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
  • Thirtieth Anniversary of the Founding of the Moscow Helsinki Group

    Mr. President, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am pleased to recognize the accomplishments of the Moscow Helsinki Group which will mark the thirtieth anniversary of its founding later this week in the Russian capital.  I particularly want to acknowledge the tremendous courage of the men and women who, at great personal risk, established the group to hold the Soviet Government accountable for implementing the human rights commitment Moscow has signed onto in the historic Helsinki Final Act.  Today, the Moscow Helsinki Group is the oldest human rights organization active in the Russian Federation.  Having played a pivotal role in the struggle for human rights during the Soviet period, the group continues to work tirelessly for the cause of human rights, democracy and rule of law throughout Russia.  When, on behalf of the United States, President Ford signed the Helsinki Accords in August 1975, he was criticized in some circles for supposedly having accepted Soviet control and domination of Eastern Europe in return for what some viewed as worthless promises on human rights. Ultimately, the skeptics were proven wrong. The Helsinki Accords did not legitimize the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe at the end of World War II. Moreover, by reprinting the entire text of the Accords in Pravda, the Soviet Government had publicly pledged to live up to certain human rights standards that were generally accepted in the West but only dreamed of in the Soviet Union and other Captive Nations. That fact would have huge consequences. In late April 1976, Dr. Yuri Orlov, a Soviet physicist who had already been repressed for earlier advocacy for human rights, invited a small group of human rights activists to join in a public group committed to monitoring the implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the USSR.  Others responded to this invitation and on May 12th, the creation of the Public Group to Assist the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the USSR was announced at a Moscow press conference organized by future Nobel Peace Prize winner Academician Andrei Sakharov. Among the founding members of the Moscow Helsinki Group, as it became known, were the current chairperson, Ludmilla Alexeyeva, Dr. Elena Bonner, who would endure prolonged persecution with Dr. Sakharov, her husband, and others like cyberneticist Anatoly (Natan) Sharansky. They were joined by seven brave and principled individuals who were ready to sacrifice their comfort, the professional lives, their freedom and even their lives on behalf of the cause of human rights in their homeland. More would join in subsequent days.  The Moscow Helsinki Group carried out its mission by collecting information and publishing reports on implementation of the Accords in various areas of human rights. The twenty-six documentation provided by the group proved particularly valuable when the signatories convened in Belgrade in 1977, to assess implementation of Helsinki provisions, including human rights.      Naturally, the Soviet Politburo and the Communist Party had no intention of tolerating citizens who actually expected their government to live up to the pledges it had signed in Helsinki. Some members of the Moscow Group were forced to emigrate; many were sentenced to long terms in labor camp, the Soviet "gulag," while others were sent into internal exile far from families and loved ones. In September 1982, under the repressive rule of former KGB chief Yuri Andropov, the Moscow Helsinki Group was forced to suspend its activity. Only three members remained at liberty, and they were constantly harassed by the KGB. Tragically, founding member Anatoly Marchenko died during a hunger strike at Chistopol Prison in December 1986, only a few months before the Gorbachev government began to empty the labor camps of political and religious prisoners.    Between 1982 and 1987 it seemed that the Soviet Government had succeeded in driving the human rights movement abroad, to the labor camps of the gulag, or underground.  The reality was that the Helsinki movement had brought to light the deplorable human rights situation in the Soviet Union and put the Kremlin on the defensive before a world increasingly sensitive to the fate of individuals denied their fundamental rights.  The efforts by Helsinki activists in the USSR, together with a stiffened resolve of Western governments, helped bring the Cold War to end and bring down the barriers, both real and symbolic, that unnaturally divided Europe.  Reestablishment in July 1989, by several veteran human rights activists, the Moscow Helsinki Group faces new challenges in Putin’s Russia.  I have met with Ludmilla Alexeyeva, a founding member who had been exiled to the United States during the Soviet era, who serves as the chairperson today.  While Russia has thrown off so much of its Soviet past, the temptation of authoritarianism remains strong.  Russia’s implementation of Helsinki commitments, particularly those concerning free and fair elections and democratic governance, remain of deep concern to me and my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission.  Ultimately, Mr. President, a strong and prosperous Russia will not be sustained by oil or natural gas revenues, but on respect for the dignity of its citizens and the observation of human rights, civil society and the rule of law.  These goals remain at the heart of the Moscow Helsinki Group’s ongoing work.  I salute the dedicated service of the members of the Moscow Helsinki Group, past and present, and wish them success in their noble endeavors to promote a free and democratic Russia.

  • Thirtieth Anniversary of the Founding of the Moscow Helsinki Group

    Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission, I note that tomorrow marks one of the major events in the struggle for human rights around the globe. Thirty years ago a courageous band of human rights defenders in the Soviet Union founded the “Moscow Helsinki Group,” dedicated to monitoring Soviet compliance with the Helsinki Final Act, an historic agreement containing important provisions on human rights.   When General Secretary Brezhnev signed the Helsinki Final Act, or the Helsinki Accords, on August 1, 1975 on behalf of the USSR, Soviet officials believed that they had gained an important foreign policy victory.  Indeed, there were some provisions that Soviet diplomats had sought assiduously during the negotiations among the thirty-five nations of Europe and the United States and Canada. However, the West, for its part, had insisted on certain provisions in the area of human rights and humanitarian affairs, including the right of citizens “to know their rights and to act upon them.”    With this commitment in mind, Professor Yuri Orlov, a Soviet physicist who had been involved in the defense of human rights in the Soviet Union previously, called upon several of his similarly-minded colleagues to join together in an organization to press publicly for implementation of the Helsinki Accords in their country.  Eleven brave individuals answered the call, and on May 12, 1976, at a press conference called by famed human rights campaigner and peace activist Dr. Andrei Sakharov, the creation of the “Public Group to Assist in the Implementation of the Helsinki Final Act,” or as it became later known, the “Moscow Helsinki Group” was announced.   The Moscow Helsinki Group committed itself to collecting information about implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the Soviet Union and publishing reports on their findings. During the first six years of its activity, they produced almost two hundred specific reports, as well as other announcements and appeals.  More activists joined with the passing months. Similar Helsinki monitoring groups were established elsewhere in the USSR, including in Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia and Armenia. Other groups focused on specific human rights issues such as psychiatric abuse or religious liberty joined the movement. The Moscow Group became an important source of information for individuals and groups seeking assistance in the area of human rights.  Naturally, the Soviet leadership rejected such “assistance” and undertook to suppress the Moscow Helsinki Group. Members were fired from their jobs, “persuaded” to emigrate, castigated in the press, and subjected to KGB searches and interrogations. When such reprisals proved mostly ineffective, members were charged with political crimes and given lengthy sentences in labor camps of the Soviet gulag, usually with an additional term of “internal exile,” forced resettlement, typically somewhere in Siberia or the Soviet Far East.  Ten years after the founding of the Moscow Helsinki Group, fourteen members had been sentenced to a total of sixty nine years in labor camp or prison, and fifty years internal exile.  Anatoly Marchenko, a founding member and veteran dissident, died during a hunger strike at Chistopol Prison in December 1986.  By 1982, the Moscow Helsinki Group had been forced to suspend its activities in the face of intense KGB repression.  But while Moscow had rid itself of some troublesome dissidents, the spirit of Helsinki was not so easily quashed. Ludmilla Alekseyeva, an exiled member of the group, testified in the U.S. Congress in October 1985 that “for victims of human rights abuses in the Eastern bloc, Helsinki remains the main source of hope...and a rallying point in their struggle for freedom and peace.” Just a little over four year after she spoke those words, the Berlin Wall fell.  The Moscow Helsinki Group was re-established in 1989.  Reinvigorated through the work of new and veteran members, it is one of the most respected human rights organizations in the Russian Federation today. Alexeyeva, who returned to Russia in the early 1990s, following the demise of the Soviet Union, serves as chair of the group.          Mr. Speaker, we would do well to heed the wise words of Andrei Sakharov when he noted, “The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.” A key to the ultimate success of the Helsinki Process has been the involvement of civil society, courageous human rights defenders like those who established the Moscow Group, willing to speak out on behalf of others.  I remain deeply concerned over human rights trends in Russia, especially the adoption of regressive laws affecting fundamental human rights and freedoms.  I join my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission in congratulating the Moscow Helsinki Group on the occasion of its 30th anniversary of dedicated service in the defense of fundamental freedoms and liberty.

