Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 114 of the bill to remove a provision that would bar the VA from using funds to implement provisions of Public Law 107-287, the Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act. This vital veterans legislation would create new research centers to help protect future veterans and current ones from the effects of weapons of mass destruction. For the benefit of my colleagues who are not familiar with this law, the VA Emergency Preparedness Act was designed to give the VA health care system better tools and information to prepare for the possibility of injuries and illnesses to servicemembers caused by weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Susan Mather, the Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer, is ready to move forward to let these kinds of programs go forward so the research will be done, so if the unthinkable happens to our men and women in uniform with regards to biological, radiological or chemical, that we will have a more adequate response than we do right now. Let me point out that the VA excels in establishing Centers of Excellence. It does it on a myriad of fronts, including for combat and war-related injuries that are suffered on the battlefield. Two recent centers were established for that purpose. The VA is ready to go, and Dr. Mather made the point to the Under Secretary of Health that the VA health care system is ``more likely than any large, small, private or public health care system to be required to identify and respond to threats of chemical and biological or other threats to public health or safety.'' Thus, the Medical Emergency Preparedness program will facilitate the best medical care and services to veterans. The VA is ready to go. This provision in the bill that precludes that, I think, is unfortunate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. And only 5 minutes was allocated?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, further on my parliamentary inquiry, it is my understanding, especially after a consultation with the Chair, that the time was improperly accorded us. It was not a matter of seeking unanimous consent of any kind. We asked that they not be en bloc, so if they were not en bloc, I do call up the other amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Earlier on the amendment I called up regarding the $1.8 billion add-back, there were two amendments. I asked that they be considered en bloc. It was objected to by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) so they stayed separate, but we were allocated only 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for those additional 5 minutes to hear from a few Members who were precluded from speaking.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is the medical care amendment. I have two, Mr. Chairman, and this would be the first one. Since they are very similar, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc with the time allotted. We could dispose of both of them at the same time. Never mind, do them one at a time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The amendment would seek to add $1.8 billion to the medical care budget. I offered two amendments last night, Mr. Chairman, or asked that two be made in order at the Committee on Rules, and I submitted 50 copies of each to the Committee on Rules, so there should be at least one copy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, despite significant and sustained efforts by Secretary Principi and the VA to boost effectiveness and efficiencies in the VA health care delivery; despite enhanced DOD-VA sharing of resources, individual facilities, administration, and pharmaceuticals; despite improved collections from individual veterans' insurance companies, and as a matter of fact my committee passed legislation that will boost that even further, and collections are up 70 percent since fiscal year 2001; despite an ongoing crackdown of waste, fraud, and abuse by the VA, and I point out that PL 107-103, one of my bills, goes after fugitive felons and we expect to glean about $209 million per year by recapturing those dollars; despite all of this and increases in the VA health care funding over the past few years, there remains what President Bush's 15-member task force calls a serious mismatch between need and resources. After 2 years of vigorous investigation and analysis, President Bush's task force, and I would invite every Member to read the Bush task force report, it was co-chaired by Dr. Gail Wilensky and John Paul Hammersmith, the former ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and before then by Congressman Solomon, who has regrettably passed away, but was an outstanding man and lawmaker, and he was co- chair before passing away. This task force found, and I quote, ``that funding provided through the authorization in the appropriations process for VA health care delivery has not kept pace with demand.'' There are reasons for it, of course. Since 1996, we have seen some 600 new outpatient clinics created. So there are feeder points. Our men and women, either in their wheelchairs or by their feet, are walking into VA health care facilities and getting the kind of care they need; we have seen a 70 percent increase in unique users, new patients since 1996. The Bush task force pointed out, and I think it needs to be underscored, that there is a significant core underfunding. And you have to read this report because it talks about doing everything humanly possible, realizing every synergy, every efficiency; but when all is said and done, there is still this significant shortfall that needs to be breached by appropriated dollars. And, of course, one of the outcomes of not having sufficient money is that many of our veterans wait unconscionably long periods in order to get the care they need. The task force found a snapshot in January: 236,000 veterans waiting 6 months or