and the inner workings of VA has also greatly aided the committee in its work to provide exemplary oversight of veterans programs. From managing the committee's professional staff, to drafting legislation, to overseeing VA's programs and services, Patrick Ryan is the consummate professional. During the four years I have served as chairman, he has helped draft and guide to enactment more than a dozen new laws to benefit veterans, including legislation to modernize the GI bill, expand veterans' health care programs, strengthen benefits for disabled veterans, and aid homeless veterans. I consider him to have been a partner in all that this committee has accomplished during our time together and it has been an honor to work side-by-side with him. Throughout his tenure in the House, Patrick has earned and retained both the respect and the trust of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. Pat was hired by Chairman Sonny Montgomery when the Democrats controlled the committee, and he went on to serve both the late Chairman Bob Stump and me while Republicans have controlled Congress. Pat is equally respected inside the Department of Veterans Affairs and by outside leaders of veterans service organizations. Mr. Speaker, all of us who know Pat Ryan understand that he is driven to succeed, not for his own benefit, but to benefit his fellow man. What has made Patrick Ryan such a valuable public servant are his personal qualities of faith, hope, and charity. A leader in both his community and his church, Pat is well-known for his singing in the choir and for his love of music, especially his eclectic musical tastes. On a personal level, Pat Ryan has lived his life in a way that has truly made a difference. He has walked to the beat of our Lord's drummer when He said ``whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do likewise to me.'' For Pat, that means always looking out for the little guy. I have such respect and admiration for that character trait, and it is very strong in Patrick Ryan. What motivates Patrick first and foremost is devotion and love for his wife Kathie and their three children--Kerry, Dan, and Julia. For Pat Ryan, family comes first. Pat is ever proud of his father who has passed, William Everest Ryan, a proud Marine who saw combat action during World War II in the South Pacific, where he was wounded and won the Purple Heart award. He later joined the Justice Department while continuing in the Marine reserves as an Officer in the JAG Corps, retiring with the rank of Colonel in 1964. After a distinguished career of government service, Pat's father retired from government service in 1977. In 1999, William Ryan died in the VA nursing home in Baltimore, 3 years after his wife, Pat's mother, Rosemary Ann Kelly Ryan, had passed away. Pat Ryan has spent his entire career in Congress defending the same values his father defended on the battlefield and in the courtroom. These are the same values that Pat and his wife Kathie have taught their children through their words and their example. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of his colleagues in the House, members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and other Members who have known and worked with him, on behalf of veterans organizations and leaders across the country, and on behalf of millions of veterans who have benefited from his work, but have never known his name, I want to thank Patrick Ryan for a distinguished career of faithful public service. It has been an honor to work with him. I call on all of my colleagues to join with me in honoring Patrick Ryan on his retirement and to wish him good luck and Godspeed in whatever lies ahead of him.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as the 108th Congress comes to an end, I want to make some observations about democratization in Central Asia, an energy-rich and geo-strategically important region. All these states are ruled by secular leaders who cooperate with Washington against terrorists. There are U.S. bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, to help promote stabilization in Afghanistan. This collaboration benefits us, as well as Central Asian presidents, and should certainly continue. But unfortunately, these countries are some of the worst human rights violators in the OSCE space. Everywhere in the region, super-presidents dominate the political arena, with parliaments and judicial systems dependent on the executive branch. Media are under heavy government pressure; in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, Soviet-era censorship continues in force. Equally characteristic of Central Asian states is corruption, which has not only enriched the ruling families and the favored few at the top but has impeded the development of free media and independent courts. True, much of this characterization could be said about all the post- Soviet states to some degree, including Russia. But it is important to point out that there is a counter, or competing tendency in the region, exemplified by Georgia's Rose Revolution of a year ago. While Georgia has a long way to go, there is no doubt about the legitimacy or popularity of its leader, President Mikheil Saakashvili. Also the peaceful protest movement he led to overturn the results of a rigged election has emboldened opposition activists throughout the former Soviet Union to believe that society may yet be able to have a voice in who governs and how. Central Asian leaders were quick to claim that circumstances in Georgia were so different from their own that no parallels were possible. Still, the Georgian example sent shivers down their spines. That is one reason why the elections in Central Asia that have taken place this year have been, as they were in the past, carefully controlled, with predictable outcomes. Uzbekistan, for example, is holding parliamentary election in December. No opposition