Title

Title

Statements

See what our chair, co-chair, and commissioners have had to say on the floor of the House and the Senate.

  • Related content
  • Related content
Filter Topics Open Close
  • Human Rights in Hungary

    Madam President, earlier this year I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing on the situation in Hungary. Today, I would like to revisit some of the issues addressed by our witnesses. Since the April 2010 elections, Hungary has undertaken the most dramatic legal transformation that Europe has seen in decades. A new Constitution was passed with votes of the ruling party alone, and even that has already been amended five times. More than 700 new laws have been passed, including laws on the media, religion, and civic associations. There is a new civil code and a new criminal code. There is an entirely new electoral framework. The magnitude and scope of these changes have understandably put Hungary under a microscope. At the Helsinki Commission's hearing in March, I examined concerns that these changes have undermined Hungary's system of democratic checks and balances, independence of the judiciary, and freedoms of the media and religion. I also received testimony about rising revisionism and extremism. I heard from Jozsef Szajer, a Member of the European Parliament who represented the Hungarian Government at the hearing. Princeton constitutional law expert Kim Lane Scheppelle, Dr. Paul Shapiro from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Sylvana Habdank-Kolaczkowska from Freedom House presented compelling testimony. Unfortunately, developments in Hungary remain troubling. Even though Hungary's religion law was tweaked after the Constitutional Court struck down parts of it, it retains a discriminatory two-tier system. Moreover, the Parliament is empowered with the extraordinary and, for all practical purposes, unreviewable power to decide what is and what is not a religion. This month, the government announced it is launching an investigation into the Methodist Evangelical Church, a church persecuted during communist times. Today, the Methodist Evangelical Church is known for its outreach to Roma, work with the homeless and is one of the largest charitable organizations in Hungary. As I noted at the Helsinki Commission hearing in March, it is also one of the hundreds of religious groups stripped of official recognition after the passage of Hungary's new religion law. The church has now complied with submitting the necessary number of supporters required by the law and, as a reply, the government has announced an unidentified "expert'' will conduct an investigation into the church's beliefs and tenets. This step only reinforces fears that parliamentary denial of recognition as a so-called "Accepted Church'' opens the door for further repressive measures. Veneration of Hungary's wartime regent, Miklos Horthy, along with other anti-Semitic figures such as writer Jozsef Nyiro, continues. In November, a statue of Hungarian Jewish poet Miklos Radnoti, who was killed by Hungarian Nazis at the end of 1944, was rammed with a car and broken in half. At roughly the same time, extremists staged a book burning of his works along with other materials they called "Zionist publications.'' At the beginning of December, two menorahs were vandalized in Budapest. Reflecting the climate of extremism, more than 160 Hungarian nationals have been found by Canada this year to have a well-founded fear of persecution. Almost all are Romani, but the refugees include an 80-year-old award winning Hungarian Jewish writer who received death threats after writing about anti-Semitism in Hungary, and was stripped of his honorary citizenship of Budapest on an initiative from the far-right Jobbik party, supported by the votes of the ruling Fidesz party. While there are many who suggest the real problem comes from the extremist opposition party Jobbik, and not the ruling government, it seems that some members of Fidesz have contributed to a rise in intolerance. I am particularly troubled that the government-created Media Council, consisting entirely of Fidesz delegated members, has threatened ATV--an independent television station--with punitive fines if it again characterizes Jobbik as extremist. If you can't even talk about what is extremist or anti-Semitic in Hungary without facing legal sanctions, how can you combat extremism and anti-Semitism? Moreover, this decision serves to protect Jobbik from critical debate in the advance of next year's elections. Why? Other new measures further stifle free speech. Unfortunately, and somewhat shockingly, last month Hungary amended its defamation law to allow for the imposition of prison terms up to 3 years. The imposition of jail time for speech offenses was a hallmark of the communist era. During the post-communist transition, the Helsinki Commission consistently urged OSCE countries to repeal criminal defamation and insult laws entirely. In 2004, for example, the Helsinki Commission wrote to Minister of Justice Peter Barandy regarding the criminal convictions of Andras Bencsik and Laszlo Attila Bertok. This new law, raced through under an expedited procedure in the wake of a bi-election controversy in which allegations of voter manipulation were traded, was quickly criticized by the OSCE representative on Freedom of the Media. I share her concerns that these changes to the criminal code may lead to the silencing of critical or differing views in society and are inconsistent with OSCE commitments. Hungary was once held up as a model of peaceful democratic transition and is situated in a region of Europe where the beacon of freedom is still sought by many today. I hope Hungary will return to a leadership role in the protection of human rights and the promotion of democracy. 

  • The 80th Anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine

    Madam President, this year we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Holodomor, the genocidal Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933. Eighty years ago, an engineered famine in Soviet-dominated Ukraine and bordering ethnically-Ukrainian territory resulted in the horrific deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. I visited the Holodomor monument in central Kyiv, a poignant reminder of the suffering perpetrated by Soviet dictator Stalin's deliberate and inhumane policy to suppress the Ukrainian people and destroy their human, cultural, and political rights. Requisition brigades, acting on Stalin's orders to fulfill impossibly high grain quotas, took away the last scraps of food from starving families and children. Eyewitness accounts describing the despair of the starving are almost unfathomable. Millions of rural Ukrainians slowly starved--an excruciatingly painful form of death--amid some of the world's most  fertile farmland, while stockpiles of expropriated grain rotted by the ton, often nearby.  Meanwhile, Ukraine's borders were sealed to prevent the starving from leaving to less-affected areas. International offers of help were rejected, with Stalin's henchmen denying a famine was taking place. At the same time, Soviet grain was being exported to the West. The final report of the congressionally created Commission on the Ukraine Famine concluded in 1988 that "Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-33.'' No less than Rafael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish-American lawyer who coined the term "genocide'' and was instrumental in the adoption of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, described the "destruction of the Ukrainian nation'' as the "classic example of Soviet genocide.'' We must never forget the victims of the Holodomor or those of other republics in the Soviet Union, notably Kazakhstan, that witnessed cruel, mass starvation as a result of Stalin's barbarism, and we must  redouble our efforts to protect human rights and democracy, ensuring that 20th-century genocides such as the Holocaust, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Ukraine, Bosnia, Cambodia, and Rwanda become impossible to imagine in the future.

  • 75th Anniversary of Kristallnacht

    Mr. President, I rise today to remember those who perished and suffered during Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass, seventy-five years ago on November 9 and 10 in Germany, German-occupied Austria, and German-occupied Czechoslovakia. Earlier that year, in March 1938, Germany absorbed Austria – the so-called Anschluss. Then, at the September 1938 Munich conference, France, Britain and Italy allowed Germany to annex the western rim of Czechoslovakia and to claim its three million Sudeten Germans as its own. In both acts, the concept of loyalty to the state was equated with ethnic identity. Then, in October 1938, Germany expelled seventeen thousand Jews with Polish citizenship from Germany into Poland. These families were arrested at night, transported by train to the Polish border, and effectively left in limbo, as Poland initially refused to accept them. The son of two of these expellees, a Polish Jew in France, took revenge: He assassinated a German diplomat in Paris.  Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels subsequently asserted that “World Jewry” was responsible for the assassination and gave the signal for the start of the first large open pogrom in Germany: "the Führer,” he stated, “has decided that . . . demonstrations should not be prepared or organized by the Party, but insofar as they erupt spontaneously, they are not to be hampered.”  As described by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: “The rioters destroyed 267 synagogues throughout Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland. Many synagogues burned throughout the night, in full view of the public and of local firefighters, who had received orders to intervene only to prevent flames from spreading to nearby buildings. SA and Hitler Youth members across the country shattered the shop windows of an estimated 7,500 Jewish-owned commercial establishments, and looted their wares. Jewish cemeteries became a particular object of desecration in many regions. The pogrom proved especially destructive in Berlin and Vienna, home to the two largest Jewish communities in the German Reich. Mobs of SA men roamed the streets, attacking Jews in their houses and forcing Jews they encountered to perform acts of public humiliation. Although murder did not figure in the central directives, Kristallnacht claimed the lives of at least 91 Jews between the 9th and 10th of November. Police records of the period document a high number of rapes and of suicides in the aftermath of the violence.” Kristallnacht was thus a crucial turning point in the Holocaust – moving from a policy of removing Jews from Germany and German occupied lands, to murdering them. It also stands as an enduring example of the danger of associating citizenship with ethnicity, of tying loyalty to the state with blood identity. Kristallnacht is but one example of how hate can proliferate and erode our societies, and why I have worked tirelessly to advance global efforts to ensure atrocities such as this never happen again. In my capacity as a Chair of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and decades long work as a Member of Congress, I have advanced efforts to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance and discrimination in North America and Europe.  This work has ranged from Commission hearings to raise awareness of the continuing scourge of anti-Semitism to leading inter-parliamentary efforts to create Personal Representatives or high level officials within the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to combat Anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. Sadly, the election of anti-Semitic political parties in Europe coupled with efforts to adopt circumcision, ritual slaughter, and other laws in Europe that would alter Jewish life and continuing incidents of anti-Semitic violence let us know that the work to eradicate anti-Semitism is not yet complete. As we honor the 75th Anniversary of Kristallnacht, I ask that you join me in honoring the victims and families of that horrible tragedy and join me in fighting hate and bias in all its forms.  Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Remembering Nicolae Gheorghe

    Mr. President, on August 8, Nicolae Gheorghe, one of the leading figures of the Romani civil rights movement, passed away. He was devoted to improving the situation of Roma, ultimately playing a pivotal role on the international stage and especially within the OSCE. Gheorghe lived an extraordinary life and will be long remembered for his singular contribution to the advancement of human rights. Nicolae Gheorghe was born in 1946 in Romania during the aftermath of the fascist regime led by Marshall Ion Antonescu. His mother had narrowly escaped the mass deportations of 25,000 Roma planned and implemented by the Antonescu regime. Members of the Helsinki Commission first met Nicolae Gheorghe when Senator Dennis DeConcini and Representative Steny Hoyer, then-Chairman and Cochairman, led a delegation to Romania in April 1990. At that time, Gheorghe was emerging as one of the clearest and most compelling voices sounding the alarm about the deplorable situation of Roma. Although the fall of communism in Central Europe ushered in an era of democratization, it also gave free rein to old bigotry against Roma. In fact, only a few months after that visit, police efforts to remove demonstrators from Bucharest degenerated into brutal attacks on the offices of opposition papers, opposition leaders' homes, and members of the Romani minority. At almost the same time, the OSCE participating States were meeting in Copenhagen negotiating what would become one of the most ambitious agreements of the Helsinki process: the seminal 1990 Copenhagen Document. I was part of a delegation Representative Hoyer led to that historic meeting where we raised our concerns about religious and ethnic minorities directly with the delegation from Romania. It was also in Copenhagen where Nicolae Gheorghe pressed--successfully--for the adoption of the first reference in any international human rights agreement to the specific problems faced by Roma. The U.S. delegation to that meeting, headed by the late Ambassador Max Kamplemen, helped secure the inclusion of that text in the final document. But in the context of post-Communist economic and political transition, Roma became targets of ethnically motivated attacks. In Romania, dozens of pogroms against Roma were carried out between 1990 and 1997, prompting Gheorghe and others to found Romani CRISS in 1993. The name is a Romanian acronym for Center for Social Intervention and Studies but also a play on the Romani word ``kris,'' which is a kind of council of elders. In the 1990s, he worked with the New Jersey-based Project on Ethnic Relations and served on the board of the European Roma Rights Center. He also brought his concerns to the United States. In 1994, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights, chaired by Representative Tom Lantos, convened the first hearing before Congress on the situation of Roma. Gheorghe, joined by Romani activists Ian Hancock, Andrzej Mirga, and Klara Orgovanova, testified, along with Livia Plaks of the Project on Ethnic Relations. Gheorghe argued that anti-Roma attitudes and behaviors could serve as a barometer to gauge the success of countries building democratic institutions, the rule of law, and ``the consolidation of civil movements and associations and societies and states deeply distorted by the decades of pro-fascist, authoritarian and communist totalitarian regimes.'' He presciently surveyed the scope and implications of anti-Roma manifestations including in Bosnia, Germany, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Romania. "[T]he most important assistance which can be brought to or sent to our region is the rule of law, the breeding of democratic institutions, and careful implementation of individual human rights.'' Gheorghe testified at Helsinki Commission briefings and hearings in 2002 and 2006. Nicolae Gheorghe also became a fixture at OSCE human rights meetings--first in his capacity as an NGO, then as the first senior adviser on Romani issues for the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. In whatever capacity he worked, he was a relentless advocate for the human rights of Romani people. His appointment coincided with the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo, the NATO air campaign against Milosevic's Serbia, and the subsequent deployment of a large OSCE mission to Kosovo. As a consequence of developments in the Balkans, he became immediately engaged on issues relating to the displacement of Kosovo Roma to Macedonia and elsewhere. Throughout his tenure with the OSCE, which lasted through 2006, his work was driven by the need for crisis management stemming from acts of violence and other extreme manifestations of prejudice against Roma--not only in the Balkans but elsewhere in the OSCE region as well. In his 2006 testimony before the Helsinki Commission, he observed that international organizations had largely focused on the situation of Roma in Central Europe, neglecting Western countries such as Greece, France, Spain, and Italy. "I don't think that Europe for the time being realizes the depth of the racism and racist attitudes in its structures, [in] Europe as a whole.'' The mass fingerprinting of Roma in Italy in 2008 and the expulsions of Roma from France in 2010 would illustrate that Gheorghe had spoken with typical insight. I wish that I could say Nicolae Gheorghe's work to advance the human rights of Roma was complete. Clearly, it is not. Each day, it must be carried on by the many people he encouraged and a new generation of activists. Toward that end, our load is lighter because of the burdens he carried, our goals are nearer because of the distance he traveled, and we are inspired by his legacy.

  • Political Imprisonment in Ukraine

    Madam President. I would like to address the current situation in Ukraine, an important country in the heart of Europe, a bellwether for democratic development in the region, and the current Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE.  Let me first welcome the release from prison Sunday of former Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs and leading opposition figure Yuri Lutsenko. Mr. Lutsenko had been convicted on politically motivated charges and incarcerated since December 2010. President Yanukovych's pardon of Mr. Lutsenko is an encouraging step in the right direction. I also welcome the pardon of former Environment Minister Heorhiy Filipchuk, who also served as a member of Ms. Tymoshenko's Cabinet and had been released last year after his sentence was suspended. By pardoning Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Filipchuk, President Yanukovych is indicating not only a willingness to resolve what has been a major irritant in Ukraine's relations with the United States and the EU, but also a stain on Ukraine's democratic credentials.  At the same time, I remain deeply concerned about the politically motivated imprisonment of Ukrainian opposition figure and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been incarcerated since August 2011.  Mrs. Tymoshenko's case stands out as a significant illustration of Ukraine's backsliding with respect to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law since she was defeated by President Yanukovych in February 2010. The United States, EU, and Canada have repeatedly expressed concerns about the application of selective justice against political opponents, their flawed trials, conditions of detention, and the denial of their ability to participate in last October's parliamentary elections.  As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, which has long been committed to Ukraine's independence and democratic development, I am especially mindful of Ukraine's 2013 OSCE chairmanship. Like any Chair-in-Office, Ukraine faces formidable tasks in leading a multilateral organization that operates on the basis of consensus, which includes 57 countries ranging from mature democracies to oppressive dictatorships. The United States wants Ukraine to succeed, but the reality is that the politically motivated imprisonment of Ms. Tymoshenko casts a cloud over its chairmanship. A Chair-in-Office must itself have strong democratic credentials if it is to succeed in encouraging reform in other countries.  Furthermore, democratic regression in Ukraine has harmed U.S.-Ukrainian bilateral relations, preventing a traditionally strong partnership from realizing its full potential. It has also slowed down the process of Ukraine's drawing closer to the EU, which is that country's stated foreign policy priority, manifested in the still-delayed signing of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. More than half a year has gone by since the unanimous adoption of S. Res. 466, calling for the release of Yulia Tymoshenko.  The Ukrainian authorities now need to follow up on the important step they have taken in freeing Yuri Lutsenko. They need to free Ms. Tymoshenko and restore her civil and political rights. By demonstrating commitment to the rule of law and human rights principles embodied by the OSCE, Ukraine will strengthen the credibility of its chairmanship and show it is serious about being a full-fledged member of the democratic community of nations.  I strongly urge the Ukrainian government to resolve the case of Ms. Tymoshenko. 

  • Hungary

    Mr. President, as the Senate chair of the Helsinki Commission, I have a longstanding interest in Central Europe. For many years the Helsinki Commission was one of the loudest and clearest voices to speak on behalf of those oppressed by communism and to call for democracy, human rights, and freedom from Soviet oppression. It has been a great triumph and joy to see the peoples of this region free from dictatorship. Over the past two decades I have been profoundly heartened as newly freed countries of Central Europe have joined the United States and NATO and have become our partners in advocating for human rights and democracy around the globe. Leadership on those issues may be especially important now as some countries in the Middle East undertake transition, the outcome of which is far from certain. Even in Europe, in the western Balkans, there is a crying need for exemplary leadership, not backsliding. Americans know from our own history that maintaining democracy and promoting human rights are never jobs that are finished. As my friend and former colleague Tom Lantos said, "The veneer of civilization is paper thin. We are its guardians, and we can never rest.'' For some time I have been concerned about the trajectory of developments in Hungary, where the scope and nature of systemic changes introduced after April 2010 have been the focus of considerable international attention. At the end of November, Hungary was back in the headlines when Marton Gyongyosi, a member of the notorious extremist party Jobbik and also vice chairman of the Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested that Hungarian Jews are a threat to Hungary's national security and those in government and Parliament should be registered. The ink was barely dry on letters protesting those comments when another Hungarian Member of Parliament, Balazs Lenhardt, participated in a public demonstration last week where he burned an Israeli flag. The fact is that these are only the latest extremist scandals to erupt in Budapest over the course of this year. In April, for example, just before Passover, a Jobbik MP gave a speech in Parliament weaving together subtle anti-Roma propaganda with overt anti-Semitism blood libel. After that, Jobbik was in the news when it was reported that one of its members in Parliament had requested and received certification from a DNA testing company that his or her blood was free of Jewish or Romani ancestry. At issue in the face of these anti-Semitic and racist phenomena is the sufficiency of the Hungarian Government's response and its role in ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law. And the government's response has been, to say the least, wanting. First, it has been a hallmark of this government to focus on blood identity through the extension of Hungarian citizenship on a purely ethnic basis. The same Hungarian officials have played fast and loose with questions relating to its wartime responsibilities, prompting the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to issue a public statement of concern regarding the rehabilitation of fascist ideologues and political leaders from World War II. I am perhaps most alarmed by the government's failure to stand against the organized threats from Jobbik. For example, in late August a mob estimated at 1,000 people terrorized a Roma neighborhood in Devecser, taunting the Romani families to come out and face the crowd. There were reportedly three members of Parliament from the Jobbik party participating in that mob, and some people were filmed throwing bricks or stones at the Romani homes. The failure to investigate, let alone condemn such acts of intimidation, makes Prime Minister Orban's recent pledge to protect "his compatriots'' ring hollow. Of course, all this takes place in the context of fundamental questions about democracy itself in Hungary. What are we to make of democracy in Hungary when more than 360 religious organizations are stripped of their registration overnight and when all faiths must now depend on the politicized decision-making of the Parliament to receive the rights that come with registration? What are we to make of the fact that even after the European Commission and Hungary's own Constitutional Court have ruled against the mass dismissal of judges in Hungary's court-packing scheme, there is still no remedy for any of the dismissed judges? What is the status of media freedom in Hungary, let alone the fight against anti-Semitism, if a journalist who writes about anti-Semitism faces possible sanction before the courts for doing so? What are we to make of Hungary's new election framework, which includes many troubling provisions, including a prohibition on campaign ads on commercial radio and TV, onerous new voter registration provisions, and limits on local election committees, which oversee elections? I find it hard to imagine that Jews, Roma, and other minorities will be safe if freedom of the media and religion, the rule of law, the independence of the Judiciary, and the checks and balances essential for democracy are not also safeguarded. With that in mind, I will continue to follow the overall trends in Hungary and the implications for the region as a whole.  