  • Thirtieth Anniversary of the Founding of the Moscow Helsinki Group

    Mr. Speaker, seventeen years ago, my dear friend and colleague, Rep. Frank Wolf, and I traveled to the Soviet Union, to visit the notorious Perm Labor Camp No. 37, located in the shadows of the Ural Mountains.  There were three camps in the Perm labor camp complex that had been set up specifically in 1972 for political prisoners and others whom Moscow considered “especially dangerous.“ Fortunately, by the time of our visit many of the incarcerated had been released and by 1991 the camp had emptied out completely in the closing chapter of the USSR. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I can vividly recall that glimpse into life in the Soviet Gulag, both a memorable and sobering experience. I mention that trip because Friday of this week, May 12th, will mark the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the Moscow Helsinki Group, a leading human rights organization devoted to monitoring the Kremlin’s adherence to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. The Helsinki Final Act was signed by the United States, Canada and thirty-three European countries, including the Soviet Union. While much of this document was focused on military security, economics and trade, there were important provisions on human rights and humanitarian issues, such as freedom of conscience and family reunification, which the Soviet Government and the other signatories promised to uphold.  At a May 12, 1976, Moscow press conference organized by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dr. Andrei Sakharov, the Moscow Helsinki Group announced that it would collect information and publish reports on implementation of the Helsinki Accords by the As might be expected, the Soviet Government did not welcome this initiative.  Members were threatened by the KGB, imprisoned, exiled or forced to emigrate. The Soviet press went into full-scale attack mode, accusing the Moscow Helsinki Group of being subversive and charging that some members were on the payroll of foreign intelligence services. I might mention that a thinly veiled version of this canard against the group was recently resurrected by a representative of the KGB’s successor, the FSB, on national television.      Arrests of members of the Moscow Group began within a year of its founding. In 1978, Dr. Orlov himself was sentenced to seven years labor camp and five years internal exile. In 1986, he was brought back to Moscow, put on a plane and deported to the United States in exchange for a Soviet spy.  Other Moscow Helsinki Group members found themselves at the notorious Perm Labor Camp complex that I mentioned earlier. For his criticism of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Dr. Sakharov was exiled to the closed city of Gorky beginning in January 1980.  His wife and Moscow Helsinki Group member, Dr. Elena Bonner, joined him there in 1984 after having been convicted of “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” Founding member Anatoly Marchenko died while on a hunger strike at Chistopol Prison in December 1986,   By the end of 1982, less than seven years after the group’s founding, it appeared that the KGB and the Soviet Government had triumphed over the small band of idealists who pressed their leaders to live up to the promises made at Helsinki. With only three members at liberty and those under intense KGB pressure, the Moscow Helsinki Group was forced to suspend its activities. By 1986, only one member of the group, Naum Meiman, continued to meet with foreign visitors and Western correspondents.  Meiman’s wife, Irina, died of brain cancer after waiting years for Soviet authorities to give her permission to leave the Soviet Union for specialized treatment abroad, a reminder of the personal costs to human rights activists and their families under a cruel regime.       But the Helsinki spirit lived on. In the West, supporters and sympathizers demonstrated on behalf on imprisoned Helsinki Monitors. The cases of imprisoned or exiled Helsinki Monitors were often raised at diplomatic meetings between the United States and the Soviet authorities. In the Soviet Union itself, enlightened leaders began to understand that repressive governments may squelch the voices of dissenters for a time, but their message will heard by other means. And on February 14, 1987, less than five years after the Moscow Helsinki group was forced to suspend its activities, a small item in “Izvestiya” announced the possibility of certain prisoners being released from labor camp. It was the beginning of the end for the repressive Soviet system.        In July 1989, the Moscow Helsinki Group was reestablished by several longtime human rights activists: Larisa Bogoraz, Sergey Kovalev, Viatcheslav Bakhmin, Alexey Smirnov, Lev Timofeev, and Boris Zolotukhin. Today, Ludmilla Alexeyeva, who had been exiled to the United States by Soviet authorities for her earlier work, now chairs this respected organization. Mr. Speaker, thirty years after its founding and fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the re-established Moscow Helsinki Group remains active in speaking out in defense of human rights, civil society, and rule of law in Russia. I congratulate the members of the Moscow Helsinki Group for their achievements in the past and pledge my support for their vital ongoing work.

  • Regarding H.R. 1053, Authorizing the Extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations Treatment to Ukraine

    Mr. Speaker, one year ago, in my capacity as Ranking Member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I traveled to Ukraine with my colleague and Chairman, Congressman Chris Smith. We made our trip shortly after the historic Orange Revolution, and I was impressed by the commitment of Ukraine’s new leaders to consolidate democracy, promote respect for human rights, and modernize the country’s economy.  I also was impressed by the leaders’ commitment to further integrate Ukraine into the European and Euro-Atlantic community. I am not the only one to have been impressed by Ukraine’s efforts.  International organizations, such as Freedom House, have acknowledged Ukraine’s progress in recent years in protecting the political rights and civil liberties of its citizens. Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress should demonstrate its support for Ukraine’s reforms by approving legislation today that would grant Ukraine Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, and thereby take it one step closer to becoming a member of the WTO. The passage of PNTR for Ukraine also will show Congress’ support for the efforts of the Yushchenko government to ensure that the upcoming March 26 parliamentary elections will be free and fair.  I am pleased that my Helsinki Commission colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings, has been appointed as the OSCE PA Special Coordinator for our election observation mission there, and I look forward to reviewing the mission’s findings and report. So far, the pre-election process, while not completely problem-free, has been dramatically different from the period leading up to the fraudulent elections of November 2004, which ignited the Orange Revolution. In the 2004 election, the Ukrainian government instructed the media about how to cover the elections and systematically abused government resources.  In contrast, the upcoming elections are expected to be free and fair.  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to take a few moments to comment on the issue that underlies the legislation we are considering today. The issue Congress is formally considering today is whether to withdraw the application of the “Jackson-Vanik” amendment to Ukraine and thereby grant Ukraine permanent normal trade relations status. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was adopted in 1975, was intended to provide a way for the United States to deny trade benefits to countries that are denying the rights of its citizens, particularly religious minorities. Mr. Speaker, in light of the commitment that Ukraine has demonstrated to protecting the rights of religious minorities, I think it is appropriate that we withdraw the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Ukraine today. Since independence, each successive government of Ukraine has demonstrated a consistent commitment to defending the religious and ethnic rights of all the people of Ukraine.   Current President Victor Yushchenko has continued this unambiguous commitment by pledging to bring minority groups together and reconciling historic conflicts. The International Religious Freedom Report for 2005, published by the U.S. State Department, recognizes that “President Yushchenko has, since taking office, spoken publicly about his vision of a Ukraine in which religious freedom flourishes and people are genuinely free to worship as they please.” It must be understood, however, that there remain issues of concern – most notably the return of communal, religious property that was confiscated during the Soviet era, and the anti-Semitic activities of Ukraine’s largest private university – the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (MAUP). Mr. Speaker, I have raised both these issues in recent days with the Ambassador from Ukraine and other Ukrainian officials, and I have been impressed by their commitment to addressing these issues. Ukrainian officials have assured me that the government is committed to continuing its efforts to return communal property as required under current law, and that the Government of Ukraine will continue to condemn, at the highest levels, the anti-Semitic activities of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. Mr. Speaker, given these concerns, I am pleased that the legislation we are considering today highlights the importance Government of Ukraine’s continuing commitment to ensuring freedom of religion, respect for minorities, and eliminating intolerance. Mr. Speaker, shortly I will yield time to the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, the ranking member of the International Relations Committee, and our leader in Congress on issues of human rights, democracy, and religious freedom.  Mr. Lantos is the leader in Congress of our Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, and I want to thank him for working with me, the Helsinki Commission, and the OSCE as we have also battled against the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe. Ukraine has agreed to certain commitments to fight anti-Semitism – as have all 55 Participating States in the OSCE – and let me make it crystal clear today that we intend to hold Ukraine to those commitments, including their responsibility to denounce anti-Semitic statements, vigorously enforce hate crimes laws, and promote diversity and tolerance in school curricula.  I am pleased that Section 1, paragraph 4 of the resolution before us today references these OSCE commitments. Let me make a personal reflection here.  During my visit to Ukraine last year, I also visited two monuments – the Ukraine Famine memorial, honoring the millions of victims of Stalin’s genocidal 1932-1933 famine, and Babi Yar, where hundreds of thousands of Jews and others were massacred by the Nazis during World War II. Mr. Speaker, it was a very moving experience for me to lay wreaths at the sites of these two memorials. These horrific events were a testament to the cruelty and intolerance of dictatorships.  I do believe that today’s independent Ukraine now understands that respect for human rights and a commitment to democracy and tolerance are the best inoculation against horrors like the Famine and Babi Yar.  The U.S. Government, the Helsinki Commission, and the OSCE look forward to working with a democratic Ukraine as they continue to build their institutions of democracy, establish the rule of law, protect human rights and religious freedom, and combat corruption. In closing, I commend Ukraine for its progress in promoting political and economic freedom for its citizens, and its integration into the global, rules-based economy.  I urge my colleagues to join me in demonstrating support for Ukraine’s efforts by voting today to grant the country permanent normal trade relations status.