parties have been allowed to operate in Uzbekistan since 1992-1993. Despite pressure from Washington, Tashkent refused to register opposition parties this year, leaving only five pro-government parties to participate. Moreover, Uzbek authorities have contrived to keep opposition candidates from registering in single mandate races--even though officials told the U.S. Delegation to the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Review Meeting in Warsaw in October that opposition candidates would be able to run. The result is obvious in advance: another pro-government, pocket parliament, with no dissenting voices and no capacity to perform any oversight of the executive branch. It should be noted that there have been several outbursts of popular dissatisfaction in Uzbekistan in the last few months; President Islam Karimov's tightly-run political system may be less stable than many suppose. In neighboring, oil-rich Kazakhstan, opposition parties are registered and were able to compete in September's parliamentary election. Kazakhstan had previously expressed its desire to become OSCE Chairman-in-Office in 2009, and many observers linked Kazakhstan's chances to a good grade on the parliamentary election. But the assessment of OSCE and Council of Europe monitors--citing numerous infractions and an uneven playing field for pro-government parties and the opposition--was critical. Kazakhstan's chances of winning the OSCE Chairmanship have clearly diminished. At the same time, President Nursultan Nazarbaev--who is under investigation for corruption by the U.S. Department of Justice--has announced his intention to run, yet again, for reelection in 2006. Some commentators speculate that he may hold snap elections next year, to keep his opposition off guard. Should he win and serve out another seven-year term, he will have been in office almost 25 years. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, Central Asian leaders do not find the responsibilities of the presidency too burdensome: Tajikistan's President Imomaly Rakhmonov last year orchestrated a referendum on constitutional changes that could allow him to remain in office until 2020. True, Tajikistan is the only country in Central Asia where Islamic political activism is tolerated. We await with interest the parliamentary elections, in which opposition and Islamic parties will participate, scheduled for next February. As for Turkmenistan, one of the most repressive countries on earth, I'm pleased to note that freedom of religion advanced a bit. The government of President Saparmurat Niyazov took some steps to liberalize the process of registration for confessions--instead of 500 adult members per locality, now only five nationwide are needed to register a community. For years, only Sunni Islam and Russian Orthodoxy were legal; now Ashgabat has registered Baptists, Adventists, Hare Krishna's, and Baha'is. Moreover, the authorities released six Jehovah's Witnesses, although two others remain jailed along with the former grand mufti. These steps--taken under Western and especially U.S. pressure, but which we welcome nonetheless--allowed Turkmenistan to escape designation by the U.S. Government as a Country of Particular Concern this past year. However, troubling reports continue to emerge about limitations on religious freedom and harassment of registered and unregistered religious communities. We must continue to monitor the situation closely and encourage Turkmenistan to continue moving forward with reforms, as even the improved situation is far from meeting OSCE standards on religious freedom. In all other respects, however, democratization has made no progress. Turkmenistan remains the only one-party state in the former Soviet bloc and Niyazov's cult of personality continues unabated. Recently, he tried to discuss holding presidential elections in 2008. But in a farcical scene, the assembled officials and dignitaries refused to hear of it. They ``insisted'' that Niyazov remain Turkmenistan's leader in perpetuity; he, duly humbled by their adulation, took the issue off the table. This brings us to Kyrgyzstan, in many ways the most intriguing of the Central Asian states. Of all the region's leaders, only President Askar Akaev, who has held office for almost 15 years, has announced his intention not to run next year for reelection--though he has phrased the pledge carefully if he changes his mind. Kyrgyzstan is also the only Central Asian country where a large-scale protest movement has ever seemed poised to force a Head of State out of office: in summer 2002, thousands of people furious about the shootings of demonstrators in a southern district blocked the country's main road, and threatened a mass march on the capital, Bishkek. Ultimately, the movement petered out but the precedent of public activism was set. President Akaev's stated intention not to run again, the upcoming parliamentary (February 2005) and presidential (October 2005) elections and Kyrgyzstan's history of protest movements make for an interesting situation. In the next few months, Akaev must make fateful decisions: the most important is whether or not to run again. If he chooses to stay in office for another term, he risks sparking demonstrations. Though Kyrgyzstan is not Georgia, something akin to a Rose Revolution should not be excluded as a possible scenario. If Akaev opts to step down, however, we should not expect that he, his family and entourage would permit free and fair elections. More likely, he will try to select a successor--as Boris Yeltsin did with Vladimir Putin in Russia--and act to ensure his victory. But that course, too, could lead to protests. Any decision Akaev makes--with intrusive, anxious neighbors looking over his shoulder--is risky and might have resonance beyond Kyrgyzstan's borders. For that reason, the elections in Kyrgyzstan next year are of great interest not only to the voters of that country but to capitals near and far. Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to report to this chamber next year that democratization has made strides in Central Asia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in 1973, Congress passed the Church Amendment to protect the conscience rights of hospitals and health care providers from being forced into involvement with abortion. The amendment provides that the receipt of Federal funds in various health programs will not require hospitals or individuals to participate in abortions if they object based on moral or religious convictions. It also forbade hospitals in these programs to make, willingness or unwillingness to perform abortions a condition of employment. Since 1973, and I think many Members know this, various conscience protections, many of which deal specifically with abortion, have been enacted into law. Unfortunately, over the years, gaps in the protection of existing law have been exploited by pro-abortion organizations which have now undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care providers to participate in abortion. That campaign has met with some success, and there are a number of those which I will put into the Record, including trying to compel Catholic hospitals as a condition of a merger and acquisition to provide abortions. In one case in my own State, they compelled a $2 million settlement that had to go into a trust that paid for abortions. That's outrageous. To counteract this extreme campaign--to force health care providers to participate in abortion--Federal conscience law when signed by President Bush, will now be strengthened. The principle of the Hyde amendment was that no one should be forced to participate in abortions in any way, and that needs to be affirmed. That is what this Weldon-Hyde amendment will do. The addition of conscience protection to the Hyde amendment remedies current gaps in Federal law and promotes the right of conscientious objection by forbidding federally funded government bodies to coerce the consciences of health care providers who respect fundamentally the right to life and basic human rights for the unborn. The Campaign To Force Hospitals to Provide Abortion Forty-five States and the Federal Government protect the right of health care providers to decline involvement in abortion. Pro-abortion groups seek to abolish these legal protections: abortion access project Operating in 24 States, the project's goal is ``increasing access to abortion services by expanding . . . the number of hospitals offering abortion services.'' The project admits that its tactics include ``pressuring hospitals'' and it does so through both political and legal pressure. The ``Hospital Access Collaborative'' division reports on the State projects' legal and regulatory interventions challenging mergers. See www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/ campaigns/hospital/hospital.htm (accessed 09/07/03). american civil liberties union--reproductive freedom project: ``Religious refusals and reproductive rights.'' The ACLU has published a report and advocacy kit aimed at requiring all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to provide abortions. The report argues: ``When . . . religiously affiliated organizations move into secular pursuits--such as providing medical care or social services to the public or running a business--they should no longer be insulated from secular laws. In the public world, they should play by public rules.'' ACLU, ``Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights,'' January 2002, page 11, www.aclu.org/ Reproductive Rights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10516&c=30 (accessed 09/10/03). george gund foundation, pro-choice resource center and aclu reproductive freedom project national meeting ``Much of the debate focused on strategy, with participants wonder whether it was better to work toward improving and narrowing conscience clauses or to fight to eliminate them altogether . . . Although reproductive rights activists should still work to improve conscientious exemptions, [ACLU executive director Ira Glaser] said, their ultimate goal should be getting rid of them.'' See ``Conscientious Exemptions and Reproductive Rights,'' Executive Summary, page 10, www.prochoiceresource.org/about/CERR_Body.pdf (accessed 09/07/03). In one session at the national meeting, the group analyzed a same conscience protection which ``allowed hospitals, their staffs, or `any other person' to opt out of providing abortions, sterilizations, and contraception if they objected to such services.'' The participants decided ``the measure couldn't be fixed and should be opposed at all costs.'' Id. at page 11. Maryland NARAL Hospital Provider Project ``The goal of the Hospital Provider Project is to increase access to abortion services by requiring Maryland hospitals to provide abortion . . .'' www.mdnaral.org/initiatives.htm (accessed 04/05/2002). Planned Parenthood Federation of America ``While everyone has the right to their [sic] opinions about reproductive health care, including . . . abortion, it is important to remember that the conscience that matters most belongs to the patient . . . Health care providers who object to providing certain services still have an obligation to respect the rights of their patients and to enable them to access the health care they need.'' www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/exemptions.html (accessed 09/12/03). pro-choice resource center ``Through its Spotlight Campaign, PCRC [Pro-Choice Resource Center] organizes regional meetings to build a network of opposition to `conscience' or patient abandonment clauses that allow doctors, pharmacists and entire hospital systems to deny women access to services like abortion . . .'' See www.prochoiceresource.org/programs/rg_meet.html (accessed 09/ 05/03). ``Right