  • Justice for the Bytyqi Family

    Mr. President, today is the 37th anniversary of the Helsinki process. Starting with the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on August 1, 1975, this process began as an ongoing conference which helped end the Cold War and reunite Europe. It has continued as a Vienna-based organization that today seeks to resolve regional conflicts and promote democratic development and the rule of law throughout the region. While serving in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, it has been a unique and rewarding privilege to engage in this diplomatic process and its parliamentary component as a member and chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, with the goal of improving the lives of everyday people. While they may be citizens of other countries, promoting their human rights and fundamental freedoms helps us to protect our own. It is, therefore, in our national interest to engage in this process. On this anniversary, however, I do want to focus on three U.S. citizens who suffered the ultimate violation of their human rights when they were taken into a field and shot, deliberately murdered, in July 1999 by a special operations unit under the control the Interior Ministry in Serbia. They were brothers: Ylli, Agron and Mehmet Bytyqi. The Bytyqi brothers were Albanian-Americans from New York. Earlier in 1999, they went to Kosovo to fight as members of the Kosovo Liberation Army in a conflict which eventually prompted a NATO military intervention designed to stop Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and his forces. When the conflict ended, the Bytyqi brothers assisted ethnic Roma neighbors of their mother in Kosovo by escorting them to the Serbian border. Accidently straying into Serbian territory, they were arrested and sentenced to 2 weeks in jail for illegal entry. When released from prison, they were not freed. Instead, the Bytyqi brothers were transported to an Interior Ministry training camp in eastern Serbia, where they were brutally executed and buried in a mass grave with 75 other ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Two years later, after the fall of the Milosevic regime, their bodies were recovered and repatriated to the United States for burial. Ylli, Agron and Mehmet were never given a fair and public trial, an opportunity to defend themselves, or any semblance of due process. Their post-conflict, extrajudicial killing was cold-blooded murder. In the last decade Serbia has made a remarkable recovery from the Milosevic era. I saw this myself last year when I visited Belgrade. This progress, however, has not sufficiently infiltrated the Interior Ministry, affording protection to those who participated in the Bytyqi murders and other egregious Milosevic-era crimes. Nobody has been held accountable for the Bytyqi murders. Those in command of the camp and the forces operating there have never been charged. The same situation applies to the April 1999 murder of prominent journalist and editor Slavko Curuvija, who testified before the Helsinki Commission on the abuses of the Milosevic regime just months before. There needs to be justice in each of these cases, but together with other unresolved cases they symbolize the lack of transparency and reform in Serbia's Interior Ministry to this day. Combined with continued denials of what transpired under Milosevic in the 1990s, including the 1995 genocide at Srebrenica in neighboring Bosnia, these cases show that Serbia has not completely put an ugly era in its past behind it. For that reason, not only does the surviving Bytyqi family in New York, as well as the friends and family of Slavko Curuvija, still need to have the satisfaction of justice. The people of Serbia need to see justice triumph in their country as well. I want to thank the U.S. Mission to the OSCE in Vienna, which under the leadership of Ambassador Ian Kelly continues to move the Helsinki process forward, for recently raising the Bytyqi murders and calling for justice. I also want to commend the nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Serbia, Michael David Kirby, for responding to my question on the Bytyqi and Curuvija cases at his Foreign Relations Committee hearing by expressing his commitment, if confirmed, to make justice in these cases a priority matter. On this anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, I join their call for justice.  

  • Hungary

    Mr. President, a year ago, I shared with my colleagues concerns I had about the trajectory of democracy in Hungary. Unfortunately, since then Hungary has moved ever farther away from a broad range of norms relating to democracy and the rule of law. On June 6, David Kramer, the President of Freedom House who served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor for President George W. Bush, summed up the situation. Releasing Freedom House's latest edition of Nations in Transit Kramer said: "Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, under the pretext of so-called reforms, have been systematically breaking down critical checks and balances. They appear to be pursuing the `Putinization' of their countries.'' The report further elaborates, “Hungary's precipitous descent is the most glaring example among the newer European Union (EU) members. Its deterioration over the past five years has affected institutions that form the bedrock of democratically accountable systems, including independent courts and media. Hungary's negative trajectory predated the current government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, but his drive to concentrate power over the past two years has forcefully propelled the trend.'' Perhaps the most authoritative voice regarding this phenomenon is the Prime Minister himself. In a February 2010 speech, Viktor Orbán criticized a system of governance based on pluralism and called instead for: “a large centralized political field of power . . . designed for permanently governing.'' In June of last year, he defended his plan to cement economic policy in so-called cardinal laws, which require a two-thirds vote in parliament to change, by saying, "It is no secret that in this respect I am tying the hands of the next government, and not only the next one but the following ten.'' Checks and balances have been eroded and power has been concentrated in the hands of officials whose extended terms of office will allow them to long outlive this government and the next. These include the public prosecutor, head of the state audit office, head of the national judicial office, and head of the media board. Those who have expressed concerns about these developments have good reason to be alarmed. I am particularly concerned about the independence of the judiciary which, it was reported this week, will be the subject of infringement proceedings launched by the European Commission, and Hungary's new media law. Although there have been some cosmetic tweaks to the media law, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has argued that it remains highly problematic. Indeed, one expert has predicted that the most likely outcome of the new law will be to squeeze out reporting on corruption. Hungary also adopted a new law on religion last year that had the stunning effect of stripping hundreds of religions of their legal recognition en masse. Of the 366 faiths which previously had legal status in Hungary, only 14 were initially granted recognition under the new law. Remarkably, the power to decide what is or is not a religion is vested entirely and exclusively in the hands of the legislature, making it a singularly politicized and arbitrary process. Of 84 churches that subsequently attempted to regain legal recognition, 66 were rejected without any explanation or legal rationale at all. The notion that the new framework should be acceptable because the faiths of most Hungarian citizens are recognized is poor comfort for the minority who find themselves the victims of this discriminatory process. This law also stands as a negative example for many countries around the world just now beginning tenuous movement towards democracy and human rights. Finally, a year ago, I warned that “[i]f one side of the nationalism coin is an excessive fixation on Hungarian ethnic identity beyond the borders, the other side is intolerance toward minorities at home.”I am especially concerned by an escalation of anti-Semitic acts which I believe have grown directly from the government's own role in seeking to revise Hungary's past. Propaganda against the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, which defines the current borders of Hungary, has manifested itself in several ways. Most concretely, the Hungarian government extended citizenship on the basis of ethnic or blood identity--something the government of Viktor Orbán promised the Council of Europe in 2001 that it would not do and which failed to win popular support in a 2004 referendum. Second, the government extended voting rights to these new ethnic citizens in countries including Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine. This has combined with a rhetorical and symbolic fixation on “lost” Hungarian territories--apparently the rationale for displaying an 1848 map of Greater Hungary during Hungary's EU presidency last year. In this way, the government is effectively advancing central elements of the agenda of the extremist, anti-Semitic, anti-Roma Jobbik party. Moreover, implicitly--but unmistakably--it is sending the message that Hungary is no longer a civic state where political rights such as voting derive from citizenship, but where citizenship derives from one's ethnic status or blood identity. The most recent manifestation of this revisionism includes efforts to rehabilitate convicted war criminal Albert Wass and the bizarre spectacle of the Hungarian government's role in a ceremony in neighboring Romania--over the objections of that country--honoring fascist writer and ideologue Joszef Nyiro. That event effectively saw the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament, Laszlo Kover; the Hungarian State Secretary for Culture, Geza Szocs; and Gabor Vona, the leader of Hungary's most notoriously extremist party, Jobbik, united in honoring Nyrio. Several municipalities have now seen fit to erect statues honoring Miklos Horthy, Hungary's wartime leader, and the writings of Wass and Nyiro have been elevated onto the national curriculum. It is not surprising that this climate of intolerance and revisionism has gone hand-in-hand with an outbreak of intolerance, such as the anti-Semitic verbal assaults on a 90-year old Rabbi and on a journalist, an attack on a synagogue menorah in Nagykanizsa, the vandalism of a Jewish memorial in Budapest and monuments honoring Raoul Wallenberg, the Blood Libel screed by a Jobbik MP just before Passover, and the recent revelation that a Jobbik MP requested--and received--a certificate from a genetic diagnostic company attesting that the MP did not have Jewish or Romani ancestry. We are frequently told that Fidesz is the party best positioned in Hungary to guard against the extremism of Jobbik. At the moment, there seems to be little evidence to support that claim. The campaign to rehabilitate fascist ideologues and leaders from World War II is dangerous and must stop. Ultimately, democracy and the rights of minorities will stand or fall together. Hungary is not just on the wrong track, it is heading down a dangerous road. The rehabilitation of disgraced World War II figures and the exaltation of blood and nation reek of a different era, which the community of democracies--especially Europe--had hoped was gone for good. Today's Hungary demonstrates that the battle against the worst human instincts is never fully won but must be fought in every generation.

  • Commemorating Belarusian Independence by Fighting for Human Rights in Belarus

    Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 25, Belarusian-Americans commemorated Belarusian Independence Day. On that date in 1918, during World War I, the Belarusian National Republic was declared. Although independence was short-lived and Belarus forcibly subjected to Soviet rule, it did mark an historically significant milestone in the aspirations of the Belarusian people for freedom and their own unique identity. While Belarus became independent in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this independence today is under threat thanks to the dictatorial rule of Alexander Lukashenka, who has relentlessly squelched dissent, strangled democratic institutions and the rule of law, stifled human rights and political liberties, and refused to reform the Soviet-type state-dominated economy. This has made Belarus dangerously vulnerable to Russian influence and has greatly weakened its prospects for integration into the European family of nations. The brutal crackdown that began 15 months ago with the fraudulent December 19, 2010 election persists. Its most recent manifestation is the barring of numerous opposition leaders, human rights activists and independent journalists from traveling abroad--yet another in a litany of violations of Belarus' OSCE commitments. Especially egregious is the continued imprisonment of democratic opposition leaders and activists, and human rights defenders Andrei Sannikau, Mikalai Statekevich, Zmitser Bandarenka, Ales Byalyatski, Syarhei Kavalenka, Zmitser Dashkevich, Pavel Seviarynets, and others, many of whom face inhumane conditions in detention. I'd like to add my voice to those of countless Belarusians and Belarusian-Americans calling for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Belarus. Mr. Speaker, in January the President signed into law the Belarus Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2011, which I authored. This law strengthens, in view of Lukashenka's crackdown, two earlier laws I wrote promoting democracy and supporting the Belarusian people in their struggle to replace the Lukashenka dictatorship with a representative government that will respect human rights and democratic values. But Congress's efforts on behalf of the Belarusian people can't end there--I'd like to ask my colleagues to continue to raise Belarusian human rights issues with the administration, with foreign parliamentarians, and, whenever we encounter them, with officials of the Lukashenka dictatorship.

  • More Democratic Setbacks in Ukraine

    Mr. Speaker, last week, former Ukrainian Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko was sentenced to four years imprisonment in yet another politically motivated trial. This comes after the imprisonment--also the result of an unfair trial on specious charges--of his ally, former Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, who continues to languish in prison in ill health. The sentencing of Mr. Lutsenko is a further confirmation that the regime of President Viktor Yanukovych is not taking its OSCE human rights and democracy obligations seriously. The imprisonment of opposition leaders Tymoshenko and Lutsenko prohibits their participation in October's parliamentary elections, raising serious questions about whether Ukraine will meet OSCE election standards. This could be especially troubling given Ukraine's assumption of the OSCE Chairmanship in January, 2013, two months after these elections. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, it is also of concern to me and my colleagues, who have long advocated an independent, democratic, and free Ukraine. Mr. Lutsenko's conviction is disconcerting in that it starkly illustrates the deterioration of human rights, democracy and the rule of law under the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, who has pressed the pause button on Ukraine's once-promising advance towards democracy--and increasingly it seems he is switching to the reverse button. Instead, what we now see is something increasingly reminiscent of the kind of authoritarianism that exists in Russia, Belarus and elsewhere in the post-Soviet space. Ukraine's democratic backsliding is harming relations with the EU and the United States, and both have repeatedly made clear that for relations to improve, respect for human rights and the democratic process must improve. Most importantly, this now two-year deterioration negatively affects the Ukrainian people, who, following the Orange Revolution, had tasted the fruits of freedom, and are now increasingly experiencing the burden of its undoing. It is time for President Yanukovych to show respect for the dignity of his own people by putting an end to political prosecutions and other reprisals against those who oppose him and allow their full participation in political life. In order to find credibility with both the Ukrainian people and the international community, he must end restrictions on freedom of speech and association and reverse the debilitating corruption and judicial subservience to the executive which has so eroded the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the Ukrainian authorities to stop their slide to authoritarianism and resulting isolation which will only harm Ukrainians who for so long--and at such great cost--have struggled for freedom, dignity and justice. 

  • Roma Bridge Building

    Mr. President, at the end of January, something remarkable happened: Slovak Deputy Prime Minister Rudolf Chmel made a positive statement about Roma. Saying something nice about Europe's largest ethnic minority may not seem newsworthy, but it is and here is why. The Deputy Prime Minister reacted to an escalation of anti-Roma rhetoric in the run-up to Slovakia's March 10 parliamentary elections by calling on political parties not to play the "Roma card.'' But more than that, he welcomed a landmark decision of the European Court on Human Rights holding that the sterilization of a Slovak Romani woman without her consent had been cruel and inhuman. He welcomed the findings of a Slovak court that concluded Romani children had been placed in segregated schools in eastern Slovakia. And he commended the human rights organization that had helped litigate both these cases.  To say that statements like these are few and far between is an understatement. On the contrary, officials at the highest levels of government frequently perpetuate the worst bigotry against Roma.  For example, after four perpetrators were convicted and sentenced for a racially motivated firebombing that left a Romani toddler burned over 80 percent of her body, Czech President Vaclav Klaus wondered if their 20-plus-year sentences were too harsh. Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi suggested that Roma were ``physiologically'' disposed to crime. Last year, President Silvio Berlusconi warned the electorate of Milan to vote for his party lest their city become a ``Gypsyopolis.'' And French President Nicolas Sarkozy has explicated targeted Roma --from EU countries--for expulsion from France. The common thread in most of this rhetoric is the portrayal of Roma as inherently criminal.  Nearly 20 years ago in the New York Times--Dec. 10, 1993--Vaclav Havel described the treatment of Roma as a litmus test for civil society. Today, Europe is still failing that test miserably. As Hungary's Minister for Social Inclusion Zolton Balog has argued, Roma are worse off today than they were under communism. While a small fraction of Roma have benefited from new opportunities, many more have been the absolute losers in the transition from the command-to-a market economy, and vast numbers live in a kind of poverty that the United Nations Development Programme described as more typically found in sub-Saharan Africa than Europe. Endemic discrimination has propelled economic marginalization downward at an exponential pace, and the past 20 years have been marked by outbreaks of hate crimes and mob violence against Roma that are on the rise again.  In the current environment, those who play with anti-Roma rhetoric are playing with a combustible mix.  In the near term, there is the real prospect that fueling prejudice against Roma will spark interethnic violence. Before Bulgaria's local elections last October, the extremist Ataka party parlayed an incident involving a Romani mafia boss into anti-Romani rioting in some 14 towns and cities. In the Czech Republic, the government has had to mount massive shows of law enforcement to keep anti-Roma mobs from degenerating into all-out pogroms; its worked so far, but at a huge cost.  Significantly, Roma are not always standing by while the likes of the Hungarian Guard mass on their doorsteps; they have sometimes gathered sticks, shovels, scythes, and anything else handy in an old-school defense.  Even without the prospect of violence, there is a longer term threat to many countries with larger Romani populations: if they fail to undertake meaningful integration of Roma, they will find their economies hollowed out from within. More than a decade ago, then-Hungarian Minister of Education Zolton Pokorni said that one out of every three children starting school that year would be Romani. Some economic forecasts now suggest that by 2040, 40 percent of the labor force in Hungary will be Romani. A number of other countries face similar trajectories.  A desperately impoverished, uneducated, and marginalized population will not serve as the backbone of a modern and thriving economy. But several studies have shown that the cost of investing in the integration of Roma --housing, education, and job training and the like--will be more than offset by gains in GNP and tax revenue. In order to undertake those integration policies, somebody has to build popular support for them. And that is where Mr. Chmel comes in.  Until now, most popular discourse about Roma seems predicated on the ostrich-like belief that perhaps they can be made to go away. Few politicians have shown the courage and foresight to reframe public discourse in any way that acknowledges Europe's future will definitely include Roma. Mr. Chmel has taken an important step in that direction. I hope he will inspire others.

  • International Human Rights Day 2011 (Cardin)

    Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to mark International Human Rights Day, a day which celebrates the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948. In the immediate after math of World War II, and reacting with revulsion to the horrors of that global war and the Holocaust, the community of nations organized itself with the goal of protecting international peace and security. Although the United Nations founding Charter recognized the protection of human rights as one of the UN's most basic purposes, it was quickly recognized that it would be necessary to further elaborate these fundamental freedoms in order to ensure their protection. The resulting document--the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--has since served as the foundation upon which all other human rights work at the international level has stood. It remains to this day an enduring guide for human rights advocates around the globe. This has been an exciting and dramatic year that will be remembered for the triumphs of the Arab Spring. The fall of so many dictators who have been responsible for the deaths, torture, and other atrocities meted out against so many has opened up the exhilarating prospect of real reform and meaningful human rights improvements. But the final chapter of the Arab Spring has not yet been written, and nothing can be taken for granted. Progress in this field is not necessarily linear. As Ronald Reagan said in his inaugural address, "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.'' I believe it is especially critical, at this historic moment, for the United States to remain vigilant in the protection and promotion of human rights--abroad and at home. Overseas, the United States must continue to use our voice to speak on behalf of those silenced by brutal regimes. We must continue to lift up those who cannot stand on their own. And while we must inevitably pursue a multifaceted foreign-policy that advances American goals in a broad range of areas including hard security and the economy, we must never treat human rights as something expendable. I take particular note of the countries that stand shoulder to shoulder with us in that effort. I welcome Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski's call for a ``European endowment for democracy,'' similar to the National Endowment for Democracy which the United States has supported since 1983. I commend Poland for the leadership it has shown on human rights issues during its presidency of the European Union. In all of these efforts, the role of civil society remains critical. On the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations adopted a declaration on the rights of human rights defenders. They are the first line of defense and they often pay the highest price. There are, unfortunately, too many cases of human rights defenders who are imprisoned, persecuted or worse, for me to raise them all here. But I would like to mention one in particular that maybe emblematic of many others: the case of Evgenii Zhovtis, Kazakhstan's most well-known human rights activist. Zhovtis is the Director of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law and even a member of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights' panel of experts on freedom of assembly. But he was involved in a tragic car accident in which a pedestrian was killed and, after a trial widely condemned for lacking due process, he was sentenced in 2009 to 4 years in prison. A year ago, at the OSCE Summit in Astana, civil society activists called for Zhovtis' release. As one NGO participant remarked: Evgenii is the human rights Everyman. If this can happen to him, it can happen to anyone. A year later, Evgenii Zhovtis remains in a Siberian penal colony, even as Kazakhstan prepares to host an OSCE election observation mission. In the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I once again urge President Nazarbayev to review his case and to release him. Thank you.