  • Remarks on Passage of H.Res.578, Concerning the Government of Romania's Ban on Intercountry Adoptions and on the Welfare of Orphaned and Abandoned Children in Romania

    Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 578 expresses deep disappointment that the Romanian government has instituted a virtual ban on intercountry adoptions with serious implications for the well-being of orphaned and abandoned children in Romania.   Immediately after the December 1989 revolution, Mr. Speaker, which ousted the much-hated dictator Nicholae Ceausescu, the world learned that tens of thousands of underfed, neglected children were living in institutions, called orphanages, throughout Romania. A month after the fall of Ceausescu, Dorothy Taft, who is our deputy chief of staff at the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and I traveled to Bucharest and visited those orphanages. We also met with government officials and spoke about the hope for democracy in that country. But one of the most lasting impressions that I have from that trip is being in an orphanage in Bucharest, where dozens of children were lined up with no one to turn them, to change their diapers and, in some cases, even to feed them with the frequency that their little bodies required. It left a lasting impression upon me.   Sadly, all these years later, Mr. Speaker, Romania's child abandonment rate that we witnessed firsthand on that trip has not changed significantly over those years. As of December 2005, 76,509 children are currently in the child protection system.   While the Romanian government deserves at least some credit for reducing the number of children living in institutions from 100,000 to 28,000, this is only part of the picture. The government statistics do not include the abandoned infants living for years in maternity and pediatric hospitals, where donations from charities and individuals keep the children alive; and more than 40,000 of the children moved out of the institutions are living in nonpermanent settings or foster care, or with maternal assistance, paid by the government or with a distant relative who do not intend to adopt them, but do accept them for a stipend.   In the context of Romania's ascension to the European Union, unsubstantiated allegations have been made about the qualifications and motives for those who adopt internationally and the fate of those adopted children.   Intercountry adoption, Mr. Speaker, was falsely equated with child trafficking, and Romania faced relentless pressure to prohibit intercountry adoptions. Sadly, rather than focusing on the best interest of the children, Romanian policymakers acquiesced to the European Union's pressure, especially its rapporteur, Lady Emma Nicholson, by enacting a law in 2004 that banned intercountry adoption, except by biological grandparents. By foreclosing foreign adoptions, the laws codified the misguided proposition that a foster family, or even an institution, is preferable to an adoptive family outside of the child's country of birth.   Between 1990 and 2004, I would note, more than 8,000 Romanian children found permanent families in the United States and thousands more joined families in Western Europe and elsewhere. This possibility is now gone. Some Romanians and Europeans argue that this law, this misguided law, is somehow consistent with Hague Convention on the Intercountry Adoptions and the Rights of the Child Convention. They also allege that  “there is little scope, if any, for international adoptions in Romania because there are so few children who are legally adoptable.”   Mr. Speaker, the low numbers declared “legally adoptable” is not something to be proud of. It is a contrivance. Indeed, it is a denunciation of the child welfare system, which now places such an unrealistic priority on unification with blood relatives that it is nearly impossible to determine any child is adoptable, no matter how old and how long they have been in state care without contact with the blood relatives.   If more children were made available for adoption, there would be a great need for intercountry adoption. Barely a thousand children have ever been domestically adopted in Romania in any given year. As a result of the new laws, only 333 children were entrusted for domestic adoption last year.   For thousands of children abandoned annually in Romania, domestic or intercountry adoption offered the hope of a life outside of foster care or an institution. That hope has now been dashed and destroyed.   Last September, Mr. Speaker, I chaired a hearing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe at which Maura Harty, the Deputy Under Secretary of State, rebutted the argument that the adoption ban is somehow consistent with Romania's intercountry international treaty obligations. Likewise, our witnesses, including Dr. Dana Johnson, Director of the International Adoption Clinic and Neonatology Division at the University of Minnesota's Children's Hospital, testified that Romania's concentration on reunification of an abandoned child with his or her biological family is only superficially consistent with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.   He also talked about the deleterious effect of such waiting, being held in foster care and especially in institutions, has on a child's mental, as well as their physical health.   When Romania enacted its intercountry adoption ban, there were 211 pending cases in which children have been matched with adoptive parents in the United States. Approximately a thousand more have been matched with parents in Western Europe, Israel and Australia. In the past few weeks there have been unofficial reports that pending applications are being rejected across the board and the dossiers returned to the adoptive parents.   A document from the Romanian Office for Adoption acknowledged that fewer than 300 of these children have been placed in permanent situations, either returned to biological parents or adopted within Romania. The vast majority remain in limbo. This cannot be the last word of what we often call “the pipeline cases.”   The Romanian government repeatedly promised to analyze each pending case thoroughly, but the review that has supposedly been done was not transparent, was not done on a case-by-case basis, and was not conducted according to clear and valid criteria that is in the best interest of each individual child. These cases involve prospective families who have proven their good faith, by waiting for years for these children. Many cases involve children who will not be domestically adopted due to their special needs, medical or societal prejudices.   In at least three cases, Mr. Speaker, children are already living in the United States with their prospective adoptive parents while receiving life-saving medical treatment, including a child with spina bifida. These children were legally adoptable until Romania's new law took effect.   Let me say that when I introduced this resolution in November, I asked the question, who in the European Union will stand with Members of our Congress, to protect these defenseless children?   Today I am happy to say, members of the European Parliament are challenging the anti-adoption monopoly over this issue and that is encouraging. On December 15, the European Parliament urged Romania to act in the pending cases with the goal of allowing intercountry adoptions to take place where justified and appropriate. In March, the European Parliament's rapporteur for Romania's EU accession, Mr. Pierre Moscovici, reported that he notably differs on the issue of international adoption of Romanian children from the previous rapporteur, Baroness Emma Nicholson, whose virulent anti-adoption views that hurt the children of Romania are now very, very well known.   I applaud the European Parliament and I am glad that our parliament, this Congress, is poised to go on record very strongly in trying to resolve these pipeline cases.   In closing, I want again to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their tremendous support for this resolution and the underlying issue of trying to encourage intercountry adoption in a country, Romania that has now, in a misguided fashion, turned their back on those children who could find loving, durable homes with the adoption option.   Let me also thank so many other people who were a part of this, but especially Maureen Walsh, who is our General Counsel for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, for her extraordinary expertise and work on the issue and this resolution. We have had an ongoing process, contacting the highest levels of the government of Romania, from the President on down. It has been ongoing. It has been frequent.   Our hearing that Ben Cardin and I put on last year I think brought all of these issues to the fore in a way that were very persuasive on the part of the pipeline families, as well as the issue itself. The intercountry adoption is a loving, compassionate option, and certainly is far better than languishing in an orphanage somewhere where the child is warehoused.   Mr. Speaker, so we call upon the Romanian government again to reverse its position, to cease its mucking under Lady Nicholson's pressure, which is now going into reverse. The European Union, as I said before, is showing clear signs that it concludes it has made a profound mistake.   I want to thank Mr. Cardin, who is our ranking member on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, who has been working on these issues side by side.  