now, so-called `conscience' clause laws are in place in 45 or 50 States, allowing doctors, pharmacists, clinics, hospitals, managed care plans and even employers to refuse to provide, or to pay for, abortion . . . The MergerWatch program is taking action to expose and overturn these `conscience' clauses.'' See. www.prochoice resource.org/programs/spot.html (accessed 09/05/03). current threats Unfortunately, gaps in the protections of existing laws have been exploited by proabortion organizations, which have undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care providers to participate in abortion. That campaign has met with some success. Novel legal and administrative strategies have resulted in: Forcing a private community hospital to open its doors for late-term abortions, Denying a certificate of need to an outpatient surgical center that declined involvement in abortion, after an abortion rights coalition intervened in the proceedings, Forcing a private non-sectarian hospital to leave a cost- saving consortium, because the consortium abided by a pro- life policy in its member hospitals, Dismantling a hospital merger, after abortion advocates approached a State attorney general to challenge the merger, Pressuring a hospital to place $2 million in trust for abortions and sterilizations before allowing the hospital to consolidate, Attempting to require a Catholic hospital to build an abortion clinic and pay for abortions, Threatening a Catholic-operated HMO with loss of State contracts because it declines to provide abortions, Prohibiting hospitals from ensuring that the property they sell is not used for abortions.

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 on H.R. 3818.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the author of the law, the Millennium Health Care Act, which has made a tremendous difference on behalf of our seniors who are veterans who need long-term health care. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, I include at this point in the Record a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body.

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.R. 3936.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, after 22 years on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Pat Ryan, our chief counsel and staff director, is retiring from government service. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his extraordinary career and his many, many accomplishments. For over 2 decades, Pat Ryan has made tremendous contributions to many of the most important new veterans laws that have been approved by Congress. He worked on numerous bills to expand services for aging veterans and those in need of long-term health care. He was instrumental in helping to establish domiciliaries for homeless veterans and was the principal drafter of legislation to authorize VA's transitional housing guarantee program to benefit homeless veterans. Pat played an essential role in helping to establish the Department of Veterans Affairs and in creating the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Pat has been deeply involved in numerous successful committee initiatives that expanded and strengthened programs to assist surviving spouses and children of servicemembers killed in action or who later died of service-related causes. Over the past 20 years, Pat has helped to increase the Montgomery GI Bill benefit for qualified veterans from $300 per month when he joined the committee to over $1,000 per month today. Using his budget expertise gained from 10 years working for the VA early in his career, Pat has been an extraordinarily valuable person in helping the Congress to ensure that the VA's budget has been both appropriate and responsive and that all funds are well spent. His extensive knowledge of the law and the inner workings of the VA greatly aided our committee in its work to create exemplary oversight of veterans programs. From managing the committee's professional staff, to drafting legislation, to overseeing VA's programs and services, Patrick Ryan is the consummate professional. I consider him to be a great friend and a great partner in all that this committee has accomplished during our time together, and it has been an honor to work side by side with him. On a personal level, Pat Ryan has lived his life in a way that has truly made a difference and has walked to the beat of our Lord's drummer when He said whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do likewise to me. For Pat, that means always looking out for the little guy. I have such respect and admiration for that character trait, and it is very strong in Patrick Ryan. What motivates him more than anything else, and it is first and foremost in his life, is his love for his wife, Kathy, and their three children: Kerry, Dan, and Julia. For Pat Ryan, family always comes first. Pat is ever proud of his father who has passed, William Everest Ryan, who was a proud Marine and who saw combat during World War II in the South Pacific where he was wounded and won the Purple Heart award. He later joined the Justice Department while continuing in the Marine reserves as an officer in the JAG, retiring with the rank of colonel in 1964. Pat Ryan has spent his entire career in Congress, defending the same values his father defended on the battlefield and in the courtroom. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of his colleagues in the House and members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs who know and admire him so much, and other Members who have known and worked with him, and on behalf of millions of veterans who have benefited from his work, but have never known his name, I want to thank Pat Ryan for a distinguished career of faithful public service. It has been an honor to work with him.

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 S. 2486, the Senate bill just passed.