  • International Human Rights Day

    Madam President, I rise today to mark International Human Rights Day, a day which celebrates the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948. In the immediate after math of World War II, and reacting with revulsion to the horrors of that global war and the Holocaust, the community of nations organized itself with the goal of protecting international peace and security. Although the United Nations’ founding Charter recognized the protection of human rights as one of the UN's most basic purposes, it was quickly recognized that it would be necessary to further elaborate these fundamental freedoms in order to ensure their protection. The resulting document--the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--has since served as the foundation upon which all other human rights work at the international level has stood. It remains to this day an enduring guide for human rights advocates around the globe. This has been an exciting and dramatic year that will be remembered for the triumphs of the Arab Spring. The fall of so many dictators who have been responsible for the deaths, torture, and other atrocities meted out against so many has opened up the exhilarating prospect of real reform and meaningful human rights improvements. But the final chapter of the Arab Spring has not yet been written, and nothing can be taken for granted. Progress in this field is not necessarily linear. As Ronald Reagan said in his inaugural address, "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.'' I believe it is especially critical, at this historic moment, for the United States to remain vigilant in the protection and promotion of human rights--abroad and at home. Overseas, the United States must continue to use our voice to speak on behalf of those silenced by brutal regimes. We must continue to lift up those who cannot stand on their own. And while we must inevitably pursue a multifaceted foreign-policy that advances American goals in a broad range of areas including hard security and the economy, we must never treat human rights as something expendable. I take particular note of the countries that stand shoulder to shoulder with us in that effort. I welcome Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski's call for a "European endowment for democracy,'' similar to the National Endowment for Democracy which the United States has supported since 1983. I commend Poland for the leadership it has shown on human rights issues during its presidency of the European Union. In all of these efforts, the role of civil society remains critical. On the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations adopted a declaration on the rights of human rights defenders. They are the first line of defense and they often pay the highest price. There are, unfortunately, too many cases of human rights defenders who are imprisoned, persecuted or worse, for me to raise them all here. But I would like to mention one in particular that maybe emblematic of many others: the case of Evgenii Zhovtis, Kazakhstan's most well-known human rights activist. Zhovtis is the Director of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law and even a member of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights' panel of experts on freedom of assembly. But he was involved in a tragic car accident in which a pedestrian was killed and, after a trial widely condemned for lacking due process, he was sentenced in 2009 to 4 years in prison. A year ago, at the OSCE Summit in Astana, civil society activists called for Zhovtis' release. As one NGO participant remarked: Evgenii is the human rights Everyman. If this can happen to him, it can happen to anyone. A year later, Evgenii Zhovtis remains in a Siberian penal colony, even as Kazakhstan prepares to host an OSCE election observation mission. In the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I once again urge President Nazarbayev to review his case and to release him.  

  • Commemoration of the Anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising

    Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and Co-Chairman of the Poland Caucus, I have long been struck by the way in which history casts both long shadows and rays of light in Poland. I have had the privilege of traveling to Poland, one of America's closest allies, and was overwhelmed by the weight of history when I met with those who are building the Museum of the History of Poland's Jews. Institutions like this are not only critical for Poland's future generations, but for what all of us, around the world, can learn from Poland. Today, I rise today to commemorate the 67th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising, a courageous act of defiance by the people of Poland against the brutal Nazi occupation during the Second World War. On August 1, 1944, the Polish Underground began its struggle to liberate Warsaw, to further weaken the collapsing German eastern front and to establish Polish sovereignty in response to the Red Army's advance to the city's outskirts. Despite the courage and fortitude of the Polish people, the Underground could not overcome the Nazis' determination to oversee the complete destruction of the Home Army and the city, bolstered by official orders and a directive that the massacre was to serve as a "terrifying example'' to Europe. More than 200,000 civilians and members of the Home Army were killed in Warsaw over a 63-day period. Between August 5 and August 8, the Nazis murdered more than 40,000 people--overwhelmingly civilians--in the Wola district of Warsaw alone. Survivors, describing the horror of the executions, told of the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of women and children. Approximately 700,000 Warsaw residents were expelled from their homes and forced out of the city--many sent to death, labor, or POW camps. Hitler ordered that Warsaw should be razed to the ground; Heinrich Himmler declaring in the most chilling terms that Warsaw "must completely disappear from the surface of the earth.'' To that end, the Nazis systematically targeted buildings filled with deep meaning for the Poles, including cultural treasures, monuments, palaces, libraries, churches, and the Old Town. By the beginning of October, the Polish capitol was reduced to rubble--85 percent of the buildings in Warsaw had been destroyed. But from ashes come diamonds and, despite this barbaric campaign, the Polish desire for freedom and liberty could not be extinguished--not even by the decades of communist oppression which followed the end of the war. Such courage and resilience continues to define the Polish people. Today, Poland is a successful democracy and one of our strongest military allies. More to the point, Poland's leadership on issues related to democracy and human rights gives true meaning to the alliance concept of "shared values.'' Poland has tirelessly support democratic movements in Northern Africa and Eastern Europe, particularly in Tunisia, through democracy activists and transition experts, and Belarus. Poland has served as a regional force in the effort to encourage human rights and democracy in Belarus in the wake of the December 2010 post-election political crackdown, maintaining free media outlets that operate in Belarus and opening Polish universities to students expelled for pro-democracy activities. On July 1, Poland assumed the six-months rotating Presidency of the European Union. It can only strengthen our transatlantic alliance to have the EU led by a country that has accomplished so much over the past 20 years both political and economically. As it happens, Poland has one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and is the only EU country not faced with a recession amidst the global financial crisis. As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and co-chairman of the Congressional Poland Caucus, I commend Poland's leadership on democracy and human rights throughout the OSCE region and globally. Polish-American ties remain strong and steadfast because of such dedication to these common values. More than that, however, I have unwavering respect and admiration for the people of Poland, whose courage and determination in the face of so many historic tragedies--of which the Warsaw Massacre is only one example--is a source of continued inspiration.

  • OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

    Mr. President, I wish to submit for the Record a report on the activity of a congressional delegation I led to Belgrade, Serbia, from July 7 to 10, to represent the United States at the 20th Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. I did so in my capacity as cochairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. I was joined by our colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, who also traveled to Sarajevo, Bosnia. Senator Shaheen is also a member of the Helsinki Commission. Our colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich, also participated on the delegation but was in Dubrovnik, Croatia, as part of the official U.S. Delegation to the 6th annual Croatian Summit of regional political leaders and European officials. As the report details, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE PA, has been an excellent opportunity for the U.S. Congress to engage our European friends and allies, and to make clear to less friendly countries that our ties to the continent will not be diminished. U.S. engagement also provides a means for us to advance U.S. interests by encouraging Europe to focus more on policy issues of concern to us, from democratic shortcomings within Europe such as Belarus to the new challenges and opportunities coming from North Africa and the Middle East and other parts of the world. The revised Senate schedule made us miss the opening days of the Belgrade meeting, but we made up for that with an intensive schedule from Friday to Sunday. All three U.S. resolutions and most of our delegation's amendments to resolutions were adopted, including a resolution I submitted on political transition in the Mediterranean region and amendments welcoming the arrest of at-large war crimes indictee Ratko Mladic and calling for Turkey to allow the Ecumenical Patriarch to open a theological school in Halki. Senator Shaheen and I also used the opportunity of visiting Belgrade to encourage progress in Serbia's democratic transition. We met with President Tadic as well as the Speaker of the Serbian National Assembly, the chief negotiator in the technical talks on Kosovo-related issues, representatives of civil society, and of Serbia's Romani and Jewish communities. We came away from our visit impressed with the progress Serbia has made thus far. While there are lingering manifestations of the extreme and violent nationalism from the Milosevic era of the 1990s, I believe there is a genuine commitment to overcome them. We should support those in and out of government in Serbia who turn this commitment into action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Report to which I referred. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Report of the US. Congressional Delegation (CoDel Cardin) to Belgrade, Serbia; Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; and Dubrovnik, Croatia July 7-10, 2011 Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman, and fellow Senator and Commissioner Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) traveled to the 20th Annual Session of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), held in Belgrade, Serbia, from July 6-10, 2011. The senators were able to do this despite a U.S. Congressional schedule that precluded House Members from traveling to the meeting and curtailed Senate attendance to only three of the session's five days. Three resolutions and more than one dozen amendments to various resolutions initiated by the United States Delegation were nevertheless considered and passed by the Assembly. Senator Shaheen was also able to make a one-day visit to neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina, and both Senators were able to link with their colleague, Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), attending the Croatian Summit of regional political leaders held in Dubrovnik, Croatia. THE OSCE PA The Parliamentary Assembly was created within the framework of the OSCE as an independent, consultative body consisting of 320 parliamentarians from the 56 participating States, stretching from Central Asia and Russia across Europe and including the United States and Canada. Annual Sessions are the chief venue for debating international issues and voting on a declaration addressing human rights, democratic development, rule-of-law, economic, environmental and security concerns among the participating States and the international community. The Parliamentary Assembly adopts its declaration by majority voting for resolutions coming from three committees dealing with political/security, economic/environmental and democracy/human rights issues respectively, in addition to other resolutions introduced by delegations to supplement these texts. Following the amendment of these resolutions also by majority voting, this generally allows for considerable verbiage to be accepted each year but also for franker language addressing controversial or new issues to be included than the OSCE itself can achieve on the basis of consensus among the 56 participating States. The heavy focus of OSCE diplomats on issues like trafficking in persons and combating intolerance in society is rooted in initiatives originally undertaken by the parliamentarians in the Assembly. Having the largest delegation with 17 members, the United States historically has played a key role in OSCE PA proceedings, and there has been robust congressional participation since the Assembly's inception two decades ago. This engagement is reassuring to friends and allies in Europe while ensuring that issues of interest or concern to U.S. foreign policy are raised and discussed. In addition to representing the United States as delegates, members of the Helsinki Commission have served as OSCE PA special representatives on specific issues of concern, committee officers, vice presidents and the Assembly president. THE TWENTIETH ANNUAL SESSION This year's Annual Session was hosted by the National Assembly of Serbia and held in Belgrade's Sava Center, the 1977-78 venue for the first follow-up meeting of the diplomatic process that was initiated by the 1975 signing of the Helsinki Final Act and is the OSCE today. During various interventions at the session, note was made not only of the vast changes in Europe since that time but also in Serbia, which was then a constituent republic of the former Yugoslavia but is today an independent state making progress in democratic development after overcoming more than a decade of authoritarian rule and extreme nationalist sentiment. A meeting of the Standing Committee--composed of OSCE PA officers plus the heads of all delegations--met prior to the opening of the Annual Session. Chaired by OSCE PA President Petros Efthymiou of Greece, the committee heard numerous reports on the activities of the past year, endorsed a budget that has remained frozen for a fourth consecutive fiscal year, and approved for consideration at the Annual Session 25 of the 26 items introduced by various delegations to supplement the committee resolutions. Only an Italian draft on Asbestos Contamination failed to achieve a 2/3 vote approving its consideration. With approximately 230 parliamentarians in attendance, the opening plenary of the Annual Session featured a welcome by Serbian Prime Minister Mirko Cvetkovic and National Assembly Speaker Slavica Djukic-Dejanovic and reports by the OSCE Chair-in Office, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Az 0ubalis, and the newly appointed OSCE Secretary General, Lamberto Zannier of Italy. Zannier welcomed the OSCE PA's interest in fostering closer cooperation with the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna and committed himself to facilitating greater PA engagement through his leadership of the OSCE Secretariat and coordination with its institutions. In his own remarks, PA President Efthymiou noted the "spirit of Helsinki'' which developed at the Belgrade meeting more than three decades ago and lamented the crisis in which the OSCE finds itself today. He called for significant changes to the operations of the Vienna-based organization to make it more effective and relevant in addressing the political and security issues of today. The theme for the Annual Session--Strengthening the OSCE'S Effectiveness and Efficiency, a New Start after the Astana Summit--was chosen to address this matter in light of last December's summit meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan, which had heightened the political attention paid to the OSCE's work. The following three days were devoted to committee consideration and amendment of the three resolutions and 21 supplementary items, and plenary consideration of the four additional supplementary items. Two additional resolutions were defeated in the process. The first was another initiative of an Italian delegate focusing on crimes causing serious social alarm, which lacked significant support. The second originated with the Belgian delegation on enlarging the OSCE's Mediterranean Partners for Cooperation to include Lebanon and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The latter was lost in a close vote after being heavily debated by those who advocate wider engagement in the long-term and those who questioned the timing of taking such an initiative. A number of parliamentarians felt it inappropriate for the OSCE to solicit interest by the Lebanese Government and the PNA while they are both under leadership that does not embrace OSCE principles. Some of the resolutions which did pass examined the deplorable human rights situation in Belarus, the unresolved conflict in Moldova, gender issues in the OSCE and the participating States, national minority concerns including the plight of Roma, cyber security, as well as combating violent extremism, transnational organized crime, and human trafficking for labor and organs. U.S. INITIATIVES IN BELGRADE Despite its small size, the U.S. Delegation remained very active in the deliberations, introducing three resolutions of its own, working closely with the delegation of the Netherlands on a fourth, and suggesting over a dozen amendments to various texts. All four of these resolutions were adopted, as were all but two of the U.S. amendments. Co-Chairman Cardin's major initiative was a resolution on Mediterranean Political Transition, which directs the OSCE and its participating States to make their expertise in building democratic institutions available to Mediterranean Partner States: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. The resolution specifically encouraged the interim governments of Egypt and Tunisia to make a formal request for OSCE support following their consultations with the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). It also called for an OSCE civil society forum to be hosted by a Mediterranean Partner State later this year. The Senator collaborated with the head of the Spanish delegation on numerous additional amendments to demonstrate the real priority this should be for the organization, and the initiative received widespread praise among the delegates. "We have all been inspired by the movements for freedom and change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa,'' Senator Cardin noted while introducing the resolution, "and we support the citizens of the countries in the region as they demand respect for their basic human rights, economic opportunity, and open and responsive government ..... The OSCE and our Parliamentary Assembly have substantial capacity to assist our Mediterranean Partners..... We also must condemn in the strongest terms the unbridled violence unleashed by the governments of Libya and Syria against their own citizens.'' Though not in attendance, Commission Chairman Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) introduced two resolutions for the Assembly's consideration that also were adopted. The first dealt with Combating Labor Trafficking in Supply Chains, urging governments to ensure that all goods they procure are free from raw materials and finished products produced by trafficked labor and to press corporations to independently verify that their supply chains are free of exploitation. The resolution also sought to raise consumer awareness about industries more likely to use trafficked labor. Two strengthening amendments authored by Co-Chairman Cardin were adopted. The amendments welcomed a recent OSCE meeting on the issue and urged diplomats to pass a declaration on the matter during a meeting of OSCE foreign ministers later this year. The second Smith Resolution focused on International Parental Child Abductions and passed without amendment. Its core focus was to press OSCE States to become parties to the 1983 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and to implement its provisions. The resolution also urged that parental child abduction be considered at the 2011 OSCE Ministerial Council in Vilnius this December. Ranking House Commissioner Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), who serves as the Parliamentary Assembly's Special Representative on Mediterranean Affairs, collaborated with OSCE PA Special Representative on Migration Kathleen Ferrier of the Netherlands on countering racism and xenophobia in Europe with measures to foster inclusion of affected communities. Noting that 2011 has been designated the International Year for People of African Descent, the resolution included a focus on racial bias against citizens and migrants of African descent, and called for specific measures to be taken by OSCE institutions to address reported increases of racial and ethnic discrimination in the OSCE region. The resolution also emphasized the importance of integrating ethnic minorities into economic and political life through capacity building partnerships between the public and private sector. The resolution passed with widespread support. Supported by Senator Shaheen, Co-Chairman Cardin covered several smaller and more detailed issues with amendments, such as one welcoming the arrest in Serbia of at-large war crimes indictee Ratko Mladic, another urging Turkey to allow the reopening of the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate's Theological School of Halki without condition or further delay, and another supporting greater transparency in the energy sector. Working with a German delegate, Senator Cardin also succeeded in removing language from a Serbian resolution which politicized the issue of investigating an organ-trafficking case that originated in neighboring Kosovo during the 1999 conflict. Serbian officials lobbied the PA Assembly directly and through the media to accept the resolution's call for the United Nations to conduct the investigation, contrary to the efforts being undertaken by the U.S. and EU to proceed through an already established EU rule-of-law mission. The U.S.-supported amendment was successful in designating the EU entity and the U.N. Mission in Kosovo as responsible for the investigation. There was insufficient support, however, for a U.S. amendment welcoming EU efforts thus far. During the course of debate, Co-Chairman Cardin also suggested granting Mediterranean Partner countries a greater ability to participate in OSCE PA sessions through changes to Assembly rules. He also highlighted U.S. policy on cyber security in the vigorous debate of a resolution which in some respects diverged from the U.S. approach. In his capacity as an OSCE Vice President, the Senator, as an urgent matter, also supported consideration of a resolution focused on the lack of transparency in the OSCE during the recent selection of a new Secretary General. Language on this matter was also included in the final declaration. SELECTING THE OSCE PA LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMING YEAR In addition to hearing closing comments from Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic and adopting the final declaration, the parliamentarians attending the Annual Session voted for contested seats in the Assembly's leadership. President Efthymiou was unopposed, as was Treasurer Roberto Battelli of Slovenia, and both were re-elected by acclamation. In a race among six candidates for three of the nine Vice President positions, Wolfgang Grossruck of Austria was re-elected, with Walburga Habsburg-Douglas of Sweden and Tonino Picula of Croatia elected for the first time. Senator Cardin has one additional year in his term as Vice President and is not eligible for another re-election. Committee officers saw more dramatic changes, with only one officer retaining his position as committee chair. Others moved to higher positions within the committees or ran for the three Vice President seats. Unfortunately for the U.S. Delegation, Representative Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), a Helsinki Commissioner, did not win his second re-election bid as a committee Vice Chair due to his inability to be in Belgrade. He was unsuccessful in fighting off a challenge by a French delegate who entered the race at the last minute. SIDE EVENTS IN BELGRADE In addition to the formal proceedings, OSCE PA meetings often offer the possibility for delegations to sponsor side-events on issues needing additional attention. A luncheon focusing on gender issues in the OSCE is held annually, including in Belgrade. Non-governmental organizations may also hold their own events and invite the delegates to participate. In Belgrade, a coalition held a session on continued use of torture in OSCE States, with a focus particularly on the situation in Kyrgyzstan following the ethnic violence in 2009. Delegation-sponsored events in Belgrade included one on human rights abuses in Belarus, one on cases of alleged trafficking in human organs in Kosovo and elsewhere, and one featuring a film on two Jewish sisters in Serbia who escaped the Holocaust during World War II. With Senator Shaheen and U.S. Ambassador to Serbia Mary Burce Warlick in attendance, Senator Cardin participated in the latter event with opening comments on the work of the Vienna-based organization Centropa, which prepared the -film. Delegation staff attended most of the other side events as well. BILATERAL MEETINGS WITH SERBIA AND A SIDE-TRIP TO BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA While the delegation travelled to Belgrade principally to represent the United States at the OSCE PA Annual Session, the Helsinki Commission leadership regularly uses this travel to discuss bilateral issues with the host country and to visit nearby countries of concern. In Serbia, the delegation met with President Boris Tadic, National Assembly Speaker Slavica Djukic-Dejanovic, and chief negotiator for technical talks on Kosovo Boris Stefanovic. Ambassador Warlick briefed the Senators and attended the meetings. Evident in the bilateral meetings was the progress Serbia was making in its internal political transition and attainment of European integration. Serbian officials made clear they were committed to overcoming the nationalist legacy of the Milosevic era, strengthening Serbia's democratic institutions and encouraging greater respect for the rule of law. While there are clear differences between the United States and Serbia regarding Kosovo, the officials asked for an expression of congressional support for agreements being reached in technical talks between Belgrade and Pristina that were of direct benefit to the people and brought an increased sense of regional stability, as well. They also stressed their support for Bosnia-Herzegovina's unity and territorial integrity. The U.S. Delegation welcomed Serbia's approach and encouraged Belgrade to curtail the activity of parallel Serbian institutions in northern Kosovo which are currently the greatest source of instability in the region. The message was amplified throughout the region by a VOA interview conducted with Senator Cardin.  