  • Remarks by Hon. Christopher H. Smith on The Coalition for International Justice

    Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a Washington-based non-governmental organization, the Coalition for International Justice, will close its offices this week after 10 years of service to the cause of justice around the world. Serving as Chairman and Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission for that same period of time, I have worked closely with the Coalition and seen the effect of its work. Ten years ago, the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a priority in U.S. foreign policy, a conflict in which numerous war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide were committed. Many of us fought for the inclusion of basic justice as an element in our country's policy response, and an international tribunal was fortunately created for that purpose. At the time, however, support was lukewarm at best; many saw efforts to apprehend and bring to justice those responsible for heinous crimes as too far-reaching, perhaps unachievable, and potentially detrimental to efforts to end the conflict through diplomacy. The Coalition for International Justice was a tireless advocate of another view, one that saw no true peace, nor the resulting long-term stability, in Bosnia or anywhere else, without appropriate consideration of justice. Time has since shown how correct that view has been. Bosnia and Herzegovina has come a long way since the mid-1990s, in large part because those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide were instead removed from positions of authority and made accountable at the tribunal located in The Hague. Many of those people might still be at large had the Coalition, among others, not advocated a tough policy toward those powers who were harboring and protecting them. Many of us can remember the State Department's hesitancy, let alone that of many European foreign ministries, to these tough measures. Today, however, the United States maintains an effective conditionality on assistance to Serbia and, along with the European Union, on Serbia's integration efforts due to the particular failure to transfer Ratko Mladic to The Hague. Similar linkages apply to another at-large indictee, Radovan Karadzic. Representatives of the Coalition for International Justice participated in numerous briefings and hearings of the Helsinki Commission on this subject, and were always available to provide useful information when justice in the Balkans became part of our policy debates. The Coalition similarly assisted the international criminal tribunal established for Rwanda in its efforts to be fair, responsible and effective in the provision of justice. Its mandate later expanded to help the investigation and prosecutions process in East Timor, to establish a tribunal for Khmer Rouge crimes in Cambodia, and to create a Special Court for Sierra Leone. It helped track the finance of such notorious figures as Charles Taylor, Saddam Hussein and the Khartoum elites, in addition to Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic. Most recently, the Coalition has been part of the international effort not just to hold those responsible for the genocide in Darfur accountable from the crimes already committed but to protect the civilian population there from continuing to be victimized. Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the work of the Coalition for International Justice as a resource of accurate information, and as an advocate to a reasonable, practical approach to the sometimes controversial subject of international justice. While its board and staff may have concluded that the Coalition has largely accomplished the tasks it was created to address, they know, as do we, that horrible crimes continue to be committed against innocent people in conflicts around the world. I am confident that the dedicated individuals who made the Coalition such a success will continue, through other organizations and offices, in the struggle for international justice.

  • Remarks by Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin on The Coalition for International Justice

    Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the fine, effective work of the Coalition for International Justice as that organization closes its offices this Friday. Ten years ago, the world allowed genocide to occur in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shocked by this fact, as well as the associated war crimes and crimes against humanity, many Americans both within government and among the public decided to take action. As scenes of the destruction were broadcast to homes across this country, support grew for holding those responsible for the senseless killing accountable. Some dedicated experts in the field of international justice formed the Coalition, often known as “CIJ”, to help guide the development of the international tribunal established for that purpose. While justice remains elusive, not just in the Balkans but elsewhere, the Coalition has been an indispensable part of the progress achieved in the last decade to hold more people accountable for horrible crimes, in Europe, Africa and elsewhere around the globe. The Coalition, in fact, argues not only for responding to crimes already committed but taking necessary actions to stop ongoing atrocities and to prevent future war crimes. This presents a challenge to the international community and its natural tendency to avoid taking bold and decisive action, and reflects the lessons learned from Rwanda that the international community cannot stand by as genocide occurs. I am extremely pleased that CIJ has taken a leadership role in galvanizing the international community to respond to the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. As the Ranking member of the Helsinki Commission, most of my work with the Coalition for International Justice has been related to what is unfortunately the still unresolved issue of obtaining Serbia's full cooperation with the International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague. Despite the democratic ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in late 2000 and his transfer to The Hague in 2001, Belgrade's cooperation with the tribunal has not been good. Despite Serbia's own need to break with a horrible past, and despite the obvious need for surviving victims and families to have some closure, Serbian officials have largely responded only when pressure is applied. Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, perhaps the two people most directly responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, remain at large. It has been clear for some time that Mr. Mladic has been protected by the military. Serbia's future integration in Europe is placed at risk by this irresponsible behavior. The Coalition for International Justice has been indispensable in tracking the developments of the tribunal, as well as following reports of where at-large indictees may be, as well as what access prosecutors have had to evidence and witnesses. The Coalition also has done excellent work in analyzing the work of the tribunal itself. This has been important. International justice is a relatively new phenomenon, and things have not always developed smoothly. The Coalition has not been an apologist for ICTY or the other war crimes tribunals, and has brought attention to areas where improvement was needed. The Coalition should take great satisfaction that today, 10 years after genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the war crimes chamber of Bosnia's court system now has the ability to handle the emotional and controversial cases from that dark time. The staff of the Coalition for International Justice has always been outstanding, and has provided critical assistance to myself, my personal staff, and the Helsinki Commission staff that work on these issues. CIJ staff have been more than willing and able to help those of us in Congress who have worked to ensure common concerns about international justice are appropriately reflected in U.S. foreign policy. Board members Mark Ellis, John Heffernan and Jim Hooper were involved from the earliest days, when few were certain justice would even be considered in diplomatic efforts to bring peace and stability to the Balkans. Staff past and present, including Edgar Chen, Stefanie Frease and Eric Witte, provided expertise not only on the work of the tribunals but also on the countries and conflicts the tribunals were created to address. I want to highlight in particular Nina Bang-Jessen, CIJ's Executive Director, who so effectively combined expertise and advocacy. She oversaw the Coalition as it broadened its focus to include not only the former Yugoslavia but Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone and today, Darfur. Ongoing humanitarian catastrophes, Mr. Speaker, may frustrate us, but those who have worked at the Coalition for International Justice can take satisfaction knowing they did something about it and advanced the cause of international justice beyond where it otherwise would be. They have saved lives and brought war criminals to justice, and played a role in preventing future crimes against humanity. For that, we owe them our thanks and best wishes.