longer to get a first visit or a follow-up visit to their doctor. An individual can get awfully sick and awfully diseased waiting that long to get health care. And I would respectfully submit that our veterans get sicker and more diseased by that inattention. We can close that gap by providing the proper amount of money. Let me just say to my colleagues, as well, that last night I went to the Committee on Rules, joined by my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the two ranking members of the full committee and the Subcommittee on Health, and asked that this amendment be made in order to add back $1.8 billion. What are we talking about? That is the number that was in the House- and Senate-passed congressional budget resolution, $27 billion for medical care, so that we meet the needs of our veterans for fiscal year 2004. Sadly, we were turned down. What is the predictable outcome? I would respectfully submit it will be an awful outcome if we do not provide these resources. The VA has given us an indication, a blueprint, if you will, of 1.2 million veterans being disenrolled. 1.2 million, every State of the Union, men and women currently enrolled will no longer be enrolled. Five thousand nursing home beds for the spinal cord injury patients and others who have very highly skilled needs will be idled, will be done away with if we do not add back this $1.8 billion. This is a very significant need, I would say to my colleagues, especially at a time when we are at war in Iraq. The war is over, but we have deployments and people are still getting injured and even killed. We need, in a bipartisan way, to step up to the plate and provide this necessary money. And I would say to my colleagues with regret and with respect for the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, that I will be voting ``no'' on final passage of this bill, and, hopefully, we will go back to committee, get this funding problem solved there and do this right.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I want to bring to the attention of colleagues two situations concerning internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Russian Federation. I recently chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing to assess the plight of IDPs , including those in the Caucasus region. The first involves IDPs from Chechnya who, according to reliable sources, continue to be pressured by Russian authorities to return to the war-torn capital city of Grozny, despite continuing violence there and a lack of many basic services. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2002, approximately 140,000 persons remained internally displaced within Chechnya, with 110,000 more displaced in the neighboring republic of Ingushetia. Despite international attention, including a letter initiated last fall by the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, the Russian Government continues to pressure IDPs to return, and in some cases limits the ability of NGOs to provide assistance. My concern for the safety of Chechen IDPs is well founded, as authorities in the past year closed three IDP camps, two near the village of Znamenskoye in northern Chechnya and the Aki-Yurt camp in Ingushetia, effectively forcing the residents back to Grozny. Reports of violence and human rights violations by both Russian military units and Chechen rebels in Chechnya are disturbing. The ongoing chaos in that war-torn region has kept UNHCR from certifying Chechnya as a safe return destination, which is supported by the fact that many international aid agencies have limited or suspended their operations out of concern for the safety of aid workers. Despite this lack of security, the United Nations estimates that more than 38,000 IDPs from Ingushetia returned to Chechnya last year, with many complaining of government coercion. While no camp has been closed since December 2002, Doctors Without Borders reports that government officials threaten to cut off assistance in Ingushetia and block future aid in Chechnya for those refusing to leave immediately. The stationing of Russian troops near IDP camps and the limiting of assistance from international agencies to camp residents represent pressure tactics to ``encourage'' the return of IDPs to Chechnya. Clearly, the Russian Government is not respecting the fundamental right of individuals to seek safe refuge. As a participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Russian Federation has committed to facilitate sustainable solutions to the plight of IDPs and the voluntary return of such individuals in dignity and safety. I urge President Putin to intervene to ensure that Russian policy and practice are consistent with these OSCE commitments and that no IDPs be effectively forced to return to their homes in Chechnya until the conditions have been created for their return. To do otherwise would place the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Russian citizens at risk. The second situation I want to briefly highlight concerns the plight of Meskhetian Turks in the Krasnodar Krai region of the Russian Federation. Also known as Ahiska Turks or Meskhetians, Meskhetian Turks were forced to relocate twice within the past 50 years, first from Soviet Georgia in November 1944 to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Uzbekistan. In 1989, approximately 90,000 Meskhetian Turks fled ethnic conflicts in Uzbekistan to all parts of the Soviet Union, with the largest concentration today found in Krasnodar Krai. Numbering approximately 13,000, these displaced individuals find themselves in a virtual no man's land, denied citizenship and permanent residency permits, as well as many other fundamental rights. Due to loopholes in the Russian citizenship law and the improper application of this law by Krasnodar Krai authorities, Meskhetian Turks must register as ``guests'' every 45 days, may not legally register the purchase of a house or