  • 37th Anniversary of the Invasion of Cyprus

    Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission to again draw attention to the tragic consequences of Turkey's invasion and ongoing occupation of the Republic of Cyprus begun 37 years ago today. I applaud the leadership demonstrated by President Christofias in an attempt to bring about a comprehensive settlement and reunification of his country based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality, as defined in the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, with a single sovereignty, single citizenship and single international personality. Attempts to resolve the Cyprus issue are exacerbated by Turkish intransigence; the continued deployment of tens of thousands of Turkish troops in occupied northern Cyprus; and the introduction of an estimated 160,000 settlers from mainland Turkey. Indeed, the reality is that settlers outnumber indigenous Turkish Cypriots altering the demographic composition of that community by a margin of about two to one. Previously, I have addressed a number of specific human rights concerns stemming from the ongoing occupation, including freedom of movement, property rights, and freedom of religion. Under my chairmanship, the Helsinki Commission convened a public briefing, "Cyprus' Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril'' to document the desecration and destruction of sacred sites in occupied Northern Cyprus. Today, I want to focus on the situation in the city of Famagusta, the once thriving commercial center and tourist destination on the east coast of Cyprus , featuring the country's deepest water port. This cosmopolitan city, home to nearly 50,000 Cypriots, was a center for trade and finance as well as culture, known for its many museums and vibrant nightlife. The second wave of the Turkish invasion, launched in August 1974, targeted Famagusta and the surrounding region. Seaside hotels that attracted tourists from throughout the world and other important high rise buildings were targeted for bombardment as residents were forced to flee. Today, barbwire rings the city of Famagusta, a veritable ghost town except for Turkish troops patrolling the perimeter of this once bustling urban center. What looters left behind is slowly being reclaimed by nature and decades of exposure to the elements. The only thing I can compare this scene to comes from my walk along the deserted streets in the city of Prypiat, a Ukrainian city of similar size to Famagusta, located in the Chornobyl exclusion zone a short distance from the site of the world's worst nuclear accident. While health concerns keep the residents of the former away, armed Turkish troops prevent lawful residents of Famagusta from returning. Notwithstanding numerous U.N. resolutions on Cyprus, including provisions specifically addressing the city of Famagusta, Turkey continues to illegally occupy a third of Cypriot territory, preventing Greek Cypriots from returning to their homes and businesses in the occupied area, including Famagusta. In keeping with these UN resolutions and principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, it is time for Turkey to end its illegal occupation of the sovereign Republic of Cyprus. Agreement allowing the lawful residents to return and rebuild the city of Famagusta would be an important step in the right direction.

  • The Thirty-Seven Year Occupation of Cyprus

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address ongoing human rights violations in occupied northern Cyprus . Today is the 37th anniversary of the illegal 1974 invasion--a terrible tragedy, and an ongoing one, as the continued occupation of that country by tens of thousands of Turkish troops continues to deprive of their homes all those forced to flee the north--estimated to number approximately 200,000. Many Greek Cypriots escaped the north with little more than the clothes on their backs. While some have returned to visit their own homes or ancestral villages, none have been allowed to take back their rightful property--those despoiled include an estimated 5,000 Americans of Cypriot descent. Several hundred courageous Greek Cypriots, mainly elderly people, refused to be uprooted and today live in enclaves, the remnant of once-thriving Greek Cypriot communities which have effectively been ethnically cleansed.  Hundreds of churches, chapels and monasteries once dotted the rugged landscape of the region, part of Cyprus's rich religious cultural heritage. Indeed, St. Paul visited the island nation on one of his early missionary journeys, and St. Barnabas, a native of the Cypriot city of Salamis, was martyred nearby for his defense of Christianity. The Helsinki Commission, of which I am the Chairman in this Congress, has documented the desecration and destruction of some of the over 500 religious sites in the occupied area looted of their priceless icons, mosaics and frescoes once revered by the faithful. Many of these sacred objects, stolen from churches inside or adjoining Turkish military bases, have landed on the international art market. Even the dead are not allowed to rest in peace with destruction of cemeteries rampant throughout the region. Cypriot authorities interdicted a container originating in the occupied area filled with metal destined for a recycling facility in Asia. Upon inspection agents found that the unit consisted of metal crosses and stolen grave markers.  Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned over ongoing violations of freedom of religion and other rights in northern Cyprus. Let there be no mistake, the Turkish government is responsible for what happens in the occupied part of the island. Last Christmas, a small group of Orthodox believers gathered in the village of Rizokarpaso to celebrate the divine liturgy--only to have their worship disrupted by Turkish security forces, who ordered them to disperse. The Helsinki Commission continues to receive reports of the demolition of churches in the region even as others are converted to commercial use as warehouses, barns, or casinos.  Mr. Speaker, the nearly four-decade-long illegal occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkey is an affront to the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and an encroachment on the fundamental freedoms and human rights of Greek Cypriots living in the region's enclaves and those forced to flee the area following the 1974 invasion. Our government must continue to engage on behalf of the human rights of Greek Cypriots.

  • Democracy at Risk in Hungary

    Mr. President, this week in Budapest there are two events of particular interest to Americans. First, Hungary has unveiled a statue of President Ronald Reagan in front of the U.S. Embassy in honor of his contribution to the goal of ending communist repression and commemorating the 100th anniversary of his birth. Second, Hungary dedicated the Lantos Institute, named after Tom Lantos, our former colleague from the House of Representatives who worked tirelessly to promote democracy and human rights in the country of his birth. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Clinton have represented the United States at these respective events. These gestures shine a light on Hungary's historic transformation as well as the close bonds between our two countries. Unfortunately, other developments in Hungary have cast a dark shadow over what should otherwise be happy occasions. Last year, Hungary held elections in which a right-of-center party, FIDESZ, won a landslide, sweeping out eight years of socialist government rejected by many voters as scandal ridden and inept. With FIDESZ winning 52 percent of the vote, Hungary has the distinction of being the only country in Central Europe since the 1989 transformations where a single party has won an outright majority--not necessarily a bad thing, especially in a region where many governments are periodically hobbled by factionalism. Those elections were also notable because more than 850,000 Hungarians--16 percent of the vote--cast their ballots for Jobbik, an anti-Semitic, anti-Roma, irredentist party. While Jobbik is an opposition party, it has clearly and negatively influenced public policy discourse. Under Hungary's electoral system, FIDESZ's 52 percent of the vote has translated into a two-thirds majority of the seats in parliament. The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban has used that supermajority to push through one controversial initiative after another. One initiative that has generated particularly sharp criticism is Hungary's new media law. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media warned it could be used to silence critical media and public debate, it overly concentrates power in regulatory authorities, and it harms media freedom. In Ukraine, where democracy has put down only shallow roots, the Kyiv Post editorialized that "Hungary's media law should not come here.'' Another area of concern stems from the government's fixation on ethnic Hungarian identity and lost empire in ways that can only be seen as unfriendly by other countries in the region. One of the government's first acts was to amend Hungary's citizenship law to facilitate the acquisition of Hungarian citizenship by ethnic Hungarians in other countries--primarily Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. This expansion of citizenship was pushed through even though, in a 2001 statement submitted to the Council of Europe, the Hungarian Government firmly renounced all aspirations for dual citizenship for ethnic Hungarians. In a further escalation of provocative posturing, a few weeks ago Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament Laszlo Kovar said that military force to change the borders with Slovakia--a NATO ally--would have been justified and, in any case, he added, the ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia are "ours.'' If one side of the nationalism coin is an excessive fixation on Hungarian ethnic identity beyond the borders, the other side is intolerance toward minorities at home. For example, one increasingly hears the argument, including from government officials, that while the Holocaust was a 20th-century tragedy for Jews, the worst tragedy for Hungarians was the 1920 Treaty of Trianon--the treaty that established the borders for the countries emerging from the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire. This comparison is offensive and disturbing. Ethnic Hungarians were never targeted for extermination or subjected to mass murder by Trianon. Moreover, this line of argument presents Hungarians and Jews as mutually exclusive. But more than 400,000 Jews were sent from Hungary to Auschwitz, and more than 10,000 Jews were shot along the banks of the Danube--were they not also Hungarian? How could this not be a tragedy for Hungary? The government has also used its supermajority to adopt a completely new Constitution which has been reviewed by the Council of Europe's Venice Commission on Democracy through Law, a body of judicial experts. The Venice Commission expressed particular concern with the requirement that numerous issues can now only be addressed through supermajority or so-called cardinal laws. In other words, "The more policy issues are transferred beyond the powers of simple majority, the less significance will future elections have and the more possibilities does a two-thirds majority have of cementing its political preferences and the country's legal order.'' In short, the Commission concluded, "the principle of democracy itself is at risk.'' This combines, by the way, with a court-packing scheme--the expansion of the size of the Constitutional Court from 11 to 15--and a reduction of the retirement age for ordinary judges from 70 to 62, which will reportedly mean 10 percent of all judges will be replaced. To make exactly clear what he has intended with these reforms, Prime Minister Orban declared that he wants to tie the hands not only of the next government, but of the next 10 governments--that is, future Hungarian governments for the next 40 years. It is no wonder then that in Freedom House's latest "Nations in Transit'' survey, released this week, Hungary had declined in ratings for civil society, independent media, national democratic governance, and judicial framework and independence. Ironically, just as attention shifts to the tantalizing possibility of democratic reform in the Middle East, the red flags in Budapest keep multiplying: Transparency International has warned that transferring the power to appoint the Ombudsman from the parliament to the president means that he or she will not be independent of the executive. NGOs have warned that a new draft religion law may result in a number of religions losing their registration. Restrictions by Hungarian authorities on pro-Tibet demonstrations during last week's visit to Budapest of the Chinese Premier were seen as an unnecessary and heavy-handed limitation of a fundamental liberty. Plans to recall soldiers and police from retirement so that they may oversee Romani work battalions have predictably caused alarm. In 1989, Hungary stood as an inspiration for democracy and human rights advocates around the globe. Today, I am deeply troubled by the trends there. I understand that it sometimes takes new governments time to find their bearings, and I hope that we will see some adjustments in Budapest. But in the meantime, I hope that other countries looking for transformative examples will steer clear of this Hungarian model.

  • Ukraine’s Democratic Reversals

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern about the deterioration of democracy in Ukraine over the past 16 months, and the current Ukrainian leadership's use of politically motivated selective prosecution to harass high-ranking officials from the previous government. The country's once-promising democratic future is in jeopardy. While we face many serious challenges in every region of the world today, nonetheless it is imperative that Washington focus attention on what is happening in Ukraine--especially given that country's vital role in the region. As a long-time member and current Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have followed and spoken out on developments in Ukraine since the early 1980's, when the rights of the Ukrainian people were completely denied and any brave soul who advocated for freedom was brutally persecuted. Mr. Speaker, for nearly two decades, independent Ukraine has been moving away from its communist past while establishing itself as an important partner to the United States. Both the executive branch and Congress, on a bipartisan basis, have provided strong political support and concrete assistance for Ukraine's independence and facilitated Ukraine's post-Communist transition. In the wake of the 2004 Orange Revolution, Ukraine even became a beacon of hope for other post-Soviet countries, earning the designation of "Free" from Freedom House--the only country among the 12 non-Baltic former Soviet republics to earn such a ranking. And while many of the promises of that revolution have sadly gone unfulfilled, one of its successes had been Ukraine's rise from "Partly Free" to "Free", reflecting genuine improvements in human rights and democratic practices. Under President Viktor Yanukovych, elected in February 2010, this promising legacy may vanish. Today we see backsliding on many fronts, which threatens to return Ukraine to authoritarianism and jeopardizes its independence from Russia. Among the most worrisome of these trends are: consolidation of power in the presidency which has weakened checks and balances; backpedaling with respect to freedom of expression and assembly; various forms of pressure on the media and civil society groups; attempts to curtail academic freedom and that of institutions and activists who peacefully promote the Ukrainian national identity; and seriously flawed local elections. Meanwhile, endemic corruption--arguably the greatest and most persistent threat to Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty--as well as the weak rule of law and the lack of an independent judiciary, which were not seriously addressed by the Orange governments, have only become more pronounced under the current regime. Moreover, in recent months, we have seen intensified pressure on opposition leaders, even selective prosecutions of high-ranking members of the previous government. The vast majority of observers both within and outside Ukraine see these cases, which have targeted former Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko and former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko among others, as politically motivated acts of revenge which aim to remove possible contenders from the political scene, especially in the run-up to next year's parliamentary elections. Mr. Speaker, the Helsinki Commission has closely monitored these troubling trends as have the U.S., other Western governments, and the European Parliament and Council of Europe. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian authorities have largely downplayed concerns voiced by the European Union, which they aspire to join someday, and by the United States, with which Kyiv professes to seek better relations. The U.S. also desires enhanced bilateral ties. Yet, moving in the wrong direction on human rights, democracy and the rule of law decidedly works against strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian relations. More importantly, the erosion of hard-won democratic freedoms weakens Ukraine's independence and harms the people of Ukraine, who have endured a painful history as a captive nation over the course of the last century. Indeed, as Ukraine this week marks the 70th anniversary of the brutal Nazi invasion, we mourn the loss of life and untold human suffering of that horrific war. Against this backdrop of devastation wreaked by totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Ukrainians deserve to have the promise of democracy made possible by their independence fully realized. A few days ago, President Yanukovych said that he would take into account the criticisms in Freedom House's recent "Sounding the Alarm: Protecting Democracy in Ukraine" report. His promise is encouraging, but words alone are not enough. All friends of Ukraine should measure his words by actual and meaningful changes that improve the state of democracy and human rights for the Ukrainian people.

  • 40th Anniversary of the Forced Closure of the Theological School of Halki

    Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Snowe, Reid, Shaheen, Whitehouse, and Menendez in introducing a resolution calling upon the government of Turkey to facilitate the reopening of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Theological School of Halki without condition or further delay.  I was privileged to again meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, during his 2009 visit to the United States. His impassioned request to those of us gathered was for our support for the reopening of the Theological School of Halki, forcibly closed by the Turkish authorities in 1971. In this year marking the 40th anniversary of that tragic action, I urge the Turkish leadership to reverse this injustice and allow this unique religious institution to reopen  Founded in 1844, the Theological School of Halki, located outside modern-day Istanbul, served as the principal seminary of the Ecumenical Patriarchate until its forced closure. Counted among alumni of this preeminent educational institution are numerous prominent Orthodox scholars, theologians, priests, and bishops as well as patriarchs, including Bartholomew I. Many of these scholars and theologians have served as faculty at other institutions serving Orthodox communities around the world.  Past indications by the Turkish authorities of pending action to reopen the seminary have, regrettably, failed to materialize. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with the Ecumenical Patriarch in August 2009. In an address to a wider gathering of minority religious leaders that day, Erdogan concluded by stating, ``We should not be of those who gather, talk and disperse. A result should come out of this.'' I could not agree more with the sentiment. But resolution of this longstanding matter requires resolve, not rhetoric.  In a positive development last August, the authorities in Ankara, for the first time since 1922, permitted a liturgical celebration to take place at the historic Sumela Monastery. The Ecumenical Patriarch presided at that service, attended by pilgrims and religious leaders from several countries, including Greece and Russia. Last November, a Turkish court ordered the Buyukada orphanage to be returned to Ecumenical Patriarchate and the transfer of the property has been completed.  As one who has followed issues surrounding the Ecumenical Patriarchate with interest for many years, I welcome these positive developments. My hope is that they will lead to the return of scores of other church properties seized by the government. In 2005, the Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, convened a briefing, ``The Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey: A Victim of Systematic Expropriation.'' The Commission has consistently raised the issue of the Theological School for well over a decade and will continue to closely monitor related developments.  The State Department's 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom is a reminder of the challenges faced by Orthodox and other minority religious communities in Turkey. I urge the Turkish Prime Minister to ensure respect for the rights of individuals from these groups to freely profess and practice their religion or beliefs, in keeping with Turkey's obligations as an OSCE participating State.  The 1989 OSCE Vienna Concluding Document affirmed the right of religious communities to provide ``training of religious personnel in appropriate institutions.'' The Theological School of Halki served that function for over a century until its forced closure four decades ago. The time has come to allow the reopening of this unique institution without further delay.  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. SENATE RESOLUTION 196--CALLING UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF TURKEY TO FACILITATE THE REOPENING OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE'S THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF HALKI WITHOUT CONDITION OF FURTHER DELAY  Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. REID of Nevada, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. MENENDEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:  S. Res. 196  Whereas the Ecumenical Patriarchate is an institution with a history spanning 17 centuries, serving as the center of the Orthodox Christian Church throughout the world;  Whereas the Ecumenical Patriarchate sits at the crossroads of East and West, offering a unique perspective on the religions and cultures of the world;  Whereas the title of Ecumenical Patriarch was formally accorded to the Archbishop of Constantinople by a synod convened in Constantinople during the sixth century;  Whereas, since November 1991, His All Holiness, Bartholomew I, has served as Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch;  Whereas Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1997, in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions toward religious understanding and peace;  Whereas, during the 110th Congress, 75 Senators and the overwhelming majority of members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives wrote to President George W. Bush and the Prime Minister of Turkey to express congressional concern, which continues today, regarding the absence of religious freedom for Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in the areas of church-controlled Patriarchal succession, the confiscation of the vast majority of Patriarchal properties, recognition of the international Ecumenicity of the Patriarchate, and the reopening of the Theological School of Halki;  Whereas the Theological School of Halki, founded in 1844 and located outside Istanbul, Turkey, served as the principal seminary for the Ecumenical Patriarchate until its forcible closure by the Turkish authorities in 1971;  Whereas the alumni of this preeminent educational institution include numerous prominent Orthodox scholars, theologians, priests, bishops, and patriarchs, including Bartholomew I;  Whereas the Republic of Turkey has been a participating state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) since signing the Helsinki Final Act in 1975;  Whereas in 1989, the OSCE participating states adopted the Vienna Concluding Document, committing to respect the right of religious communities to provide ``training of religious personnel in appropriate institutions'';  Whereas the continued closure of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Theological School of Halki has been an ongoing issue of concern for the American people and the United States Congress and has been repeatedly raised by members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and by United States delegations to the OSCE's annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting;  Whereas, in his address to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on April 6, 2009, President Barack Obama said, ``Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond.'';  Whereas, in a welcomed development, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with the Ecumenical Patriarch on August 15, 2009, and, in an address to a wider gathering of minority religious leaders that day, concluded by stating, ``We should not be of those who gather, talk, and disperse. A result should come out of this.'';  Whereas, during his visit to the United States in November 2009, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I raised the issue of the continued closure of the Theological School of Halki with President Obama, congressional leaders, and others;  Whereas, in a welcome development, for the first time since 1922, the Government of Turkey in August 2010 allowed the liturgical celebration by the Ecumenical Patriarch at the historic Sumela Monastery; and  Whereas, following a unanimous decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in 2010, ruling that Turkey return the former Greek Orphanage on Buyukada Island to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on the eve of the feast day of St. Andrew observed on November 30, the Government of Turkey provided lawyers representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the formal property title for the confiscated building: Now, therefore, be it  Resolved, That the Senate—  (1) welcomes the historic meeting between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I;  (2) welcomes the positive gestures by the Government of Turkey, including allowing the liturgical celebration by the Ecumenical Patriarch at the historic Sumela Monastery and the return of the former Greek Orphanage on Buyukada Island to the Ecumenical Patriarchate;  (3) urges the Government of Turkey to facilitate the reopening of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Theological School of Halki without condition or further delay; and  (4) urges the Government of Turkey to address other longstanding concerns relating to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

  • Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011

    Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011.  While this bill bears Sergei Magnitsky’s name in honor of his sacrifice, the language addresses the overall issue of the erosion of the rule of law and human rights in Russia. It offers hope to those who suffer in silence, whose cases may be less known or not known at all.  While there are many aspects of Sergei’s and other tragic cases which are difficult to pursue here in the United States, there are steps we can take and an obvious and easy one is to deny the privilege of visiting our country to individuals involved in gross violations of human rights. Visas are privileges not rights and we must be willing to see beyond the veil of sovereignty that kleptocrats often hide behind. They do this by using courts, prosecutors, and police as instruments of advanced corporate raiding and hope outsiders are given pause by their official trappings of office and lack of criminal records. Further, we must protect our strategic financial infrastructure from those who would use it to launder or shelter ill-gotten gains.  Despite occasional rhetoric from the Kremlin, the Russian leadership has failed to follow through with any meaningful action to stem rampant corruption or bring the perpetrators of numerous and high-profile human rights abuses to justice.  My legislation simply says if you commit gross violations of human rights don’t expect to visit Disneyland, Aspen, or South Beach and expect your accounts to be frozen if you bank with us. This may not seem like much, but in Russia the richer and more powerful you get the more danger you are exposed to from others harboring designs on your fortune and future.  Thus many are standing near the doors and we can certainly close at least one of those doors. And I know that others, especially in Europe and Canada are working on similar sanctions.  I first learned about Sergei Magnitsky while he was still alive when his client William Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital, testified at a hearing on Russia that I held as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe in June 2009.  At the Helsinki Commission we hear so many heartbreaking stories of the human cost of trampling fundamental freedoms and it’s a challenge not to give up hope and yield to the temptation of cynicism and become hardened to the suffering around us or to reduce a personal tragedy to yet another issue. While we use trends, numbers, and statistics to help us understand and deal with human rights issues, we must never forget the face of the individual person whose reality is the issue and the story of Sergei Magnitsky is as unforgettable as it is heartbreaking. Sergei Magnitsky was a young Russian tax lawyer employed by an American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest known tax fraud in Russian history. After discovering this elaborate scheme, Sergei Magnitsky testified to the authorities detailing the conspiracy to defraud the Russian people of approximately $230 million dollars and naming the names of those officials involved. Shortly after his testimony, Sergei was arrested by subordinates of the very law enforcement officers he had implicated in this crime. He was held in detention for nearly a year without trial under torturous conditions. He developed severe medical complications, which went deliberately untreated and he died in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door on November 16, 2009.  Sadly, Sergei Magnitsky joins the ranks of a long list of Russian heroes who lost their lives because they stood up for principle and for truth. These ranks include Natalia Estemirova a brave human rights activist shot in the head and chest and stuffed into the trunk of a car, Anna Politkovskaya an intrepid reporter shot while coming home with an arm full of groceries, and too many others.  Often in these killings there is a veil of plausible deniability, gunmen show up in the dark and slip away into the shadows, but Sergei – in inhuman conditions – managed to document in 450 complaints exactly who bears responsibility for his false arrest and death. We must honor his sacrifice and do all we can to learn from this tragedy that others may not share his fate.  Few are made in the mold of Sergei Magnitsky – able to withstand barbaric deprivations and cruelty without breaking and certainly none of us would want to be put to the test. A man of such character is fascinating and in some ways disquieting because we suspect deep down that we might not have what it takes to stay loyal to the truth under such pressure. Magnitsky’s life and tragic death remind us all that some things are more valuable than success, comfort, or even life itself –truth is one of those things. May his example be a rebuke to those whose greed or cowardice has blinded them to their duties, an inspiration to still greater integrity for those laboring quietly in the mundane yet necessary tasks of life, and a comfort to those wrongly accused.  The Wall Street Journal described Sergei Magnitsky’s death as a “slow-motion assassination,” while the Moscow Prison Oversight Committee called it a “murder to conceal a fraud.” Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Ellen Barry writing in the New York Times stated that, “Magnitsky’s death in pretrial detention at the age of 37... sent shudders through Moscow’s elite. They saw him – a post-Soviet young urban professional – as someone uncomfortably like themselves.”  Outside the media, President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek noted that “Sergei Magnitsky was a brave man, who in his fight against corruption was unjustifiably imprisoned under ruthless conditions and then died in jail without receiving appropriate medical care.” While Transparency International observed that, “Sergei did what to most people seems impossible: he battled as a lone individual against the power of an entire state. He believed in the rule of law and integrity, and died for his belief.”  One might have thought that after the worldwide condemnation of Sergei Magnitsky’s arrest, torture, and death in the custody, the Russian government would have identified and prosecuted those responsible for this heinous crime. Instead, the government has not prosecuted a single person and many of the key perpetrators went on to receive promotions and the highest state honors from the Russian Interior Ministry. Moreover, the officers involved feel such a sense of impunity that they are now using all instruments of the Russian state to pursue and punish Magnitsky’s friends and colleagues who have been publicly fighting for justice in his case.  They have forced the American founding partner of Magnitsky’s firm, Jamison Firestone, to flee Russia in fear for his safety in the months following his colleague’s death after learning that the same people were attempting to take control of an American client’s Russian companies and commit a similar fraud. And they have used the same criminal case that was used to falsely arrest Magnitsky to indict Sergei's client Bill Browder. They have opened up retaliatory criminal cases against many of Hermitage’s employees and all of its lawyers, who were forced to leave Russia to save their own lives. These attacks have only intensified since my colleague and friend Congressman Jim McGovern introduced the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2011, a similar measure in the House of Representatives, last month.  In the struggle for human rights we must never be indifferent. On this point, I am reminded of Eli Wiesel’s hauntingly eloquent speech, The Perils of Indifference which he delivered at the White House in 1999. On this ever-present danger and demoralizer he cautions us, “Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor – never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees – not to respond to their plight, not to relive their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.”  Speaking of our humanity, I offer the following words as a contrast. They are from Russian playwright Mikhail Ugarov who created One Hour Eighteen, which is the exact amount of time it took for Sergei Magnitsky to die in his isolation cell at Moscow’s Matrosskaya Tishina prison. Ugarov asks, “When a person puts on the uniform of a public prosecutor, the white lab coat of a doctor, or the black robe of a judge, does he or she inevitably lose their humanity? Do they lose their ability to – even in a small way – empathize with a fellow human being? In the case of Sergei Magnitsky, each of the people who assumed these professional duties in the case left their humanity behind.”  The coming year will be a significant moment in the evolution of Russian politics. With Duma elections scheduled for the end of 2011 and presidential elections for early 2012, there is an opportunity for the Russian government to reverse what has been a steady trajectory away from the rule of law and respect for human rights and toward authoritarianism.  Mr. President, private and even public expressions of concern are not a substitute for a real policy nor are they enough, it’s time for consequences. The bill I introduce today sends a strong message to those who are currently acting with impunity in Russia that there will be consequences for corruption should you wish to travel to and invest in the United States. Such actions will provide needed moral support for those in Russia doing the really heavy-lifting in fighting corruption and promoting the rule of law, but they will also protect our own interests – values or business related.  We see before us a tale of two Russias, the double headed eagle if you will. To whom does the future of Russia belong? Does it belong to the Yevgenia Chirikovas, Alexey Navalnys, Oleg Orlovs and countless other courageous, hardworking, and patriotic Russians who expose corruption and fight for human rights or those who inhabit the shadows abusing and stealing from their fellow citizens?  Let’s not put aside our humanity out of exaggerated and excessively cautious diplomatic concerns for the broader relationship. Let’s take the long view and stand on the right side – and I believe the wise side – with the Russian people who’ve suffered so much for the cause of liberty and human dignity. They are the ones who daily risk their safety and freedom to promote those basic principles enshrined in Russian law and many international commitments including the Helsinki Final Act. They are the conscience of Russia. And let us tell them with one voice that they are not alone and that concepts like the rule of law and human rights are not empty words for this body and for our government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.  Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Statement on the Death of Max van der Stoel

    Mr. President, as the Senate Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I rise today to pay tribute to Max van der Stoel, the first High Commissioner on National Minorities at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), who died last week at his home in The Hague at the age of 86. Van der Stoel, a two-time Dutch foreign minister, worked tirelessly throughout the OSCE region as High Commissioner from 1992 to 2001 to prevent crises involving minority issues.  Max van der Stoel had a life-long commitment to human rights. From his early life in Nazi-occupied Netherlands to defining moments spent with Soviet-era dissidents, van der Stoel was deeply affected by the abuses he witnessed. He described one such encounter, in then-Czechoslovakia in 1977, when as foreign minister he met with Charter 77 activist, Jan Patocka in full view of Czechoslovak authorities. Van der Stoel commented that, “This support was of great concern to the Communist authorities. After our short meeting, Professor Patocka was arrested and rigorously interrogated. He died of a heart attack the next day.”  Following the first Gulf War, van der Stoel was appointed UN Human Rights Representative for Iraq, and he continued to raise human rights concerns in Iraq throughout the 1990s.  In 1992, he was appointed as the OSCE’s first High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), with a mandate aimed at preventing conflict through quiet diplomacy and early warning to the OSCE countries. His successes in that role are largely unrecognized, as they lie in what did not happen rather than in what did. He traveled to countries where tensions were rising, encouraged dialogue, and made practical recommendations to address underlying issues related to ethnic tension.  He worked in Estonia and Latvia in the early 1990s to address the processing for acquiring citizenship – which at the time disadvantaged particularly ethnic Russians in the newly independent states because of stringent language testing. He was the OSCE Chairmanship’s Personal Representative on Kosovo – although unfortunately his early warnings in 1997 and 1998 went unheeded by policymakers. His work on inter-ethnic relations and education in Macedonia resulted in the establishment of the South Eastern European University in Tetovo in 2001, which is still a model for integrated education. Throughout his time as HCNM, he promoted rights for Roma, the single largest minority in the OSCE region as a whole.  His job was not easy, but his integrity, commitment, and diplomatic skills paved the way for his successors and built the position of the HCNM into one of the most effective OSCE tools for conflict prevention. His legacy to the OSCE is not only the work he did as HCNM, but the advice he left behind on the importance of early action to prevent conflict.  In his last statement to the OSCE Permanent Council in 2001, he said, “Governments should see the self interest in protecting minority rights and living in peaceful and prosperous multi-ethnic states. The only people who profit from inter-ethnic conflict are nationalist entrepreneurs. That is not a business that reaps long term profits. In the end, intolerance, violence and instability hurt us all.  “I maintain that preventing inter-ethnic conflict will continue to be one of the organization's biggest challenges in the near future. Despite improvements in many OSCE states, conflicts still rage and tensions boil below the surface. We have to sharpen our tools and invest sufficient resources to ensure that we remain on the cutting edge of conflict prevention. ... Collectively, we must do more to act in response to the warning signs. It is not enough to admonish States for falling short of their commitments. A concerted response by the international community must be resolute, targeted, and timely.  “...When a crisis becomes acute, everyone wonders what went wrong or what steps should be taken to contain the situation. Things do not need to get to that point. While Foreign Ministries seem to be increasingly sensitive to the benefits of relatively limited funding, treasuries are still hesitant to invest in preventing the conflicts of tomorrow. We need to put our money where our mouth is. It makes political and financial sense to put resources into keeping multi-ethnic states together, rather than bailing them out after they have fallen apart.”  His words are as timely and relevant today as they were ten years ago. It is my hope that, inspired by the dedication and accomplishments of Max van der Stoel, the United States and its allies will strive to ensure that ethic tension and human rights violations are not allowed to fester until they erupt into conflict. Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Remembering Katyn

    Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the lives lost in last year's plane crash near Smolensk that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife Maria, and 94 others who represented the political, cultural, and religious leadership of Poland. Words alone offer little solace before such awesome tragedy, which is one of the reasons people must gather together before monuments and flowers to add a tangible dimension to our shapeless grief. While eloquent remarks can move the heart, we all know a smile, a gaze, or an embrace can often do more to bring comfort to the sorrowful.  Katyn has become a tragedy in three acts--the crime, the cover-up, and now the crash. Surely it is fitting for us to meet, comfort each other, and remember those who died. But what lies beyond our tears? Can good come from this evil?  For the loved ones of those 96 souls who perished nearly a year ago, they must take comfort in knowing that the final act of their beloved was a noble one--that of remembering those martyrs whom Stalin and his henchmen sought to erase from Poland and, indeed, from history.  As Stanislaw Kot, Poland's wartime Ambassador to Moscow, said, "People are not like steam; they cannot evaporate.'' He was right and it is written, ``Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground!'' In a haunting twist of fate, a hungry wolf in the Russian winter would scratch at the snow and uncover the hastily buried bones of Poland's best and brightest. And the truth about this unspeakable crime would one day be known.  We have come a long way--a very long way--from the time when this atrocity was falsely presented as a Nazi crime and from the time when the names of the dead could only be circulated in communist Poland in the form of samizdat publications and whispered around kitchen tables.  Nevertheless, there is still more that must be done to set the record straight. This involves insuring that all the evidence relating to the execution sites, the executioners' identities, the motives for the crime, and the fate of so many Polish families who vanished on the Siberian steppe are publicly available. We must ensure that the fullness of the truth is uncovered and shared for its own sake and for closure. To that end, I welcome recent news of the Kremlin's release of still more documents relating to the massacre.  Further, I believe that finally coming to terms with Katyn is a necessary precondition for a durable Polish-Russian rapprochement, which is itself good insurance for maintaining a Europe, whole, free, and at peace.  Next week Presidents Komorowski and Medvedev will meet before the mass graves at Katyn and, I trust, will continue a dialogue of healing between two great nations that have suffered so much from the elevation of an ideology over a people. I wish them well in their talks and ongoing mission of reconciliation and believe that the only lasting balm for this wound lies in the heart and not in a courtroom or even a legislature.  This is not to say that charges or claims should not be pursued, but to recognize that, in many cases, such actions will fall short and offer little by way of consolation.  It would be most unfortunate for the memory of Katyn to be debased by ideologues of any ilk who would usurp this sacred memory for partisan projects. For too long the truth about Katyn was denied by those on the left who turned a blind eye to the reality of communism and many on the right seemed to view Katyn as just another issue to be exploited in the struggle of ideologies. People and their memory are an end, in and of themselves, and must never be used as a means to advance even a just cause. The only decent relationship to them is that of love and remembrance--our dignity and theirs demands nothing less.  My sincere hope is that Poland and Russia can do better than some countries that have fought bitter diplomatic battles and enacted laws to force or deny recognition of historic crimes. By honestly evaluating a shared past of suffering, Poles and Russians have a real opportunity to build a shared future of friendship and prosperity.  Poland is now free and her traditions support the forgiveness that offers a path out of the valley of this shadow of death. In so many ways, Poland is, and must remain, a light to those nearby who still live in the darkness of oppression and lies.  As we continue to ponder the devastation of last year's catastrophe, I would like to close by putting a couple faces on our sadness; those of Mariusz Handzlik and Andrzej Przewoznik, who both died in last year's crash.  Mariusz was a diplomat and father of three. He was well known and well liked in Washington from the years he spent assigned to the Embassy of Poland. In 2000, he played a fateful game of chess with Polish war hero and Righteous Gentile Jan Karski who narrowly escaped "liquidation'' at Katyn. Karski would die in a Washington hospital and Handzlik in a gloomy Russian forest.  Andrzej was a historian, a husband, and father of two. He was the principal organizer behind the conference I cohosted as Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission last year at the Library of Congress to mark the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Forest Massacre. Andrzej hoped to spend time at our National Archives sifting through the papers of the Madden Committee and other relevant U.S. Government documents on Katyn.  The memories of Mariusz, Andrzej, and so many other truly exceptional people on that doomed flight offer much by way of virtue and accomplishment that will inspire Poles for generations to come. Let us take comfort in the truth that is, at last, known and bask in the warmth of heroic memories and do this together with our Polish friends who are second to no one in their love of freedom.

  • Senator Cardin’s Response to Rep. King’s U.S. Anti-Muslim Hearings

    Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts on the hearings held last week in the House of Representatives called "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response." Congressional hearings are supposed to serve as an important role of oversight, investigation, or education, among other purposes. However, this particular hearing--billed as the first of a series--served only to fan flames of fear and division.  My first concern is the title of the hearing--targeting one community. That is wrong. Each of us has a responsibility to speak out when communities are unfairly targeted.  In 1975, the United States joined all the countries of Europe and established the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, now known as the OSCE. The Congress created the U.S. Helsinki Commission to monitor U.S. participation and compliance with these commitments. The OSCE contains commitments in three areas or baskets: security, economics, and human rights. Best known for its human rights advancements, the OSCE has been aggressive in advancing these commitments in each of the OSCE states. The OSCE stands for religious freedom and protection of minority rights.  I am the Senate chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. In that capacity, I have raised human rights issues in other countries, such as in France when, in the name of national security, the Parliament banned burqas and wearing of all religious articles or when the Swiss restricted the building of mosques or minarets.  These policies were restrictive not only to the religious practice of Muslims but also Christians, Jews, and others who would seek to wear religious symbols and practice their religion as they saw fit.  I have also raised human rights issues in the United States when we were out of compliance with our Helsinki commitments. In that spirit, I find it necessary to speak out against the congressional hearing chaired by Congressman Peter King.  Rather than constructively using the power of Congress to explore how we as a nation can use all of the tools at our disposal to prevent future terrorist attacks and defeat those individuals and groups who want to do us harm, this spectacle crossed the line and chipped away at the religious freedoms and civil liberties we hold so dearly.  Radicalization may be the appropriate subject of a congressional hearing but not when it is limited to one religion. When that is done, it sends the wrong message to the public and casts a religion with unfounded suspicions.  Congressman King's hearing is part of a disturbing trend to demonize Muslims taking place in our country and abroad. Instead, we need to engage the Muslim community in the United States.  A cookie-cutter approach to profile what a terrorist looks like will not work. As FBI Director Mueller recently testified to the Senate:  “... During the past year, the threat from radicalization has evolved. A number of disruptions occurred involving extremists from a diverse set of backgrounds, geographic locations, life experiences, and motivating factors that propelled them along their separate radicalization pathways.”  Let us remember that a number of terrorist attacks have been prevented or disrupted due to informants from the Muslim community who contacted law enforcement officials.  I commend Attorney General Holder and FBI Director Mueller for increasing their outreach to the Arab-American community. As Attorney General Holder said:  “Let us not forget it was a Muslim-American who first alerted the New York police to a smoking car in Times Square. And his vigilance likely helped to save lives. He did his part to avert tragedy, just as millions of other Arab-Americans are doing their parts and proudly fulfilling the responsibility of citizenship.” We need to encourage this type of cooperation between our government and law enforcement agencies in the Muslim community.  As the threat from al-Qaida changes and evolves over time, the piece of the puzzle is even more important to get right. FBI Director Mueller testified before the House recently that:  At every opportunity I have, I reaffirm the fact that 99.9 percent of Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and Arab-Americans are every bit as patriotic as anyone else in this room, and that many of the anti-terrorism cases are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community and the United States.  As leaders in Congress, we must live up to our Nation's highest ideals and protect civil liberties, even in wartime when they are most challenged. The 9/11 Commission summed up this well when they wrote:  The terrorists have used our open society against us. In wartime, government calls for greater powers, and then the need for those powers recedes after the war ends. This struggle will go on. Therefore, while protecting our homeland, Americans must be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right.  I agree with Attorney General Holder's recent speech to the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, where he stated:  “In this Nation, our many faiths, origins, and appearances must bind us together, not break us apart. In this Nation, the document that sets forth the supreme law of the land--the Constitution--is meant to empower, not exclude. And in this Nation, security and liberty are--at their best--partners, not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all.” Actions, such as the hearing held last week, that pit us against one another based on our religious beliefs, weaken our country and its freedoms and ultimately do nothing to make our country any safer. Hearings such as the one held last week only serve as a distraction from our real goals and provide fuel for those who are looking for excuses to find fault or blame in our way of life.  Let's not go the way of other countries but instead hold dear the protections in our Constitution that safeguard the individual's right to freely practice their religion and forbid a religious test to hold public office in the United States. Our country's strength lies in its diversity and our ability to have strongly held beliefs and differences of opinion, while being able to speak freely and not fear the government will imprison us for criticizing the government or holding a religious belief that is not shared by the majority of Americans.  On September 11, 2001, our country was attacked by terrorists in a way we thought impossible. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children of all races, religions, and backgrounds were murdered. As the 10-year anniversary of these attacks draws closer, we continue to hold these innocent victims in our thoughts and prayers, and we will continue to fight terrorism and bring terrorists to justice.  After that attack, I went back to my congressional district in Maryland at that time and made three visits as a Congressman. First I visited a synagogue and prayed with the community. Then I visited a mosque and prayed with the community. Then I went to a church and prayed with the community. My message was clear on that day: We all needed to join together as a nation to condemn the terrorist attacks and to take all necessary measures to eliminate safe havens for terrorists and bring them to justice. We all stood together on that day regardless of our background or personal beliefs.  But my other message was equally important: We cannot allow the events of September 11 to demonize a particular community, religion, or creed. Such actions of McCarthyism harken back to darker days in our history. National security concerns were used inappropriately and led to 120,000 Japanese-Americans being stripped of their property and rights and placed in internment camps in 1942, though not a single act of espionage was ever established.  The United States should not carry out a crusade against any particular religion as a response to 9/11 or other terrorist attacks. The United States will not tolerate hate crimes against any group, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, and we should not allow our institutions, including Congress, to be used to foment intolerance and injustice. Let's come together as a nation and move forward in a more constructive and hopeful manner.