  • Promoting Religious Freedom in the Russian Federation

    Mr. Speaker, I rise as a co-sponsor and in support of H.Con.Res. 190, which urges the Russian Federation to “ensure full protection of freedoms for all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, and end the harassment of unregistered religious groups by the security apparatus and other government agencies,” as well as to “ensure that law enforcement officials vigorously investigate acts of violence against unregistered religious communities, as well as make certain that authorities are not complicit in such attacks.”   As the Ranking House Member on the Helsinki Commission, I have seen how religious freedoms for minority religious communities throughout the Russian Federation have come under increasing pressure.  Throughout that vast country, local officials and government authorities continue to harass and limit the ability of these groups to practice their faith freely.  In addition, instances of violence, such as arson attacks, have been alarmingly common in recent years.  The Helsinki Commission heard disturbing testimony to this effect in April of last year. The State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report for 2005 reported that some federal agencies and many local authorities continued to restrict the rights of various religious minorities, and the internationally recognized expert on religious liberty in Russia, Larry Uzzell, has written that even in Moscow some 10 Baptist congregations have ceased to exist because local bureaucrats refused to allow rentals or property transfers for the use of worship services. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the religious liberty picture in Russia is deteriorating at a critical time for Russia.  Russia is an OSCE participating State and assumes the leadership of the Council of Europe in May of this year.  Russia also chairs the G-8 this year. A nation holding such positions should not be a country where members of minority religious groups need to constantly battle with bureaucrats in order to have a place to worship, or to get permission from the local clergy of another faith in order to hold a public gathering, or to wonder if their prayer house will be the target of vandalism.   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues support H.Con.Res. 190, and I again thank my Helsinki Commission Chairman, Chris Smith, for introducing this resolution, and for his tireless efforts on behalf of religious freedom and liberty around the world.  I also join Chairman Smith in commending John Finerty of the Helsinki Commission staff for his decades of service to the Commission, and I especially thank him for assisting me in my interactions with members of the Russian Duma through our OSCE Parliamentary Assembly process.

  • Statement in Support of H.Con.Res.190 (McIntyre)

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is considering H.Con.Res. 190 today, that urges the Russian Federation to protect fully the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards. As stated in the resolution, the United States throughout its history has sought to protect the fundamental and inalienable human right to seek, know, and serve God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience.  I completely agree.  The “first right” of religious freedom must be respected, and so this resolution is of critical importance.  The Russian Federation is an OSCE participating State and has freely committed to protect this right, so that all may freely profess and practice the religion or belief, either alone or in community with others.  Russia has promised to do this through numerous OSCE documents, but also in its own constitution. Article 28 of the Russian constitution declares “everyone shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of conscience, to freedom of religious worship, including the right to profess, individually or jointly with others, any religion.” Unfortunately, this fundamental right is not always observed, especially for groups that are not registered with the government.  For groups denied registration, who have had their registration stripped, or refuse registration on religious grounds, the lack of registration means they experience significant difficulties in enjoying their religious liberties.  Registration is critical for religious groups to enjoy fully their religious freedoms, as many rights and privileges afforded to religious communities are contingent on obtaining registration.  In addition to discrimination by local authorities, in the last two years there have been more than ten arson attacks estimated on unregistered Protestant churches.  At a Helsinki Commission hearing that I attended last year on problems facing unregistered religious groups in Russia, I was troubled to learn of the lack of effective action by law enforcement to bring the criminals to justice. The perpetrators of these hateful acts have gone unpunished, with police and other officials turning a blind eye.  In the worst cases, law enforcement personnel have actually been the persecutors, carrying out violent actions against individuals from unregistered communities who are only wishing to practice peacefully their faith.  In closing, the Russian Federation is urged to do more, to ensure that all may fully enjoy their religious liberties.  I therefore urge my colleagues to support H.Con.Res. 190.   

  • Statement in Support of H.Con.Res. 190

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 190, urging the Russian Federation to protect and ensure religious freedom for all people in Russia. Last year witnesses at a Helsinki Commission hearing on unregistered religious groups in Russia, provided alarming reports about the actions of local authorities towards unregistered or minority religious communities. Recurring reports of police harassment and criminal violence (that is rarely vigorously investigated) against these groups is jeopardizing the status of religious liberties in Russia. Adding to the concerns are recent reports that the Duma is preparing legislation to regulate the activities of missionaries. Reportedly, the bill would create administrative and criminal penalties for “unlawful missionary work connected with provoking religious extremism.” There was also speculation in the Russian media that the Justice Ministry was looking to tighten the rules for granting visas to foreign missionaries. Furthermore, there are also reports that the Duma is considering an amendment to existing legislation that would require re-registration of registered religious organizations. Mr. Speaker, these initiatives make evident that some people in the Russian government believe the role of the state is to control religious freedom rather than to facilitate and protect free expression. Officials know that it is very difficult for unregistered religious organizations to function effectively and freely—they know that limiting the actions of missionaries and restricting the distribution of visas would be the best option to control the growth of religious organizations. The Congress must send a clear signal to President Putin and other Russian officials that religious freedom is a critically important issue and that we expect Russia to uphold its own constitution and its international commitments and protect the fundamental right of freedom of conscience. This resolution specifically urges Russia to fully protect religious freedoms for all religious communities, whether registered or unregistered, and to prevent the harassment of unregistered religious groups by the security apparatus and other government agencies. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 190.

  • Statement in Support of H.Con.Res.190 (Pitts)

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 190, urging the Russian Federation to protect and ensure religious freedom for all people in Russia.   Last year witnesses at a Helsinki Commission hearing on unregistered religious groups in Russia, provided alarming reports about the actions of local authorities towards unregistered or minority religious communities. Recurring reports of police harassment and criminal violence (that is rarely vigorously investigated) against these groups is jeopardizing the status of religious liberties in Russia.   Adding to the concerns are recent reports that the Duma is preparing legislation to regulate the activities of missionaries. Reportedly, the bill would create administrative and criminal penalties for “unlawful missionary work connected with provoking religious extremism.” There was also speculation in the Russian media that the Justice Ministry was looking to tighten the rules for granting visas to foreign missionaries. Furthermore, there are also reports that the Duma is considering an amendment to existing legislation that would require re-registration of registered religious organizations.   Mr. Speaker, these initiatives make evident that some people in the Russian government believe the role of the state is to control religious freedom rather than to facilitate and protect free expression. Officials know that it is very difficult for unregistered religious organizations to function effectively and freely—they know that limiting the actions of missionaries and restricting the distribution of visas would be the best option to control the growth of religious organizations.   The Congress must send a clear signal to President Putin and other Russian officials that religious freedom is a critically important issue and that we expect Russia to uphold its own constitution and its international commitments and protect the fundamental right of freedom of conscience. This resolution specifically urges Russia to fully protect religious freedoms for all religious communities, whether registered or unregistered, and to prevent the harassment of unregistered religious groups by the security apparatus and other government agencies. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 190.

  • Statement in Support of H.Con.Res. 190

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is considering H.Con.Res. 190 today, that urges the Russian Federation to protect fully the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards. As stated in the resolution, the United States throughout its history has sought to protect the fundamental and inalienable human right to seek, know, and serve God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience.  I completely agree.  The “first right” of religious freedom must be respected, and so this resolution is of critical importance.   The Russian Federation is an OSCE participating State and has freely committed to protect this right, so that all may freely profess and practice the religion or belief, either alone or in community with others.  Russia has promised to do this through numerous OSCE documents, but also in its own constitution. Article 28 of the Russian constitution declares “everyone shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of conscience, to freedom of religious worship, including the right to profess, individually or jointly with others, any religion.” Unfortunately, this fundamental right is not always observed, especially for groups that are not registered with the government.  For groups denied registration, who have had their registration stripped, or refuse registration on religious grounds, the lack of registration means they experience significant difficulties in enjoying their religious liberties.  Registration is critical for religious groups to enjoy fully their religious freedoms, as many rights and privileges afforded to religious communities are contingent on obtaining registration.  In addition to discrimination by local authorities, in the last two years there have been more than ten arson attacks estimated on unregistered Protestant churches.  At a Helsinki Commission hearing that I attended last year on problems facing unregistered religious groups in Russia, I was troubled to learn of the lack of effective action by law enforcement to bring the criminals to justice. The perpetrators of these hateful acts have gone unpunished, with police and other officials turning a blind eye.  In the worst cases, law enforcement personnel have actually been the persecutors, carrying out violent actions against individuals from unregistered communities who are only wishing to practice peacefully their faith.   In closing, the Russian Federation is urged to do more, to ensure that all may fully enjoy their religious liberties.  I therefore urge my colleagues to support H.Con.Res. 190. 