car, and their marriages and deaths are not officially recorded. Most are denied education above high school, as well. The Krasnodar regional legislature enacted a series of laws in 2002 in an attempt to pressure the Meskhetian Turks to leave. Corresponding with the expiration of the temporary registration held by most Krasnodar Meskhetian Turks, the laws reportedly cancelled leases on land or denied lease renewals for the 2002 crop season. Furthermore, chauvinistic local authorities have not intervened to prevent local Cossack paramilitary units from repeatedly victimizing Krasnodar Meskhetian Turks through public harassment, robbery, and vandalism. In late May, a mob of around 50 people attacked Meskhetian Turks and other non-Russian-looking individuals in two villages, injuring 30 people and hospitalizing six. By not granting citizenship or providing permanent residency status, current Russian policy enables the discriminatory practices subjugating the rights of Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai to continue. Mr. Speaker, President Putin cited the problems of citizenship and stateless persons in his annual State of the Federation address earlier this year. The Russian President pointed out the complexities and uncertainties faced by stateless persons in Russia. I urge him and Members of the State Duma to rectify the status of Meskhetian Turks and other stateless persons. Meanwhile, the Kremlin should intervene to ensure that Krasnodar Krai officials desist in their discriminatory treatment of the Meskhetian Turks until their status is normalized, as well as guarantee the prosecution of violent criminals.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission to voice concern over Armenia's refusal to register select religious groups and the continuing harassment of certain religious communities, actions which violate Armenia's commitments to religious freedom as a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Honoring the commitments enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and subsequent OSCE documents would ensure Armenia upholds the freedom of the individual to profess and practice religion or belief, alone or in community with others. With respect to registration, Armenian law requires all religious communities and organizations, other than the Armenian Apostolic Church, to register with the government. Obtaining registration is critical if a religious community wants to carry out basic functions, like renting property, publishing newspapers or magazines, broadcasting programs on television or radio, or officially sponsoring the visas of co-religionists or visitors. To acquire registration, a petitioning religious organization must obtain an ``expert opinion'' from the government, in which four questions from Article 14 of the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations Act must be affirmatively answered: (1) Is the religion based on a historically canonized holy book? (2) Does its faith belong to a system of modern worldwide religious church communities? (3) Is it of a purely spiritual orientation, not created for the pursuit of material goals? (4) Does it have at least 200 believing members, not including minors? A negative finding by the government on any of the four questions will terminate the registration application. This type of approval system is extremely problematic, as it places the government in the role of determining what is or is not a religion, allowing it to make highly subjective decisions. For example, the government refuses to recognize the Jehovah's Witnesses as an official religion, despite having more than 6,000 Armenian members. Other small groups, including approximately 50 Baptist communities, are unable to pass the numerical threshold, so are not aualified to apply for registration. As a result these groups are indiscriminately denied basic rights enjoyed by those which have the government's stamp of approval. Last September, Prime Minister Andranik Markarian reportedly stated that the Armenian Government must curb the activities of minority religious communities, even if these actions violate Council of Europe obligations. Mr. Speaker, considering this type of bias, I urge the Government of Armenia to revamp the registration process to prevent arbitrary or politicized decisions. Abolishing the registration requirement and ensuring any system facilitates, rather than hampers, the free exercise of religious freedom for individuals and communities, by methodically granting legal status to groups which seek registration would help bring Armenian policy into conformity with OSCE commitments. Even more alarming is the Armenian Government's continued imprisonment of conscientious objectors, particularly from the Jehovah's Witnesses faith. According to the State Department's 2002 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for Armenia, military and civilian security officials subject Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to serve in the military to harsh treatment, because their refusal is seen as a threat to Armenia's survival. One particular example is the case of Araik Bedjanyan, sentenced on July 2nd to 1\1/2\ years in a labor camp for refusing military service. Mr. Bedjanyan was sentenced under Article 75 of the criminal code, for ``evasion of active military service.'' There are currently 24 Jehovah's Witnesses serving sentences for being conscientious objectors on religious grounds. Suren Hakopyan and Artur Torosyan, whom police arrested in Yerevan on July 3, are currently awaiting trial along with six others for their refusal to serve in the military. Seven more Jehovah's Witnesses are reportedly under house arrest for the same ``crime.'' Despite Article 75 being replaced by Article 327 in the new criminal code, the amendment only reduces the potential sentence from three years to two. One of the conditions for Armenia's admission to the Council of Europe in January 2001 involved the adoption of a law on alternative military service conforming to European standards within three years. However, while drafts continue to circulate, no laws have been passed that provide for alternative civilian service outside the framework of the army. In the meantime, conscientious objectors continue to receive harsh sentences. Should the Armenian Parliament pass such a law, the service length should not be punitive in nature, but rather be comparable to military service requirements. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I urge the Armenian Government to abide by its OSCE commitments regarding religious freedom. Armenia should overhaul its registration scheme, dropping the registration requirement, and liberalize its system for bestowing legal personality to religious communities and organizations. Furthermore, all Jehovah's Witnesses currently imprisoned for ``evasion of military service'' should be unconditionally freed, and a law in line with Council of Europe standards for alternative military service should be passed as soon as possible.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, twenty-nine years ago--on July 20, 1974--the Republic of Turkey invaded the independent Republic of Cyprus and seized control of more than one third of the island. In 1983, Turkey declared the seized territory to be the ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.'' For two decades this entity has received diplomatic recognition only from its creator and protector the Republic of Turkey. United Nations observers are deployed, and the 113-mile barbed wire fence known as the ``Green Line'' continues to divide the island. The United States has supported efforts by the United Nations to address the continued division. Though not accepted by both sides, the latest plan, the Annan Plan, remains on the table for consideration. Both Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders have met trying to resolve their differences on this issue. Over the last several years, the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, has held two briefings focusing on Cyprus. We have heard optimism from some witnesses, and skepticism from others. But the common thread throughout the testimonies has been that Cyprus has been divided too long and must come together to move into the future. In April, the Green Line was opened to private individuals and groups and their automobiles, and Cypriots flocked across by the thousands into areas denied them for over a generation. Although required to return home each day, families have been able to visit their pre-war homes. In an effort to develop trade between the two areas, the Government of Cyprus announced in June that it would permit Turkish Cypriot trucks carrying goods from the north to cross into the south. The trucks are inspected in accordance with European Union regulations and the laws of the Government of Cyprus Transport Department, which will issue permits to the drivers for the transport of goods, and various fees have been reduced or abolished. Thus, while we observe the anniversary of a bleak day in the history of Cyprus, we do so in the light of optimism. The people of Cyprus have made clear their desire to overcome the legacy of the past and move toward some sense of normalcy after decades of division. Regrettably, intransigence on the Turkish Cypriot side remains a formidable obstacle to ending the artificial division of Cyprus. We must encourage and support the efforts of open-minded reformers. I am hopeful that negotiations will resume under the auspices of the United Nations Good Offices Mission for Cyprus and that a new generation of Cypriots will have the opportunity to exercise their fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement, and enjoy economic prosperity in their own land.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Hefley Amendment to reduce IMET funding for Indonesia. Mr. Hefley has recounted the tragic story of brutal ambush last August, that resulted in the brutal murders of Edwin Burgon and Ricky Lynn Spier, two American school teachers in Indonesia. Eight other Americans were injured in this attack, including a six-year-old child. The Indonesian Police, human rights NGOs, and independent journalists have all concluded that it is very likely Indonesian military personnel were involved in this brutal ambush. With this case still unresolved after almost a year, now is not the time to reward Indonesia with IMET funding. The perpetrators of these brutal crimes still have not been brought to justice. We know that possible involvement in killing of Americans is not the only instance of involvement by the TNI, Indonesia's military, in the killing of innocent civilians. This is a corrupt and troubled military with a very poor human rights record that we should not legitimize through IMET funding. On May 19, the Indonesian government launched its largest military offensive since the 1975 invasion of East Timor with a declaration of martial law in Aceh. The ongoing brutal TNI military operation in Aceh, has been marked by reports of extrajudicial executions, torture, rape, and mass displacement of civilians. Thousands of civilians have been forced by the military into camps, where they face threats, inadequate rations and poor health care. Civilians reportedly ``disappear'' in the camps on a nightly basis. International humanitarian and human rights organizations, as well as foreign journalists, have been denied access to Aceh. U.S. journalist William Nessen has been detained and faces a possible five-year sentence for ``visa violations.'' When Nessen originally tried to surrender to military forces, they reportedly shot at him. Human rights monitors and defenders have also been targeted by TNI-sponsored militia thugs. The people of Papua have also suffered greatly at the hands of the Indonesian military. Sweeps by the TNI and their feared