  • Attacks in Hungary and the Czech Republic

    Mr. President, as co-chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I wanted to bring to the Senate's attention that next week, February 23, will mark a tragic anniversary. Two years ago on that date, assassins gathered outside the home of Robert Csorba. They threw a Molotov cocktail into the house. Although some family members escaped the blaze, five-year-old Robert Csorba and his father did not: as they tried to flee the flames, their attackers riddled them with bullets. The murderers were prepared: if the bomb did not finish them off, their guns would. They were prepared to kill men, women, and children. The Csorbas were just two of the victims in a wave of racially motivated attacks against Roma that has roiled Hungary. According to the European Roma Rights Center, between January 2008 and July 2010 there were at least two dozen cases where Molotov cocktails, hand grenades or sniper fire were used. The victims included nine fatalities, including two children, and others who were seriously injured. Among them was the 13-year-old daughter of Maria Balogh. Ms. Balogh was murdered when snipers shot into her home in the middle of the night on August 3, 2009, killing her and leaving her daughter an orphan. Her daughter was also grievously wounded: she was shot in the face, blinded in one eye, and maimed for life. It is no wonder that these attacks led one Romani activist to declare that Roma would need to arm themselves or flee, and another asserted that if these attacks continued, Hungary would be headed toward civil war. There are some positive developments. The fatal attacks have stopped. Hungary's new government has reached out to the victims to provide support for rebuilding homes that were damaged or destroyed in arson attacks. Hungary's new Minister for Social Inclusion, Zolton Balog, has demonstrated a rare and welcome compassion for his Romani fellow citizens. But the wounded and the dead still wait for justice in Hungary. Although four men have been arrested on suspicion of carrying out the serial killings of Roma that occurred in 2008 and 2009, there have been no trials and no convictions. The Czech Republic has also seen a dramatic rise in anti-Roma rhetoric and violent actions in the past few years. Last October, I joined Helsinki Commission cochairman, Alcee Hastings in welcoming the lengthy sentences handed down in the Czech Republic to four neo-Nazis who firebombed a Romani home in 2009, an act which left an infant, widely known simply as ``Baby Natalka,'' with second and third degree burns over 80 percent of her body and a lifetime of painful rehabilitation ahead of her. When that judgment was handed down against the four men who firebombed Baby Natalka, I was heartened. I also said I was watching another Czech case--one that is largely unknown. On November 8, 2008, a roving mob attacked several Roma in the town of Havirov. One teenager was so savagely beaten, he was effectively left for dead. For a prolonged period of time afterwards, he was in a coma, and when he regained consciousness, he was unable to talk. Although he has learned to speak again, he has suffered permanent brain damage. He is paralyzed, was forced to end his studies, and may never be able to work. A decision in the case is expected to be announced in the Ostrava regional court at 8:30 a.m. on February 24. Behind the high profile murder cases of Roma that make their way into the news, there is an even larger number of cases involving Roma who have been attacked, but not fatally; they do not die but are maimed, disabled, and traumatized for life by the racially motivated violence they have encountered. Their stories are often never told, but each of them stands as a living monument to everyone in their families and everyone in their communities, testifying to the government's failure to protect them. Each of them deserves justice, including Jaroslav Horvath, the teenager attacked in Havirov.  

  • Northern Cyprus

    Mr. President, I rise today to return to the issue of the legacy of the invasion and ongoing occupation of Northern Cyprus and related human rights violations in the region. The disruption of a Christmas liturgy at the Orthodox Church of Agios Synesios, in Rizokarpaso, by the security services is appalling and should be roundly condemned by people of good will. The town, located in the Karpas region, is an anchor for the remnant of the once thriving Greek Cypriot community, now numbering several hundred mainly aged souls. The faithful had gathered at the church one of only a handful of Orthodox places of worship in the occupied area to have survived intact for a rare service. According to reports, members of the security services entered the church while the liturgy was being celebrated, ordered a halt to the religious service, and forced the worshipers and the priest out of the building before locking the doors. This sad turn of events has become all too familiar in a region under the effective control of the Turkish military. Of the 500 Orthodox Christian churches, monasteries, chapels and other sacred sites in the north, nearly all have sustained heavy damage, with most desecrated and plundered, including cemeteries. A mere handful, including the Church of Agios Synesios, may occasionally be used for religious services depending upon the whims of the local authorities and the military. The disruption of the Christmas Day liturgy is an affront to the dignity of those attending the service and is part of a disturbing pattern of violation of OSCE commitments on the fundamental freedom of religion, including the right of religious communities to maintain freely accessible places of worship. A related concern has been the tendency of State Department reports to downplay the difficulties faced by Orthodox Christians seeking to conduct services in northern Cyprus as well as the extent of the region's rich religious cultural heritage. I raised my concerns over the denial of religious freedom in occupied Cyprus when the Committee on Foreign Relations held a nomination hearing for the position of Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom and will continue to closely monitor the situation in that part of Cyprus . Under my chairmanship of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe we undertook an examination of the destruction of religious cultural heritage in that part of Cyprus . Our findings, along with expert testimony were presented at a Commission briefing, "Cyprus' Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril'' held on July 21, 2009. I encourage my colleagues and other interested parties to review the materials from that event, available on the Commission's Web site, www.csce.gov. A Law Library of Congress report: "Cyprus: Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law" was also released at the briefing. In addition to documenting the extensive destruction of such sites, the briefing also touched on infringements of the rights of Orthodox Christians in Northern Cyprus to freely practice their religion. Those responsible for the interruption and abrupt forcible ending of the Christmas service at the Church of Agios Synesios should issue a formal apology for the boorish act of repression and I call upon all authorities in northern Cyprus to remove restrictions on the free exercise of freedom of religion and other basic human rights in this part of the country under their control.  

  • Northern Cyprus

    Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to return to the issue of the legacy of the invasion and ongoing occupation of Northern Cyprus and related human rights violations in the region. The disruption of a Christmas liturgy at the Orthodox Church of Agios Synesios, in Rizokarpaso, by the security services is appalling and should be roundly condemned by people of good will. The town, located in the Karpas region, is an anchor for the remnant of the once thriving Greek Cypriot community, now numbering several hundred mainly aged souls. The faithful had gathered at the church one of only a handful of Orthodox places of worship in the occupied area to have survived intact for a rare service. According to reports, members of the security services entered the church while the liturgy was being celebrated, ordered a halt to the religious service, and forced the worshipers and the priest out of the building before locking the doors. This sad turn of events has become all too familiar in a region under the effective control of the Turkish military. Of the 500 Orthodox Christian churches, monasteries, chapels and other sacred sites in the north, nearly all have sustained heavy damage, with most desecrated and plundered, including cemeteries. A mere handful, including the Church of Agios Synesios, may occasionally be used for religious services depending upon the whims of the local authorities and the military. The disruption of the Christmas Day liturgy is an affront to the dignity of those attending the service and is part of a disturbing pattern of violation of OSCE commitments on the fundamental freedom of religion, including the right of religious communities to maintain freely accessible places of worship. A related concern has been the tendency of State Department reports to downplay the difficulties faced by Orthodox Christians seeking to conduct services in northern Cyprus as well as the extent of the region's rich religious cultural heritage. I raised my concerns over the denial of religious freedom in occupied Cyprus when the Committee on Foreign Relations held a nomination hearing for the position of Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom and will continue to closely monitor the situation in that part of Cyprus . Under my chairmanship of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe we undertook an examination of the destruction of religious cultural heritage in that part of Cyprus . Our findings, along with expert testimony were presented at a Commission briefing, ``Cyprus' Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril'' held on July 21, 2009. I encourage my colleagues and other interested parties to review the materials from that event, available on the Commission's Web site, www.csce.gov. A Law Library of Congress report: ``Cyprus : Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law'' was also released at the briefing. In addition to documenting the extensive destruction of such sites, the briefing also touched on infringements of the rights of Orthodox Christians in Northern Cyprus to freely practice their religion. Those responsible for the interruption and abrupt forcible ending of the Christmas service at the Church of Agios Synesios should issue a formal apology for the boorish act of repression and I call upon all authorities in northern Cyprus to remove restrictions on the free exercise of freedom of religion and other basic human rights in this part of the country under their control.

  • Theological School of Halki

    Mr. President, a year ago this month I was privileged to again meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I. His impassioned call for support for the reopening of the Theological School of Halki promoted me to introduce S. Res. 356, a bipartisan measure calling upon the Government of Turkey to facilitate the reopening of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Theological School of Halki without condition or further delay. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the forced closure on that unique institution by the Turkish authorities, I renew my call for the Government of Turkey to allow the seminary to reopen.  Founded in 1844, the Theological School of Halki, located outside modern-day Istanbul, served as the principal seminary of the Ecumenical Patriarchate until its forcible closure by the Turkish authorities in 1971. Counted among alumni of this preeminent educational institution are numerous prominent Orthodox scholars, theologians, priests, and bishops as well as patriarchs, including Bartholomew I. Many of these scholars and theologians have served as faculty at other institutions serving Orthodox communities around the world.  Past indications by the Turkish authorities of pending action to reopen the seminary have, regrettably, failed to materialize. Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdog 0an met with the Ecumenical Patriarch in August 2009. In an address to a wider gathering of minority religious leaders that day, Erdog 0an concluded by stating, ``We should not be of those who gather, talk and disperse. A result should come out of this.'' I could not agree more with the sentiment. But resolution of this longstanding matter requires resolve, not rhetoric.  In a positive development this August, the authorities in Ankara, for the first time since 1922, permitted a liturgical celebration to take place at the historic Sumela Monastery. The Ecumenical Patriarch presided at the service, attended by pilgrims and religious leaders from several countries, including Greece and Russia. Earlier this month, a Turkish court ordered the Buyukada orphanage to be returned to Ecumenical Patriarchate. If the transfer of the property occurs, this would be another welcome development, potentially paving the way for the return of scores of other church properties seized by the government. In 2005, the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, convened a briefing, ``The Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey: A Victim of Systematic Expropriation.'' The Commission has consistently raised the issue of the Theological School for well over a decade and will continue to closely monitor related developments.  Yesterday's release of the 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom is a reminder of the challenges faced by Orthodox and other minority religious communities in Turkey. I urge the Turkish Prime Minister to ensure respect for the rights of individuals from these groups to freely profess and practice their religion or beliefs, in keeping with Turkey's obligations as an OSCE participating state.  The 1989 OSCE Vienna Concluding Document affirmed the right of religious communities to provide ``training of religious personnel in appropriate institutions.'' The Theological School of Halki served that function for over a century until its forced closure nearly four decades ago. The time has come to allow the reopening of this unique institution without further delay.

  • Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2010

    Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2010. As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I first learned about Sergei Magnitsky at a hearing I held on Russia in June 2009.  Sergei Magnitsky was a young Russian anti-corruption lawyer employed by a prominent American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest known tax rebate fraud in Russian history perpetrated by high level Russian officials. After discovering this complex and brazen corruption scheme, Sergei Magnitsky dutifully testified to the authorities detailing the conspiracy to defraud the Russian people of approximately $230 million dollars and naming the names of those officials. Shortly after his testimony, Sergei was arrested by subordinates of the very law enforcement officers he had implicated in this crime. He was held in detention for nearly a year without trial under torturous conditions and died in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door on November 16, 2009.  In April of this year I sent a letter to our Secretary of State urging a visa ban for Russian officials connected to the death of Sergei Magnitsky. I also released a list of 60 senior officials from the Russian Interior Ministry, Federal Security Service, Federal Tax Service, Regional Courts, General Prosecutor’s Office, and Federal Prison Service, along with detailed descriptions of their involvement in this matter. My bill reminds the Department of State that I have not forgotten and will not forget this issue. In fact, this bill goes a bit further adding an asset freeze provision to be applied against those implicated in this tragic affair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary of State Clinton and my list be entered into the record.  Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer with what should have been a promising career ahead of him died at age 37 leaving behind a mother, a wife, and two boys who never saw him or even heard his voice after his arrest. Since his death, no one has been held accountable and some of those involved even have been promoted. Also, there is strong evidence that the criminal enterprise that stole the money from the Russian treasury and falsely imprisoned and tortured Magnitsky, continues to operate. In fact, the American founding partner of Magnitsky’s firm fled Russia for his safety in the months following his colleague’s death after learning that a similar fraud scheme was attempted by the same criminals.  This is a heartbreaking story, and let me be clear, my bill does not even attempt to deliver justice as that would be impossible since nothing can bring Sergei back. There are obvious limits to what we can do as Americans, but we can deny the privilege of visiting our country and accessing our financial system. This bill sends a strong message to those who are currently acting with impunity in Russia that there will be consequences for corruption should you wish to travel and invest abroad. I hope others, especially in the EU, UK, and Canada will adopt similar sanctions. This measure is also about the future and protecting our business interests abroad by making it clear that, even if your home country allows you to trample the rule of law, we will not stand by and become an unwitting accomplice in your crimes.  Sadly, Sergei Magnitsky joins the ranks of a long list of Russian heroes who lost their lives because they stood up for principle and for truth. These ranks include Natalia Estemirova a brave human rights activist shot in the head and chest and stuffed into the trunk of a car, Anna Politkovskaya an intrepid reporter shot while coming home with an arm full of groceries, and too many others. Often in these killings there is a veil of plausible deniability, gunmen show up in the dark and slip away into the shadows, but Sergei, in inhuman conditions managed to document in 450 complaints exactly who bears responsibility for his false arrest and death. We must honor his heroic sacrifice and do all we can to learn from this tragedy that others may not share his fate. Few are made in the mold of Sergei Magnitsky – able to withstand barbaric depravations and cruelty without breaking and certainly none of us would want to be put to such a test. For those corrupt officials who abuse their office, Sergei’s life stands as a rebuke to what is left of their consciences. To those who suffer unjustly, Sergei’s experience can be a reminder to draw strength from and to know that they are not completely alone in their struggle. In closing, I wish to address those prominent Russian human rights defenders who just a couple weeks ago appealed to our government and to European leaders to adopt the sanctions I called for in my April letter to Secretary Clinton. You are the conscience of Russia and we have heard your plea. You are not alone, and while you and your fellow citizens must do the heavy-lifting at home, I assure you that “human rights” are not empty words for this body and for my government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Anti-Roma Actions Erupt in France, Europe

    Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the comments made by French President Nikolas Sarkozy that have caused quite the media flurry in the past few weeks. On July 16, French police shot and killed a Romani man when he apparently tried to run a roadblock. This shooting sparked two days of rioting by some 50 members of his community damaging the local police station and private property. In a story that has now been covered by the media from Vancouver to Moscow, French President Sarkozy subsequently announced that he would look into ``the problems created by the behavior of certain travelers and Roma,'' with a view toward the closing down Romani camps and driving out Roma. Government statements have indicated these measures would focus on finding and expelling Romani citizens from Bulgaria and Romania--two European Union countries. Despite the fact that the Romani man in the July 16 incident was actually a French citizen--Mr. Sarzkozy later spoke of stripping citizenship from nationalized French citizens convicted of serious offenses. Not surprisingly, human rights groups have condemned the President's remarks with one voice. Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg rejected the notion of holding Romani people collectively responsible if one among them commits a crime. Good for you, Mr. Hammarberg. (It is a shame that the European Union has been so utterly silent and paralyzed in the face of this downward spiral.) Many of the reports and analyses of these events, such as last Friday's editorial in the New York Times, rightly placed these developments in the context of French politics and President Sarkozy's political imperatives. Understanding the current political dynamic in France, particularly the ongoing debate over ``national identity'' and the situation of Muslim and African-origin minorities in France, is extremely helpful in understanding the President's expansion into anti -Roma mudslinging. But there is a wider, broader European context for his remarks that I think must be addressed. French Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux has stated that the new measures targeting Romani camps are not aimed at ``stigmatizing a community'' but rather at stopping illegal activity. This sounds remarkably like the rhetoric of Hungary's far right wing party, Jobbik, which claims it is not against ``Gypsies,'' just ``Gypsy crimes.'' In fact, rhetoric linking Roma to criminal activity or broadly portraying Roma as criminals--traffickers, prostitutes, thieves, and so forth--is pervasive throughout Europe. In early July, in the wake of a mass expulsion of Roma from Copenhagen, Danish Minister of Justice reportedly made remarks tying Romani culture to criminal behavior. Romania's foreign minister remarked in February about ``the natural physiology of Roma criminality.'' For two years now, Italy has been gripped by anti -Roma policies, included targeting Roma for fingerprinting, that are built on a perception of the Roma as criminals. The idea of Romani people as inherently criminal is not new. In fact, it was at the very center of Nazi racial theories regarding Roma. According to these theories, Roma --as descendants of an Aryan people--we're just fine on their own. But Nazi racial hygienists concluded that, as a result of intermarriage between Roma and non-Roma, Roma had been left with mixed, ``degenerate'' blood and were genetically predisposed to criminality. Moreover, Roma were ``unadaptable''--that is, this condition could never be changed. These Nazi racial theories provided the rationale for the sterilization, persecution, and eventual extermination of Roma. Unfortunately, as Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, has observed, ``Even after the..... Nazi killing of at least half a million Roma, probably 700,000 or more, there was no genuine change of attitude among the majority population towards the Roma.'' In other words, Nazi racial theories regarding Roma remain remarkably entrenched and are regularly given voice in the rhetoric about ``Romani crime.'' Madam Speaker, last year Senator Cardin and I, as Chairman and Cochairman of the Helsinki Commission, wrote to Secretary Clinton regarding the situation of Roma in Europe. In particular, we noted that ``racist rhetoric directed against Roma today often uses terminology or images that have been in continuous use since the Nazi era,'' and we argued that teaching about Romani experiences during the Holocaust is essential to successfully combat prejudice against Roma today. Perhaps this could start in France. 