  • Floor Statement in Support of H.Con.Res. 190

    H. Con. Res. 190 expresses the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the right of its people to worship and practice their faith as they see fit. This freedom is the right of all religious communities without distinct, whether registered or unregistered, and that is stipulated by the Russian Constitution and by international standards. Yet I am sorry to report religious freedom for minority religious communities throughout the Russian Federation have been under growing pressure as local officials and government authorities continue to harass and limit the abilities of these groups to practice their faith freely.  As we learned at a recent Helsinki Commission hearing, instances of violence have become alarmingly common. Arson attacks against churches in Russia have occurred in several towns and cities with little or no police response. In its 2005 International Religious Freedom Report, the State Department Office on International Religious Freedom notes: “Some Federal agencies and many local authorities continue to restrict the rights of various religious minorities. Moreover, contradictions between Federal and local laws and varying interpretations of the law provide regional officials with opportunities to restrict the activities of religious minorities. Many observers attribute discriminatory practices at the local level to the greater susceptibility of local governments than the Federal Government to discriminatory attitudes in lobbying by local majority religious groups. The government only occasionally intervenes to prevent or reverse discrimination at the local level.” Mr. Speaker, the internationally recognized expert on religious liberty in Russia, Larry Uzzell, has written: “Russia has now come to use as standard practice methods of religious repression that were applied only occasionally in the 1990s. Secular bureaucrats now typically refuse to authorize land transfers to Baptist churches and also forbid movie theaters or other public halls to sign rental contracts with them.” As a result, as an example: “In Moscow City alone some 10 Baptist congregations have ceased to exist simply because they could not find places within which to worship.” I would just note parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Larry for his extraordinary work in bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress. Larry is a tireless advocate for oppressed believers throughout Russia and Central Asia. He is facing some serious health issues now, and I would like to wish him a very speedy recovery. Mr. Speaker, in response to this growing and very negative trend in Russia, this resolution urges the Russian Federation to “ensure full protections of freedoms for all religious communities without distinction, whether registered or unregistered, and to end the harassment of unregistered religious groups by the security apparatus and other government agencies, as well as to ensure that law enforcement officials rigorously investigate acts of violence against unregistered religious communities, and to make certain that authorities are not complicit in such attacks.” I point out that in March 2004 a district court banned the religious activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow. For 2 years now the authorities have used the Moscow decision to harass the Jehovah's Witnesses Administration Center in St. Petersburg, with threats to “liquidate” the administrative center which could threaten local congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout all of Russia. Members of the Russia's Muslim community and respected human rights activists have expressed concern regarding what they contend are large-scale fabrications of terrorism against Russian Muslims. One of Russia's Supreme Muftis has stated that random police checks and arrests are becoming commonplace throughout Russia for Russian Muslims. Let me reiterate that Russia has every right to defend itself against terrorism and to investigate and prosecute terrorists. Of course it does. Here in the United States we face the problem of combating terrorism while safeguarding civil liberties. I would urge the government, however, to strive for the proper balance in defending both its citizens as well as their civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, the religious liberty picture in Russia is not entirely dark, and it would be disingenuous to make that assertion. There are Nations that have worse records. They can be found on the list of “countries of particular concern” that is issued by the U.S. Department of State in its annual report on religious freedom around the world, so-called CPC countries like Vietnam.  However, Russia is a member of the U.N. Security Council, an OSCE-participating State, and will soon chair the Council of Europe. In addition, this year, it is the chair of the G-8 and the host of the G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg in July. Considering all of these positions, they should be expected to uphold basic, internationally recognized and accepted standards to protect peaceful religious practice. That is what this resolution is all about.

  • Attack on Chasidic Synagogue in Moscow

    Mr. President, on January 11 of this year, at the Moscow Headquarters and Synagogue of Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the Former Soviet Union, a so-called "skinhead" attacked worshippers with a knife and wounded eight persons. I know that all Members of this body deplore this terrible crime and send our prayers and best wishes to all those injured during the assault. The victims of this senseless violence include Rabbi Isaac Kogan, who testified before an April 6 Helsinki Commission hearing I convened last year concerning Chabad's ongoing efforts to retrieve the Schneerson Collection of sacred Jewish texts from Moscow. The Rabbi is a noted refusenik who was appointed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, to be part of Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the Former Soviet Union. In addition to nurturing Judaism throughout the former USSR, that organization has fought tirelessly to win the return of the Schneerson Collection to its rightful owners in the United States. The entire U.S. Senate has twice petitioned the Russian leadership to release those holy texts.  As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have followed closely the issue of anti-Semitism and extremism around the world. Unfortunately, the brutal attack at the Agudas Chasidei Chabad synagogue fits what appears to be a rising trend of attacks on ethnic and religious minorities in Russia.  Let me present one disturbing statistic. According to an article in the Moscow News last year, the Moscow Human Rights Center reports that Russia has up to 50,000 skinheads with active groups in 85 cities. This is opposed to an estimated 70,000 skinhead activists throughout the rest of the world.  To make matters worse, there are indications that the police themselves are sometimes involved in racist attacks. Earlier this month, a Russian newspaper carried a story about the Moscow police assault of a passerby who happened to be from the North Caucasus. According to persons from the North Caucasus, such beatings are a common occurrence.  What was uncommon was the fact that the gentleman in question is a colonel in the Russian Army and an internationally known cosmonaut. Let me be clear, anti-Semitism, bigotry, extremist attacks and police brutality are not found only in Russia. Our own country has not been immune to these challenges to rule of law and human dignity.  Nevertheless, as Russia accedes to the chairmanship of the G-8 and the Council of Europe, there will be increased scrutiny of its commitment to internationally recognized standards of human rights practices. I urge the authorities in Russia to do everything in their power to combat ethnic and religious intolerance and safeguard the religious freedom and physical safety of all it citizens.