militias have forced thousands of villagers in Papua to flee to the forests. The TNI has reportedly prevented Christian pastors from bringing food and medicine to these villagers. The attacks in Papua and Ache are very much reminiscent of the brutal violence carried out against the people of East Timor in 1999. The TNI has thus far successfully evaded accountability for crimes against humanity committed in East Timor. The Indonesian Ad Hoc Human Rights Court for East Timor has been characterized by poorly drawn indictments, inadequate witness protection, an intimidating courtroom atmosphere and distortions of events that took place in 1999. The alleged masterminds of the 1999 scorched earth campaign have not been prosecuted by Indonesia. As of now, the court has acquitted 12 and convicted five, delivering light sentences. Four of the five sentences are actually less than the legal minimum under Indonesian law and those convicted remain free pending appeal. We know that human rights concerns are brushed aside by this regime. In a recent article, Indonesia's Defense Minister Matori was quoted as saying, ``Of course, it's all right to think about human rights but the more important thing is to think about the territorial integrity of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.'' It is also important to note that we know that less than a third of the TNI's budget is provided by the government in Jakarta. Additional income comes from legal and illegal ventures, including the extortion of U.S.-based corporations operating in Indonesia. TNI business activities also include illegal and environmentally devastating logging, drug production and trafficking, and prostitution. The questions my colleagues must ask themselves are: do we really want to finance a military with such a horrendous human rights record? Do we really want to finance a military that may have been involved in the killing of Americans when such a serious case is still unresolved? I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Hefley amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 212) recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of the Year of the Korean War Veteran, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 212, a concurrent resolution introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). This resolution recognizes and supports the goals and ideals of the Year of the Korean War Veteran. This year marks the final year of the United States' 50th anniversary of the Korean War Commemoration and the 50th year of the armistice. While actual hostilities occurred from June 27, 1950, through July 7, 1953, Congress extended the war period from January 31, 1955, for veterans benefits eligibility because of the uneasy period following the end of hostilities. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some facts about the Korean War. Between the period of June 27, 1950, and January 31, 1955, the Korean War period, 6.8 million American men and women served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Between June 28 of 1950 and July 27, 1953, 54,200 Americans died in service. Of these, 36,576 were deaths due directly to the war. Mr. Speaker, 131 Korean War veterans received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military declaration our Nation bestows. Today, there are approximately 3.7 million Korean War veterans still living. This period in our Nation's history, Mr. Speaker, has often been referred to as the Forgotten War. But that is being remedied, and Congress is doing its part. On July 25 of 1995, the Korean War Memorial was dedicated on the Mall. The sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), served 29 years in the U.S. Air Force and flew combat missions in both the Korean and the Vietnam wars. He was a prisoner of war in Hanoi, North Vietnam, for almost 7 years. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) is a very modest man. I do not want to embarrass him when he reads about this, but he is truly an American hero. I can think of no more appropriate person to introduce the resolution on the observance of the Year of the Korean War Veteran. I salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). I believe that every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle salutes him. We also thank the other cosponsors, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), all veterans of Korea, for their military service to our country. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 212 would serve to remind all Americans of the first war America fought to stop the spread of Communist tyranny and would encourage activities honoring Korean War veterans for their courageous sacrifice on behalf of all of us. America will not forget the veterans of the Korean War. I am pleased we are considering this resolution at this appropriate time. I want to again thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for scheduling this resolution the week of the 50th year of the armistice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 212, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Cuban political prisoners never have a nice day, so I rise today to remind my colleagues as we meet here in session, more than 400 of Cuba's best, brightest and bravest are suffering unspeakable cruelty at the hands of Fidel Castro and his thugs. The dictator's latest sweep, begun in March, has jailed more than 75 independent journalists and human rights activists. Afraid and fearful, Castro has now moved to silence all dissent. Castro is a weak and insecure man, utterly afraid to be criticized or held to account. Yet some in Congress still do not get it. They imagine Castro is a man we can do business with. Instead, Castro and his psychotic torturers ought to be at The Hague facing prosecution for crimes against humanity. Madam Speaker, Castro is a mass murderer, a cruel torturer, and anything but a benign revolutionary.