  • Statement on a resolution marking the 35th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act

    By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mrs. SHAHEEN): S.J. Res. 37. A joint resolution calling upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 35th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am pleased today to introduce, together with fellow Senate Commissioners BROWNBACK, WHITEHOUSE and SHAHEEN, a resolution marking the historic Helsinki Final Act, signed by President Ford and the leaders of thirty-four other nations on August 1, 1975. The Final Act provides a comprehensive framework for advancing security in all its aspects through the military security, economic and human dimensions. For more than three decades, the Final Act and the process it set in motion, have served as an important vehicles for advancing U.S. interests in the expansive OSCE region and beyond. In a very real sense, the Helsinki process was a catalyst that helped usher historic changes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In his Berlin speech as candidate, President Obama emphasized that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom--a struggle in which freedom eventually prevailed in bringing down the walls of a divided city, country and continent. The years following the fall of the Berlin Wall have witnessed stunning successes as well as serious setbacks, notably the genocidal war that raged through the Balkans, including the massacre at Srebrenica. The principles reflected in the Final Act have withstood the test of time and proven their enduring value as we seek to address lingering and new challenges. A survey of developments in the OSCE, now comprising 56 participating States, is a reminder of the scale of work that remains: from simmering tensions throughout the Caucasus region and so-called frozen conflicts elsewhere to violations of fundamental freedoms. There are a number of troubling trends in the human dimension: from the harassment, persecution and physical attacks on journalists and human rights defenders to the adoption of restrictive laws aimed at reigning in freedom of religion and other fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and assembly. Other longstanding concerns include the plight of national minorities and Roma as well as other manifestations of discrimination and intolerance, particularly anti-Semitism. The OSCE is uniquely positioned to contribute to efforts to address these and other issues in the military security, economic and human dimensions. Indeed, a large body of common commitments has been agreed to over the years, beginning with the Helsinki Final Act. The challenge remains to translate these words on paper into meaningful action. As parliamentarians, we have a unique role to play in advancing the aims of the Helsinki Final Act and security in all of its aspects, including efforts to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This was evident at the just concluded OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Norway, where many human rights and other concerns were voiced by the U.S. delegation and others. Among several initiatives we undertook at the Oslo meeting was a resolution on investigative journalists I introduced as a follow up to a recent Helsinki Commission hearing on ``Threats to Free Media in the OSCE Region.'' As one who has been active in the Helsinki Process for many years and as Commission chairman, I want to underscore the vital role played by NGOs in advancing the aims of the Helsinki Accords. For over three decades the Helsinki Commission has worked closely with NGOs focused on a wide-range of human rights concerns. In closing, I recall the remarks by Soviet human rights defender Dr. Andrei Sakharov made while he and his wife were living in internal banishment in the early 1980's as punishment for standing up to the authorities in defense of fundamental freedoms: ``The Helsinki Accords, like detente as a whole, have meaning only if they are observed fully and by all parties. No country should evade a discussion on its own domestic problems. ..... Nor should a country ignore violations in other participating states. The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.'' At the Helsinki Commission we take seriously our mandate to uphold the principles enshrined in the Final Act, especially respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Thirty-five years after its signing, the Helsinki Final Act remains an enduring charter for European security in all its aspects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the RECORD.

  • Cyprus

    Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to draw the attention of my colleagues to the legacy of the July 20, 1974, invasion of Cyprus by Turkey and its ongoing occupation of that island nation. Thirty-six years later, the human dimension of the conflict and the artificial division of the country is evident in many areas. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am particularly mindful of the violations of human rights stemming from the occupation. I have walked along the U.N.-monitored buffer zone that cuts through the capital city of Nicosia. A visitor to Cyprus need not look far to discover the scars left by the artificial division of a capital and a country. A year ago this week, the Helsinki Commission held a public briefing, "Cyprus' Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril,'' to draw attention to this aspect of the legacy of the events of 1974. Experts at that briefing documented the scope of the destruction of sites in the north, including Orthodox churches, chapels and monasteries as well as those of other Christian communities. According to Archbishop Chrysostomos II, leader of the Church of Cyprus, over 500 religious sites in the area have been seriously damaged or destroyed. Subsequent to the briefing that Church of Cyprus filed a formal case with the European Court of Human Rights regarding its religious sites and other property in the north. A report prepared by the Law Library of Congress, "Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law'' was released at the briefing. Helsinki Commission staff traveled throughout the region, visiting numerous churches, each in various stages of deterioration, all plundered, stripped of religious objects, including altars, iconostasis and icons. Other sites have been turned into tourist resorts, storage warehouses or other purposes, including stables, shops, and night clubs. Among photos on display at the briefing were those showing the desecrated ruins of graves with all of the crosses broken off of their bases and smashed. A nearby shed was stacked with broken headstones. A number of Jewish cemeteries in the region, according to reports, have likewise been vandalized and left in shambles. Finally, even the rare occasions when Orthodox services that are allowed to be conducted in the north such exceptional events are occasionally marred by security forces preventing worshipers from crossing into the area or the disruption of religious services. The Commission recently received an update from Dr. Charalampos Chotzakoglou, one of the experts who testified at our 2009 briefing. He reports a number of disturbing developments over the past year, including road construction through a church yard; transport of grave markers robbed from desecrated cemeteries, reportedly to be recycled as scrap metal; the further looting of artifacts from churches; and the known conversion of another church building into a night club. Dr. Chotzakoglou also reports on the continued difficulties in securing permission to conduct religious services at some of the sites in the north. The events of 1974 have taken a tremendous toll in so many areas, including Cyprus' rich religious cultural heritage. As we mark this 36th anniversary, let us join in the hope that a resolution of the Cyprus question hammered out, by the Cypriots and for the Cypriots, will be found.

  • Chechnya a Year After the Killing of Natalya Estemirova

    Madam Speaker, a year ago this month Natalya Estemirova, the leading human rights defender in Chechnya was abducted near her apartment building in the capital city of Grozny by unidentified men, transported to the neighboring republic of Ingushetia, and brutally killed. She led a courageous life of denouncing corruption, calling for a fair judicial system, and standing up for human rights. For that she was cut down. While her killers may have ended her life, they will never silence the voice she brought to these issues. Ms. Estemirova's work was well known to the Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, and colleagues there recall her 2006 visit to discuss the situation in Chechnya. Like Estemirova, all too many of her fellow human rights defenders and journalists are targeted because they have the temerity to speak out about human rights abuses.  Today, inspired by Estemirova's work, I introduce a measure expressing solidarity with human rights defenders in the Russian Federation; urging the Russian authorities to take appropriate steps to end the harassment, persecution and attacks against activists; and calling for an end to impunity for those responsible for such acts, including through the conducting of timely, transparent and thorough criminal investigations into the unresolved murders of human rights defenders, journalists, and political opposition members and the prosecution of all of those responsible for these crimes.  The Helsinki Commission has been at the forefront of drawing attention to the human rights situation in Chechnya and elsewhere in the North Caucasus region of Russia, having held numerous hearings and briefings. Notwithstanding the assertions by the powers that be in Moscow that the situation in Chechnya has returned to normal, the reality on the ground reveals otherwise. The recently released 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, issued by the Department of State, found that the Russian government's already poor human rights record in the North Caucasus worsened during the reporting period, with a marked increase in extrajudicial killings by both government and rebel forces and politically motivated disappearances in Chechnya as well as in neighboring Ingushetia and Dagestan. The Helsinki Commission remains deeply concerned over ongoing human rights abuses, legal impunity, and the permeating climate of fear in the North Caucasus.  While one cannot discount that terrorist elements are responsible for some of the rights violations in that region, many of the reported abuses are perpetrated by federal and local security forces in Chechnya, including the private militia of Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov, the republic's Kremlin-backed president. While it remains unclear what, if any role Kadyrov had in Estemirova's killing, his contempt for her and other human rights defenders is palpable. Earlier this month Kadyrov publicly labeled independent journalists and rights activists as ``traitors and enemies of the state.'' Among those targeted by the Chechen leader is the respected Russian rights organization Memorial.  Madam Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission I remain concerned over the deterioration of the human rights situation in the North Caucasus generally, and Chechnya specifically. I am not alone in this regard, as the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution late last month on the North Caucasus. The measure pointed to a series of specific concerns in Chechnya against the backdrop of what it characterized as ``a climate of pervading fear'' nurtured by the current authorities: recurrent disappearances of government opponents and human rights defenders still remain widely unpunished; continuing threats and reprisals, including abductions of relatives of persons suspected of belonging to illegal armed factions; and ongoing intimidation of the media and civil society, among others.  Ramzan Kadyrov's utter contempt for human rights and fundamental freedoms was again manifested recently in his reaction to paintball gun attacks against women on the streets of Grozny apparently because they were not wearing headscarves. Instead of condemning the assaults, the Chechen president reportedly praised the perpetrators. While Kadyrov has largely been given free rein in Chechnya, that does not absolve his backers in Moscow from responsibility for the deteriorating human rights situation in that part of the Russian Federation.  As a participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, it is incumbent upon the Russian authorities to ensure that fundamental freedoms are respected throughout the country, including in the North Caucasus. Turning a blind eye to human rights violations is unacceptable. I urge President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin to take effective measures to stop the harassment, persecution and attacks against human activists and journalists in the Russian Federation and to end the impunity for those responsible for the murder of Natalya Estemirova and others. Only then will there be hope that the situation in Chechnya will return to anything approaching normal. (The related resolution is H.Res. 1539)

  • OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Session in Oslo

    Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to report on the activities of a bicameral, bipartisan congressional delegation I had the privilege to lead last week as chairman of the Helsinki Commission. The purpose of the trip was to represent the United States at the 19th Annual Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, otherwise known as the OSCE PA. The annual session this year was held in Oslo, Norway, and the U.S. delegation participated fully in the assembly's standing committee, the plenary sessions, the three general committees and numerous side events that included discussion of integration in multiethnic societies and addressing gender imbalances in society.  Although some last-minute developments at home compelled him to remain behind, our colleague from the other Chamber, Mr. Alcee Hastings of Florida, was present in spirit as the deputy head of the delegation. Mr. Hastings, who co-chairs the Helsinki Commission, was very active in the preparations for the trip, and his legacy of leadership in the OSCE PA--for over a decade--is tangible in the respect and goodwill afforded the United States during the proceedings.  Our assistant majority leader, Mr. Durbin of Illinois, joined me on the trip, as he did last year. Our colleague from New Mexico who serves as a fellow Helsinki Commissioner, Mr. Udall, also participated. Helsinki Commissioners from the other Chamber who were on the delegation include Mr. Christopher Smith of New Jersey, serving as the ranking member of the delegation, as well as Mrs. Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York, and Mr. Robert Aderholt of Alabama. Although not a member of the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Lloyd Doggett of Texas has a longstanding interest in OSCE-related issues and also participated on the delegation.  As many of you know, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly was created within the framework of the OSCE as an independent, consultative body consisting of over 300 Parliamentarians from virtually every country in Europe, including the Caucasus, as well as from Central Asia, and the United States, and Canada. The annual sessions are held in late June/early July as the chief venue for debating issues of the day and issuing a declaration addressing human rights, democratic development and the rule of law; economic cooperation and environmental protection; and confidence building and security among the participating states and globally.  This active congressional participation helps ensure that matters of interest to the United States are raised and discussed. Robust U.S. engagement has been the hallmark of the Parliamentary Assembly since its inception nearly 20 years ago.  The theme for this year's annual session was ``Rule of Law: Combating Transnational Crime and Corruption.'' In addition to resolutions for each of the three general committees, delegations introduced a total of 35 additional resolutions for consideration, a record number, including 4 by the United States dealing with:  Nuclear security , which followed up directly on the Nuclear Summit here in Washington in April;  The protection of investigative journalists, a critical human rights issue as those who seek to expose corruption are targeted for harassment or worse;  Mediterranean cooperation, building on the OSCE partnerships to engage important countries in North Africa and the Middle East; and  Combating the demand for human trafficking and electronic forms of exploitation, a longstanding Helsinki Commission issue requiring persistence and targeted action.  U.S. drafts on these relevant, important topics received widespread support and were adopted with few if any amendments.  Beyond these resolutions, the United States delegation also undertook initiatives in the form of packages of amendments to other resolutions. These initiatives addressed:  The needs of the people of Afghanistan in light of the smuggling and other criminal activity which takes place there. The struggle for recovery stability and human rights in Kyrgyzstan, which is an OSCE state in the midst of crisis. And  Manifestations of racism and xenophobia that have become particularly prevalent in contemporary Europe. A critical U.S. amendment allowed us generally to support a French resolution that usefully addressed issues relating to the closure of the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. Still other amendments coming from specific members of the U.S. Delegation covered a wide range of political, environmental and social issues relevant to policymakers. My colleagues and I were also active in the successful countering of amendments that would have steered resolutions on the Middle East and on the future of the OSCE multilateral diplomatic process in directions contrary to U.S. policy.  Beyond the consideration of the resolutions which now comprise the Oslo Declaration, the annual session also handled some important affairs for the OSCE PA itself. These, too, had relevance for U.S. policy interests:  the American serving as OSCE PA Secretary General, Spencer Oliver, was reappointed to a new 5-year term; a modest--and for the third fiscal year in a row--frozen OSCE PA budget of about $3 1/2 million was approved that requires continued and unparalleled efficiency in organizing additional conferences, election observation missions, and various other activities that keep the Parliamentary Assembly prominently engaged in European and Central Asian affairs;  in addition to my continued tenure as a vice president in the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr. Aderholt of Alabama was reelected as the vice chair of the general committee dealing with democracy, human rights, and humanitarian questions which ensures strong U.S. representation in OSCE PA decision-making; and a Greek parliamentary leader defeated a prominent Canadian senator in the election of a new OSCE PA president, following a vigorous but friendly campaign that encouraged the assembly to take a fresh look at itself and establish a clearer vision for its future.  While the congressional delegation's work focused heavily on representing the United States at the OSCE PA, we tried to use our presence in Europe to advance U.S. interests and express U.S. concerns more broadly. The meeting took place in Norway, a very close friend and strong, long-time ally of the United States of America. In discussions with Norwegian officials, we expressed our sorrow over the recent deaths of Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan. We also shared our concerns about climate change and particularly the impact global warming has on polar regions  Indeed, on our return we made a well-received stop on the archipelago of Svalbard, well north of the Arctic Circle, to learn more about the impact firsthand, from changing commercial shipping lanes to relocated fisheries to ecological imbalance that make far northern flora and fauna increasingly vulnerable. The delegation also visited the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a facility that preserves more than 525,000 types of seeds from all over the world as a safeguard for future crop diversity, and took the opportunity to donate additional U.S. seeds to the collection.  Norway is located close to a newer, but also very strong, ally with close ties to the United States, Estonia. Since last year's delegation to the OSCE PA Annual Session went to Lithuania and included Latvia as a side trip, I believed it was important to utilize the opportunity of returning to northern Europe to visit this Baltic state as well.  While some remained in Oslo to represent the United States, others traveled to Tallinn, where we had meetings with the President, Prime Minister, and other senior government officials, visited the NATO Cooperative Cyber-Defense Center of Excellence and were briefed on electronic networking systems that make parliament and government more transparent, efficient and accessible to the citizen. Estonia has come a long way since it reestablished its independence from the Soviet Union almost 20 years ago, making the visit quite rewarding for those of us on the Helsinki Commission who tried to keep a spotlight on the Baltic States during the dark days of the Cold War.  During the course of the meeting, the U.S. delegation also had bilateral meetings with the delegation of the Russian Federation and a visiting delegation from Kyrgyzstan to discuss issues of mutual concern and interest.  U.S. engagement in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly sends a clear message to those who are our friends and to those who are not that we will defend U.S. interests and advance the causes of peace and prosperity around the world.

  • Wall Street Reform: U.S. Takes Leadership in Extractive Industries Transparency