  • Remembering the Holocaust While Fighting Anti-Semitism

    Mr. Speaker, the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps is often selected as the day to honor those murdered at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators. More than one million people were killed at Auschwitz before the survivors were liberated on January 27, 1945. Appropriately, each January 27, individuals and governments around the world pause to remember those individuals murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Also known as the Sho'ah, Hebrew for "calamity," the Holocaust witnessed the death of six million Jews by the Nazi killing machine, many of them in concentration camps or elsewhere in a web that stretched throughout the heart of Europe. Millions of individuals, political dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses, those with disabilities, and others including entire Romani families, also perished at the hands of the Nazis. Mr. Speaker, the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps is often selected as the day to honor those murdered at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators. More than one million people were killed at Auschwitz before the survivors were liberated on January 27, 1945. Appropriately, each January 27, individuals and governments around the world pause to remember those individuals murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Also known as the Sho'ah, Hebrew for "calamity," the Holocaust witnessed the death of six million Jews by the Nazi killing machine, many of them in concentration camps or elsewhere in a web that stretched throughout the heart of Europe. Millions of individuals, political dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses, those with disabilities, and others including entire Romani families, also perished at the hands of the Nazis. Holocaust Remembrance Day also celebrates those brave souls who faced unimaginable horrors and lived to tell of their experiences. In a historic first, late last year the United Nations designated January 27 as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Initial drafters of the resolution, Australia, Canada, Israel, Russia and the United States, were joined by 100 nations in sponsoring the resolution in the General Assembly. Other international organizations, like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), have done much to ensure the lessons of the Holocaust are taught in schools across Europe, including the former Soviet Union. In addition, the Belgian Chair-in-Office of the OSCE held a commemorative event for Holocaust victims on January 27 in Brussels. Unfortunately, while the Holocaust is rightly remembered, its lessons have yet to be fully learned. Early on, the world said "Never Again" to genocide, only to allow genocide to happen again in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda in the 1990s, and in Darfur today. The establishment of international tribunals to seek justice in response to these crimes may indicate some progress, but the best way to honor the lives of those who died during the Holocaust or in subsequent genocides would be to have the resolve to take decisive action to try to stop the crime in the first place.  Some heads of state refuse to recognize even the existence of the Holocaust. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, made the outrageous claim on December 14 that Europeans had "created a myth in the name of Holocaust." Showing his virulent anti-Semitic nature, two months earlier in October, he said Israel is "a disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map." While Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic hate is shocking, other hate mongers have physically attacked Jews. In early January, a knife-wielding skinhead shouting "I will kill Jews" and "Heil Hitler" burst into a Moscow synagogue and stabbed at least eight worshippers. A copycat attack followed in Rostov-on-Don, with the attacker thankfully being stopped inside the synagogue before anyone was hurt. As Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I have worked over the past four years with other Members of Congress and parliamentarians from around the world to fight anti-Semitism. I was pleased to have either authored or cosponsored three resolutions at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which condemned anti-Semitism, while also being a principal sponsor to the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act that passed the Congress and was signed into law by President Bush in 2004. Internationally, the OSCE has held three international meetings focusing on anti-Semitism and has pledged to hold another major conference in Romania in 2007.  Mr. Speaker, while our struggle continues, we have made progress, moving governments and international organizations to begin to act. To reverse Edmund Burke's truism, what is necessary for the triumph of good over evil is for good men and women to take action. ls who faced unimaginable horrors and lived to tell of their experiences. In a historic first, late last year the United Nations designated January 27 as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Initial drafters of the resolution, Australia, Canada, Israel, Russia and the United States, were joined by 100 nations in sponsoring the resolution in the General Assembly. Other international organizations, like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), have done much to ensure the lessons of the Holocaust are taught in schools across Europe, including the former Soviet Union. In addition, the Belgian Chair-in-Office of the OSCE held a commemorative event for Holocaust victims on January 27 in Brussels. Unfortunately, while the Holocaust is rightly remembered, its lessons have yet to be fully learned. Early on, the world said "Never Again" to genocide, only to allow genocide to happen again in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda in the 1990s, and in Darfur today. The establishment of international tribunals to seek justice in response to these crimes may indicate some progress, but the best way to honor the lives of those who died during the Holocaust or in subsequent genocides would be to have the resolve to take decisive action to try to stop the crime in the first place.  Some heads of state refuse to recognize even the existence of the Holocaust. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, made the outrageous claim on December 14 that Europeans had "created a myth in the name of Holocaust." Showing his virulent anti-Semitic nature, two months earlier in October, he said Israel is "a disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map." While Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic hate is shocking, other hate mongers have physically attacked Jews. In early January, a knife-wielding skinhead shouting "I will kill Jews" and "Heil Hitler" burst into a Moscow synagogue and stabbed at least eight worshippers. A copycat attack followed in Rostov-on-Don, with the attacker thankfully being stopped inside the synagogue before anyone was hurt. As Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I have worked over the past four years with other Members of Congress and parliamentarians from around the world to fight anti-Semitism. I was pleased to have either authored or cosponsored three resolutions at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which condemned anti-Semitism, while also being a principal sponsor to the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act that passed the Congress and was signed into law by President Bush in 2004. Internationally, the OSCE has held three international meetings focusing on anti-Semitism and has pledged to hold another major conference in Romania in 2007.  Mr. Speaker, while our struggle continues, we have made progress, moving governments and international organizations to begin to act. To reverse Edmund Burke's truism, what is necessary for the triumph of good over evil is for good men and women to take action.

  • European Parliament Restores Support for Inter-Country Adoption

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that yesterday our colleagues in the European Parliament voted unanimously in favor of an important measure urging the Romanian Government to settle the cases of applications for international adoption which have been in limbo since the Romanians imposed a moratorium in June 2001. The amendment was successfully offered to the European Parliament "Report on the Extent of Romania's Readiness for Accession to the European Union." Final approval on the report was adopted by the Parliament on December 15.   Amid credible allegations of corruption in the adoption system in Romania, the European Union had put intense pressure on Romania four years ago to impose a moratorium on international adoptions. In June 2004, Romanian Law 273/2004 enacted a permanent ban on international adoptions and, in practice, the law was being applied retroactively to cases that were registered before the ban came into effect on January first of this year. There were approximately 1,500 cases pending in which the children had been matched with parents in Western Europe, and 211 cases had been matched with adoptive parents in the United States.   As a party to the Hague convention on Intercountry Adoption, Romania has agreed to certain international standards and Principles. In fact, intercountry adoption is a recognized as a legitimate option for children who have not found permanent placement in their country of origin. The amendment adopted by the European Parliament is consistent with this principle and urges settlement of the pending cases "with the goal of allowing inter-country adoptions to take place, where justified and appropriate, in those special cases." I applaud the European Parliament in offering this assurance that they will not stand in the way of these adoptions.   I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this action by the European Parliament will embolden authorities in Romania to look again at the cases which have been pending. Given this reassurance that resolving the pipeline cases will not jeopardize their efforts toward accession, I would hope that the authorities would consider the cases only with the best interests of the children in mind. They have heard the European Parliament speak with one voice in favor of adoptions for these pipeline cases.   Mr. Speaker, for these children who had already had a loving adoptive family identified, I encourage the Romanians to examine these cases with alacrity and transparency. Such a priority could mean this Christmas would be filled with renewed hope for hundreds of children and the prospects of a permanent home in the New Year.