    Madam President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and to vote for final passage.  First, I congratulate Senator Dodd for the leadership he has shown in marshaling this legislation through some very difficult challenges in the Congress, getting it through the Senate floor, working out the differences between the House and Senate, so we now are on the verge of passing the most significant reform of Wall Street in many years.  This bill corrects a regulatory structure that today allows reckless gambling on Wall Street; that creates too big to fail, where government bailouts are necessary to keep companies afloat because there are no other options available to our regulators. It ends reckless gambling on Wall Street. It ends the need for government bailouts of institutions that are too big to fail. It provides for strong consumer protection--protection for many forms of lending but, most importantly, the residential mortgage market.  We saw in this financial crisis that even responsible consumers suffered at the hands of aggressive lenders with dubious intentions. This legislation will create a consumer bureau that will end those types of practices, that will be on the side of the consumer, that is independent, so the consumer is represented in the financial structure.  I want to highlight some provisions that were included in this legislation I worked on with our colleagues to get included in the bill. I am very grateful to Senator Dodd, the leadership of the Banking Committee, and our representatives in conference who were able to include provisions that I think add to the importance of this bill.  The first provision I want to talk about is a provision I worked on with Senator Enzi and Senator Brownback that will make permanent the federally insured deposit limits from $100,000 to $250,000. We did that recently in order to encourage more deposits, to help our economy, to provide capital for businesses. This limit included in this bill is now made permanent at $250,000.  Insured deposits have been the stabilizing force for our Nation's banking system for the past 75 years. They promote public confidence in our banking system and prevent bank runs. They are particularly important to community banks. I know many of us talk about what we can do to help our small businesses, how can we free up more credit to get small businesses the loans they need in order to create the jobs that are needed for our economy. We all know community banks are the most stable source of funds for investments in our communities and small businesses.  Community banks rely more on insured deposits than large banks. Madam President, 85 percent to 90 percent of the funds community banks have are included in insured deposits. So this amendment that will make permanent the $250,000 limit will help provide a more steady source of funds for our community banks which will allow them to be able to invest in our communities.  Another provision that is included in this conference report is one I worked on with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, dealing with the enhanced supervision for nonbank financial companies. What we are talking about are mutual funds and their advisers, to make sure they are not inadvertently subjected to unworkable standards. Here we are talking about promoting funds necessary for venture capital and equity investments in our communities, to make sure there is a difference between the type of activities of mutual fund operators who rely primarily on risk investment and those that are primarily involved in insured deposits. I appreciate the conference committee clarifying that provision in the conference report, which Senator Mikulski and I encouraged them to do.  Another provision I want to talk about very briefly is one I worked on with Senator Grassley dealing with whistleblower protections at nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSROs as they are known. But I think most people in our country know them as credit rating agencies. These are companies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's. There are about 10 in our country that are supposed to do independent credit ratings for securities.  As I am sure many people are now aware, they played a significant role in the unrealistic confidence in securities during our recent economic down turn.  We want to make sure our credit rating agencies, in fact, carry out the responsibilities they are supposed to carry out as independent evaluators. But competition, pressure, and inherent conflicts have made that uncertain. The whistleblower protections that are extended in this legislation will allow employees to come forward with information without fear of retribution by their employer. It is a very important provision, and I am glad it was included in the final legislation.  Lastly, let me talk about the extractive industries transparency initiative, an amendment Senator Lugar and I worked very hard on , that is included in the final conference report. I have spoken on the Senate floor previously about this provision, and I particularly thank Senator Leahy for his leadership in the conference on this issue and Senator Dodd for his help in getting it included in the final conference report. Oil, gas, and mining companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will be required under this legislation to disclose their payments to governments for access to oil, gas, or minerals. Many of these oil companies or gas companies or mineral companies operate in countries that are autocratic, unstable, or both, and they have to make payments to those countries in order to be able to get access to those mineral rights. This legislation--the amendment that is included in this bill--will require public disclosure of those payments.  Why is that so important? And why was it included in the final conference report? First, transparency encourages and provides for more stable governments. We rely on these energy sources or mineral supplies in countries that are of questionable stability.  If this disclosure will help make those countries more stable, it provides security for the United States in their supply source, whether it is an energy or mineral supply source. So this amendment that is included in the conference report will help with U.S. energy security.  Secondly, investors have a right to know. If you are going to invest in an oil company, you have a right to know where they are doing business, where they are making payments. I would think this is information that may affect your decision as to whether you want to take this risk in investing in that company. So this amendment provides greater disclosure for investors to be able to make intelligent decisions as to whether to invest in an oil or gas or mineral company.  Third, as we know, with the lack of transparency, the payments become a source of corruption for government officials in many of these resource-wealthy countries. It is interesting; it is known as the ``resource curse,'' not the ``resource blessing'' in many countries around the world. It is interesting that some of our most wealthy mineral countries are the poorest countries as far as their people in the world. The citizens of these countries are entitled to have their mineral wealth be used to elevate their personal status. By giving the citizens the information about how payments are made to their country, they have a much better chance to hold their government officials accountable.  So we not only are protecting investors and helping in energy security, we are helping to alleviate poverty internationally by allowing the people of the countries that have mineral wealth to hold their officials accountable, to use those payments to help the people of that nation.  This proposal has been endorsed by the G8, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. With the passage of the conference report, the United States will be the leader internationally on extractive industries transparency, and I think that is a proud moment not only for the Senate but for our Nation.  This is a good bill for many reasons. It is a well-organized, commonsense regulatory structure to protect our Nation from another financial crisis, with strong investor and consumer protection, placing limits on institutions deemed too big to fail, protecting not only investors and consumers but also taxpayers.  Over the past 30 years, our regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation. It was particularly impotent with regard to oversight of the so-called shadow banking system, which evolved in large part simply to avoid regulation.  Decreased regulation led to irresponsible behavior by financiers, investors, lenders, and consumers. Collectively, we failed to mitigate risk and we ignored established principles of finance--prudence, solvency, and accountability. We can shift risk, but we cannot make it magically disappear. Bubbles do burst eventually.  Everyone played a part in the crisis. Together, we suffer the consequences. No man is an island; we are all connected.  Risky mortgage lending--practices including no-doc or stated income loans--no down payments, and subprime lending led to unprecedented foreclosures.  Consumers securing mortgages beyond their means and horrible predatory lending practices permeated our culture.  Even responsible consumers suffered at the hands of aggressive lenders with dubious intentions.  The mortgage lending system was seriously flawed. America got hit by a tidal wave of foreclosures. Declining home values affect everyone in the community.  And problems in mortgage lending became exacerbated when these bad mortgages were packaged into securities and sliced and diced and sold to investors with AAA credit ratings.  Careful underwriting went out the window because the loan originators sold the notes as fast as they could write them.  The bill the Senate is considering goes a long way to restore the order we need in the financial markets, improve oversight of the mortgage industry, and address the numerous other issues that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. This bill holds Wall Street more accountable and provides the strongest consumer protections ever for American families and small businesses.  I know there are partisan disagreements on some parts of this legislation and it was a challenge to get to this point, but the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee did an outstanding job on this bill and are to be commended for their effort. This is a landmark bill, like Sarbanes-Oxley and the original Securities and Exchange Commission Act. The lesson we had to learn, again, is that business--especially big business--cannot regulate itself adequately. I think H.R. 4173 strikes the right balance in reining in the financial services industry without being unduly burdensome.  I would like to review some of the provisions I worked on that have been included in the bill.  As I have said, Senators Enzi and Brownback joined me in proposing changes to the deposit insurance program. The Independent Community Bankers of America, ICBA, the American Bankers Association, ABA, and the National Credit Union Association, NCUA, all supported our amendment--now found in section 335 of the bill--to make the temporary increase in the federally insured deposit limit from $100,000 to $250,000--a permanent increase. An increase in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, and National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, NCUSIF, limit is significant because deposit insurance has been the stabilizing force of our Nation's banking system for 75 years.  By raising the limit permanently, we provide safe and secure depositories for small businesses and individuals alike. FDIC insurance prevents bank runs and has been proven to increase public confidence in the system. FDIC insurance limits are especially significant to community banks, which rely on deposits much more heavily than larger banks. On average, smaller banks derive 85 percent to 90 percent of their funding from deposits. Ensuring a stable funding source for community banks helps these institutions to continue providing crucially important capital to the small businesses whose growth is at the heart of our economic recovery.  And as I mentioned earlier, during Senate consideration of the bill, I offered an amendment with Senator Mikulski to ensure that mutual funds and their advisers are not inadvertently subjected to unworkable standards in the unlikely event the Financial Stability Oversight Council designates them as systemically risky. In section 115 of the bill, the new council is given the flexibility to consider capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and other factors when determining heightened regulatory standards. This is important for addressing the unique characteristics of companies that are structured differently from banks and bank holding companies.  Further, I am gratified the House and Senate conferees saw fit to retain an amendment, amendment No. 3840, Senator Grassley and I offered to the bill to extend whistleblower protections to employees of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSROs. The provision is section 922(b) of the bill. NRSROs are the companies, such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's, which issue credit ratings that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, permits other financial firms to use for certain regulatory purposes. There are 10 NRSROs at present, including some privately held firms.  The NRSROs played a large role--by overestimating the safety of residential mortgage-backed securities, RMBS, and collateralized debt obligations, CDOs--in creating the housing bubble and making it bigger. Then, by making tardy but massive simultaneous downgrades of these securities, they contributed to the collapse of the subprime secondary market and the ``fire sale'' of assets, exacerbating the financial crisis.  A Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI, hearing made it quite clear that competitive pressures and inherent conflicts of interest affected the objectivity of the ratings issued by the NRSROs.  Since NRSRO ratings are used for various regulatory purposes, such as determining net capital requirements and the soundness of insurance company reserves, it makes sense to extend whistleblower protections to employees who might come across malfeasance at a credit rating agency.  There are many reasons for the massive failure of the NRSROs. The Wall Street reform bill contains several provisions to improve SEC and congressional oversight of the NRSROs and how they function. Extending whistleblower status to the employees of these firms enhances the provisions already in the underlying bill.  As I have also said, my distinguished colleague, Senator Lugar, and I worked particularly hard on the energy security through transparency provision in this bill, which is section 1504--Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers. I am especially grateful to Senator Leahy, who championed this provision in the conference committee.  The geography and nature of the oil, gas, and mining industry is such that companies often have to operate in countries that are autocratic, unstable, or both. Investors need to know the full extent of a company's exposure when it operates in countries where it is subject to expropriation, political and social turmoil, and reputational risks.  In Nigeria, for example, American companies have had to take oil fields offline because of rebel activity and instability in the Niger Delta. Last year, Nigeria was producing almost a million barrels of oil less than it was able to produce because of conflict and instability. With so much production offline, American oil companies such as Chevron and Exxon have laid off workers and paid higher production costs because of added security.  This bipartisan amendment goes a long way to achieving transparency in this critical sector by requiring all foreign and domestic companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to include in their annual report to the SEC how much they pay each government for access to its oil, gas, and minerals. This amendment is a critical part of the increased transparency and good governance that we are striving to achieve in the financial industry.  Our amendment is vitally important. Transparency helps create more stable governments, which in turn allows U.S. companies to operate more freely--and on a level playing field--in markets that are otherwise too risky or unstable.  Let me point out three key results we expect from this provision:  No. 1, enhancing U.S. energy security. The reliability of oil and gas supplies is undermined by the instability caused when local populations do not receive the benefit of their resource exports. Enhancing openness in revenue flows allows for greater public scrutiny of how revenues are used. Increased transparency can help create more stable, democratic governments, as well as more reliable energy suppliers.  No. 2, strengthening energy markets. The extractive industries are capital-intensive and dependent on long-term stability to generate favorable returns. Leading energy companies recognize that more transparent investment climates are better for their bottom lines.  No. 3, helping to alleviate poverty. Too many resource-rich countries that should be well off are home to many of the world's poor instead. This is a phenomenon known as the ``resource curse.'' Oil, gas reserves, and minerals don't automatically confer wealth on the people who live in countries where those resources are located. Many resource-rich countries rank at the bottom of most measures of human development, making them a breeding ground for poverty and instability. Revenue transparency will help the citizens of resource-rich countries hold their governments more accountable and ensure that their country's natural resource wealth is used wisely for the benefit of the entire nation and for future generations.  The wave of the future is transparency, and these principles of transparency have been endorsed by the G8, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a number of regional development banks. It is clear to the financial leaders of the world that transparency in natural resource development is vital to holding the rulers in these countries accountable for the needs of their citizens and preventing them from simply building up their personal offshore bank accounts. I am proud to stand here today and say that the United States is now the leader in creating a new standard for revenue transparency in the extractive industries.  These are some of the provisions I worked on , but they are a small part of the overall bill, which is very strong.  Forty years ago, conservative economist Milton Friedman wrote a New York Times Magazine article entitled ``The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.'' In this article, quoting from his earlier book ``Capitalism and Freedom,'' from 1962, he concluded:  There is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.  Even this minimalist position suggests that markets need rules. And yet we embarked on a 30-year path to deregulate financial services, to ease the rules, and remove the watchdogs. We have learned a bitter lesson that markets are not self-correcting--at least Community banks rely more on insured deposits than large banks. Madam President, 85 percent to 90 percent of the funds community banks have are included in insured deposits. So this amendment that will make permanent the $250,000 limit will help provide a more steady source of funds for our community banks which will allow them to be able to invest in our communities.  Another provision that is included in this conference report is one I worked on with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, dealing with the enhanced supervision for nonbank financial companies. What we are talking about are mutual funds and their advisers, to make sure they are not inadvertently subjected to unworkable standards. Here we are talking about promoting funds necessary for venture capital and equity investments in our communities, to make sure there is a difference between the type of activities of mutual fund operators who rely primarily on risk investment and those that are primarily involved in insured deposits. I appreciate the conference committee clarifying that provision in the conference report, which Senator Mikulski and I encouraged them to do.  Another provision I want to talk about very briefly is one I worked on with Senator Grassley dealing with whistleblower protections at nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSROs as they are known. But I think most people in our country know them as credit rating agencies. These are companies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's. There are about 10 in our country that are supposed to do independent credit ratings for securities.  As I am sure many people are now aware, they played a significant role in the unrealistic confidence in securities during our recent economic downturn.  We want to make sure our credit rating agencies, in fact, carry out the responsibilities they are supposed to carry out as independent evaluators. But competition, pressure, and inherent conflicts have made that uncertain. The whistleblower protections that are extended in this legislation will allow employees to come forward with information without fear of retribution by their employer. It is a very important provision, and I am glad it was included in the final legislation.  Lastly, let me talk about the extractive industries transparency initiative, an amendment Senator Lugar and I worked very hard on , that is included in the final conference report. I have spoken on the Senate floor previously about this provision, and I particularly thank Senator Leahy for his leadership in the conference on this issue and Senator Dodd for his help in getting it included in the final conference report. Oil, gas, and mining companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will be required under this legislation to disclose their payments to governments for access to oil, gas, or minerals. Many of these oil companies or gas companies or mineral companies operate in countries that are autocratic, unstable, or both, and they have to make payments to those countries in order to be able to get access to those mineral rights. This legislation--the amendment that is included in this bill--will require public disclosure of those payments.  Why is that so important? And why was it included in the final conference report? First, transparency encourages and provides for more stable governments. We rely on these energy sources or mineral supplies in countries that are of questionable stability.  If this disclosure will help make those countries more stable, it provides security for the United States in their supply source, whether it is an energy or mineral supply source. So this amendment that is included in the conference report will help with U.S. energy security.  Secondly, investors have a right to know. If you are going to invest in an oil company, you have a right to know where they are doing business, where they are making payments. I would think this is information that may affect your decision as to whether you want to take this risk in investing in that company. So this amendment provides greater disclosure for investors to be able to make intelligent decisions as to whether to invest in an oil or gas or mineral company.  Third, as we know, with the lack of transparency, the payments become a source of corruption for government officials in many of these resource-wealthy countries. It is interesting; it is known as the ``resource curse,'' not the ``resource blessing'' in many countries around the world. It is interesting that some of our most wealthy mineral countries are the poorest countries as far as their people in the world. The citizens of these countries are entitled to have their mineral wealth be used to elevate their personal status. By giving the citizens the information about how payments are made to their country, they have a much better chance to hold their government officials accountable.  So we not only are protecting investors and helping in energy security, we are helping to alleviate poverty internationally by allowing the people of the countries that have mineral wealth to hold their officials accountable, to use those payments to help the people of that nation.  This proposal has been endorsed by the G8, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. With the passage of the conference report, the United States will be the leader internationally on extractive industries transparency, and I think that is a proud moment not only for the Senate but for our Nation.  This is a good bill for many reasons. It is a well-organized, commonsense regulatory structure to protect our Nation from another financial crisis, with strong investor and consumer protection, placing limits on institutions deemed too big to fail, protecting not only investors and consumers but also taxpayers.  Over the past 30 years, our regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation. It was particularly impotent with regard to oversight of the so-called shadow banking system, which evolved in large part simply to avoid regulation.  Decreased regulation led to irresponsible behavior by financiers, investors, lenders, and consumers. Collectively, we failed to mitigate risk and we ignored established principles of finance--prudence, solvency, and accountability. We can shift risk, but we cannot make it magically disappear. Bubbles do burst eventually.  Everyone played a part in the crisis. Together, we suffer the consequences. No man is an island; we are all connected.  Risky mortgage lending--practices including no-doc or stated income loans--no down payments, and subprime lending led to unprecedented foreclosures.  Consumers securing mortgages beyond their means and horrible predatory lending practices permeated our culture.  Even responsible consumers suffered at the hands of aggressive lenders with dubious intentions.  The mortgage lending system was seriously flawed. America got hit by a tidal wave of foreclosures. Declining home values affect everyone in the community.  And problems in mortgage lending became exacerbated when these bad mortgages were packaged into securities and sliced and diced and sold to investors with AAA credit ratings.  Careful underwriting went out the window because the loan originators sold the notes as fast as they could write them.  The bill the Senate is considering goes a long way to restore the order we need in the financial markets, improve oversight of the mortgage industry, and address the numerous other issues that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. This bill holds Wall Street more accountable and provides the strongest consumer protections ever for American families and small businesses.  I know there are partisan disagreements on some parts of this legislation and it was a challenge to get to this point, but the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee did an outstanding job on this bill and are to be commended for their effort. This is a landmark bill, like Sarbanes-Oxley and the original Securities and Exchange Commission Act. The lesson we had to learn, again, is that business--especially big business--cannot regulate itself adequately. I think H.R. 4173 strikes the right balance in reining in the financial services industry without being unduly burdensome.  I would like to review some of the provisions I worked on that have been included in the bill.  As I have said, Senators Enzi and Brownback joined me in proposing changes to the deposit insurance program. The Independent Community Bankers of America, ICBA, the American Bankers Association, ABA, and the National Credit Union Association, NCUA, all supported our amendment--now found in section 335 of the bill--to make the temporary increase in the federally insured deposit limit from $100,000 to $250,000--a permanent increase. An increase in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, and National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, NCUSIF, limit is significant because deposit insurance has been the stabilizing force of our Nation's banking system for 75 years.  By raising the limit permanently, we provide safe and secure depositories for small businesses and individuals alike. FDIC insurance prevents bank runs and has been proven to increase public confidence in the system. FDIC insurance limits are especially significant to community banks, which rely on deposits much more heavily than larger banks. On average, smaller banks derive 85 percent to 90 percent of their funding from deposits. Ensuring a stable funding source for community banks helps these institutions to continue providing crucially important capital to the small businesses whose growth is at the heart of our economic recovery.  And as I mentioned earlier, during Senate consideration of the bill, I offered an amendment with Senator Mikulski to ensure that mutual funds and their advisers are not inadvertently subjected to unworkable standards in the unlikely event the Financial Stability Oversight Council designates them as systemically risky. In section 115 of the bill, the new council is given the flexibility to consider capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and other factors when determining heightened regulatory standards. This is important for addressing the unique characteristics of companies that are structured differently from banks and bank holding companies.  Further, I am gratified the House and Senate conferees saw fit to retain an amendment, amendment No. 3840, Senator Grassley and I offered to the bill to extend whistleblower protections to employees of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSROs. The provision is section 922(b) of the bill. NRSROs are the companies, such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's, which issue credit ratings that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, permits other financial firms to use for certain regulatory purposes. There are 10 NRSROs at present, including some privately held firms.  The NRSROs played a large role--by overestimating the safety of residential mortgage-backed securities, RMBS, and collateralized debt obligations, CDOs--in creating the housing bubble and making it bigger. Then, by making tardy but massive simultaneous downgrades of these securities, they contributed to the collapse of the subprime secondary market and the ``fire sale'' of assets, exacerbating the financial crisis.  A Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI, hearing made it quite clear that competitive pressures and inherent conflicts of interest affected the objectivity of the ratings issued by the NRSROs.  Since NRSRO ratings are used for various regulatory purposes, such as determining net capital requirements and the soundness of insurance company reserves, it makes sense to extend whistleblower protections to employees who might come across malfeasance at a credit rating agency.  There are many reasons for the massive failure of the NRSROs. The Wall Street reform bill contains several provisions to improve SEC and congressional oversight of the NRSROs and how they function. Extending whistleblower status to the employees of these firms enhances the provisions already in the underlying bill.  As I have also said, my distinguished colleague, Senator Lugar, and I worked particularly hard on the energy security through transparency provision in this bill, which is section 1504--Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers. I am especially grateful to Senator Leahy, who championed this provision in the conference committee.  The geography and nature of the oil, gas, and mining industry is such that companies often have to operate in countries that are autocratic, unstable, or both. Investors need to know the full extent of a company's exposure when it operates in countries where it is subject to expropriation, political and social turmoil, and reputational risks.  In Nigeria, for example, American companies have had to take oil fields offline because of rebel activity and instability in the Niger Delta. Last year, Nigeria was producing almost a million barrels of oil less than it was able to produce because of conflict and instability. With so much production offline, American oil companies such as Chevron and Exxon have laid off workers and paid higher production costs because of added security.  This bipartisan amendment goes a long way to achieving transparency in this critical sector by requiring all foreign and domestic companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to include in their annual report to the SEC how much they pay each government for access to its oil, gas, and minerals. This amendment is a critical part of the increased transparency and good governance that we are striving to achieve in the financial industry.  Our amendment is vitally important. Transparency helps create more stable governments, which in turn allows U.S. companies to operate more freely--and on a level playing field--in markets that are otherwise too risky or unstable.  Let me point out three key results we expect from this provision:  No. 1, enhancing U.S. energy security. The reliability of oil and gas supplies is undermined by the instability caused when local populations do not receive the benefit of their resource exports. Enhancing openness in revenue flows allows for greater public scrutiny of how revenues are used. Increased transparency can help create more stable, democratic governments, as well as more reliable energy suppliers.  No. 2, strengthening energy markets. The extractive industries are capital-intensive and dependent on long-term stability to generate favorable returns. Leading energy companies recognize that more transparent investment climates are better for their bottom lines.  No. 3, helping to alleviate poverty. Too many resource-rich countries that should be well off are home to many of the world's poor instead. This is a phenomenon known as the ``resource curse.'' Oil, gas reserves, and minerals don't automatically confer wealth on the people who live in countries where those resources are located. Many resource-rich countries rank at the bottom of most measures of human development, making them a breeding ground for poverty and instability. Revenue transparency will help the citizens of resource-rich countries hold their governments more accountable and ensure that their country's natural resource wealth is used wisely for the benefit of the entire nation and for future generations.  The wave of the future is transparency, and these principles of transparency have been endorsed by the G8, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a number of regional development banks. It is clear to the financial leaders of the world that transparency in natural resource development is vital to holding the rulers in these countries accountable for the needs of their citizens and preventing them from simply building up their personal offshore bank accounts. I am proud to stand here today and say that the United States is now the leader in creating a new standard for revenue transparency in the extractive industries.  These are some of the provisions I worked on , but they are a small part of the overall bill, which is very strong.  Forty years ago, conservative economist Milton Friedman wrote a New York Times Magazine article entitled ``The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.'' In this article, quoting from his earlier book ``Capitalism and Freedom,'' from 1962, he concluded:  There is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.  Even this minimalist position suggests that markets need rules. And yet we embarked on a 30-year path to deregulate financial services, to ease the rules, and remove the watchdogs. We have learned a bitter lesson that markets are not self-correcting--at least not without catastrophic consequences. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their savings, their homes, and their retirement security. Businesses have been wiped out. We have gone from easy credit to no credit.  Now that the financial hurricane has wreaked its devastation, it is time to rebuild.  H.R. 4173 is part of that process. The bill creates well-organized, commonsense regulatory structures to protect our Nation from another financial crisis. Chairman Dodd and Chairman Frank have produced a bill that addresses the feasibility of our reliance on credit rating agencies, our appetite for systemic risk, and the need to limit the regulatory burden on our small institutions. They have produced a bill that provides strong investor and consumer protections, encourages whistleblowers, reduces interchange fees for small businesses, and places limits on institutions deemed too big to fail. I know that Maryland banks and investment companies appreciate the attention paid in this bill to their concerns regarding bank and thrift oversight, systemic risk regulation, and the effects of the mortgage crisis.  While Members of Congress may not agree on every aspect of this bill, it is worthy of our support. Indeed, given the stakes, it is imperative that we pass H.R. 4173.  I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support passage.  Madam President, I yield the floor.

Pages