  • Accountability of Those Serving in International Forces and Missions

    Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I want to inform colleagues of an important breakthrough in combating human trafficking achieved at the recently concluded Ministerial Council meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). There have been growing concerns in recent years that some individuals serving as peacekeeping forces, or civilian contractors involved in international operations and other personnel serving with international organizations have helped fuel the demand side of the human trafficking cycle, particularly for sexual exploitation. These concerns stem in part from shocking revelations of complicity by elements in these operations with trafficking networks profiteering from this contemporary form of slavery. Serving in my capacity as Special Representative on Combating Human Trafficking for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I have pressed for adoption of a zero-tolerance policy regarding trafficking in human beings by personnel involved in peacekeeping missions, along with related education and training. Overcoming pushback from various quarters, I am pleased to report that agreement was reached earlier this month among the 55 OSCE countries meeting in Slovenia, including numerous countries actively involved in peacekeeping missions around the globe, to ensure the highest standards of conduct and accountability of persons serving on peacekeeping forces and other international missions. Importantly, the OSCE countries have pledged to step up efforts to prevent military and civilian personnel deployed abroad from engaging in trafficking in human beings or exploiting victims of trafficking. Countries with deployed military and civilian personnel have also agreed to work cooperatively with authorities in countries hosting such missions, in efforts to combat trafficking in human beings. While many of the cases involve sexual exploitation and abuse, the OSCE countries also recognized that cases involving forced labor also need to be aggressively pursued and have committed to enforce relevant standards of conduct and to ensure that any such cases are properly investigated and appropriately punished. Mr. Speaker, if we are to be successful in combating human trafficking, we must be proactive at home and abroad. The OSCE has proven to be an important forum for building consensus and cooperation on anti-trafficking measures throughout the expansive OSCE region. Developing this consensus has required both tact and tenacity. In this regard, I want to recognize the tireless efforts of Janice Helwig and Maureen Walsh, two outstanding professionals on the Helsinki Commission staff. Having secured this important agreement at the OSCE, the Commission will continue to remain fully engaged in monitoring its implementation. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of the Ministerial Decision, agreed to by the 55 OSCE participating States.   DECISION NO. 16/05 ENSURING THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF PERSONS SERVING ON INTERNATIONAL FORCES AND MISSIONS The Ministerial Council: Reaffirming the OSCE commitments to combat trafficking in human beings, in particular 2000 Vienna Ministerial Council Decision No. 1, 2002 Porto Ministerial Declaration and Maastricht Ministerial Decision No. 2/03 and the OSCE Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings, as well as its addendum "Addressing the Special Needs of Child Victims of Trafficking for Protection and Assistance,'' Recalling the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, and its comprehensive definition of trafficking in persons, Reiterating that trafficking in human beings, a contemporary form of slavery, seriously undermines the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Concerned that military and civilian personnel serving on international peacekeeping forces or other international missions, including contractors, as well as field presences of international organizations including the OSCE could be a contributing factor to the demand side of the trafficking cycle, Welcoming the efforts of the United Nations as well as other international organizations to develop and enforce ``zero-tolerance'' policies to prevent trafficking in human beings by both forces and other staff, which, combined with education and training, are required, Recalling the ongoing activities in all relevant international organizations aimed at the development of common standards and best practices to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings, Concerned about reports of misconduct by military and civilian personnel serving on international peacekeeping forces or other international missions, including reports of engaging in trafficking in human beings as defined in the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, strongly condemning such acts, and noting that they have a detrimental effect on the fulfillment of mission mandates, Concerned also about reports of misconduct by military and civilian personnel serving on international peacekeeping forces or other international missions including reports of sexually exploiting and abusing local and refugee populations, as well as reports of cases of forced labour, strongly condemning such acts, and noting that they have a detrimental effect on the fulfillment of mission mandates, Emphasizing the need for more information and awareness-raising concerning these issues among personnel serving on international missions, Taking note of efforts by the United Nations aimed at ensuring that personnel serving on peacekeeping forces or other international missions are held to the highest standard of conduct and accountability, 1. Calls on participating States to improve, where necessary, measures to prevent military and civilian personnel deployed abroad to peacekeeping forces or other international missions, as well as OSCE officials, from engaging in trafficking in human beings or exploiting victims of trafficking. In this regard, the participating States will seek to ensure that their national laws, regulations, and other relevant documents can be enforced with respect to their nationals who are serving on peacekeeping forces or other international missions, with a view to ensuring the highest standards of conduct and accountability; 2. Calls on participating States with deployed military and civilian personnel to assist, within their competence and respective mandates, responsible authorities in the host country in their efforts to combat trafficking in human beings. Each participating State will take into account policies and consequences regarding trafficking in human beings when instructing its military and civilian personnel to be deployed abroad; 3. Calls on participating States to take appropriate action necessary to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as cases of forced labour, by military and civilian personne1 deployed by them who are serving on peacekeeping forces or other international missions, to enforce relevant standards of conduct in this regard, and to ensure that any such cases are properly investigated and appropriately punished; 4. Reaffirms the importance of implementing the Code of Conduct for OSCE Officials and Staff Instruction 11 addressing trafficking in human beings and instructs the Secretary General, drawing on the expertise of the OSCE Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and the Anti-Trafficking Assistance Unit, to update these documents to make them in line with this decision, and to circulate them to the participating States for comments and discussion prior to issuance; 5. Invites the governments of the OSCE Partners for Co-operation also to commit to the same, principles as are set forth in this decision and to that end tasks the OSCE Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and the OSCE Secretary General to share relevant information and materials with the OSCE Partners for Co-operation; 6. Tasks the OSCE Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings to share with relevant international organizations OSCE training materials and other information that could assist in combating trafficking in human beings; 7. Tasks the OSCE Secretary General to report annually to the Permanent Council on the implementation of this decision in regard to the Code of Conduct for OSCE Officials and Staff Instruction 11, in accordance with provision III 11.1 of the OSCE Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings.  

  • Romania's Ban on Intercountry Adoptions

    Mr. Speaker, last month I introduced a resolution, H. Res. 578, expressing disappointment that the Government of Romania has instituted a virtual ban on intercountry adoptions that has very serious implications for the welfare and well-being of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission), I am pleased to be joined as original cosponsors by the Commission's Ranking House Member, Representative CARDIN, fellow Commissioners Representative PITTS and PENCE as well as Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Representative BURTON, and Representative NORTHUP, COSTELLO, JO ANN DAVIS, TIAHRT, BRADLEY and FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the children of Romania, and all children, deserve to be raised in permanent families. Timely adoption of H. Res. 578 will put the Congress on record: Supporting the desire of the Government of Romania to improve the standard of care and well-being of children in Romania; Urging the Government of Romania to complete the processing of the intercountry adoption cases which were pending when Law 273/2004 was enacted; Urging the Government of Romania to amend its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease barriers to adoption, both domestically and intercountry, including by allowing intercountry adoption by persons other than biological grandparents; Urging the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to work collaboratively with the Government of Romania to achieve these ends; and Requesting that the European Union and its member States not impede the Government of Romania's efforts to place orphaned or abandoned children in permanent homes in a manner that is consistent with Romania's obligations under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. In 1989, the world watched in horror as images emerged from Romania of more than 100,000 underfed, neglected children living in hundreds of squalid and inhumane institutions throughout that country. Six weeks after the end of the dictatorial regime of Nicolae Ceausescu, I visited Romania and witnessed the misery and suffering of these institutionalized children. They were the smallest victims of Ceausescu's policies which undermined the family and fostered the belief that children were often better cared for in an institution than by their families. Americans responded to this humanitarian nightmare with an outpouring of compassion. For years now, Americans have volunteered their labor and donated money and goods to help Romania improve conditions in these institutions. Many families in the United States also opened their hearts to Romania's children through adoption. Between 1990 and 2004, more than 8,000 children found permanent families in the U.S.; thousands of others joined families in Western Europe. The legacies of Ceausescu's rule continue to haunt Romania and, when coupled with widespread poverty, have led to the continued abandonment of Romania's children. According to a March 2005 report by UNICEF, "child abandonment in 2003 and 2004 [in Romania] was no different from that occurring 10, 20, or 30 years ago.'' UNICEF reports that more than 9,000 children a year are abandoned in Romania's maternity wards or pediatric hospitals. According to the European Union, 37,000 children remain in institutions; nearly 49,000 more live in nonpermanent settings in ``foster care'' or with extended families. An unknown number of children live on the streets. During Romania's first decade of post-communist transition, the corruption which plagued Romania's economy and governance also seeped into the adoption system. There is no question that corruption needed to be rooted out. The U.S. Government and the U.S. Helsinki Commission have been steadfast in our support of Romania's efforts to combat corruption and to promote the rule of law and good governance. I strongly disagree, however, with supporters of the current ban on intercountry adoption who allege that it was a necessary anti-corruption measure. There are many indications that corruption has been used as a hook to advance an ulterior agenda in opposition to intercountry adoption. In the context of Romania's desire to accede to the European Union, unsubstantiated allegations have been made about the fate of adopted children and the qualifications and motives of those who adopt internationally. Romanian policy makers chose to adopt this law against intercountry adoption in an effort to secure accession despite the fact, as stated in H. Res. 578, that there is no European Union law or regulation restricting intercountry adoptions to biological grandparents or requiring that restrictive laws be passed as a prerequisite for accession to the European Union. The resolution notes that the Romanian Government declared a moratorium on international adoptions in 2001 but continued to accept new applications and allowed many such applications to be processed under an exception for extraordinary circumstances. Then, in June 2004, Law 273/2004 was adopted, taking effect on January 1, 2005, which banned intercountry adoption except in the exceedingly rare case of a child's biological grandparent living outside the country. At the time of enactment, approximately 1,500 adoption applications were registered with the Romanian Government; of these, 200 children had been matched with prospective parents from the United States and the remainder from Western Europe. Intercountry adoption is, and always should be, anchored on the need to find homes for children, not to find children for would-be parents. Nonetheless, the individuals who applied to adopt Romanian children in the past few years committed their hearts to these children and we must recognize that the Romanian Government's mishandling of their applications has put them through a years-long emotional agony. H. Res. 578 calls on the Government to conclude the processing of these cases in a transparent and timely manner. Since introduction of the resolution, the Romanian press has reported that intercountry adoption would be denied in all of the pending cases. If indeed this is accurate, then it is impossible to believe that the standard applied in each case was that of the best interest of the child. Romania's new adoption law and another addressing child protection, Law 272/2004, create a hierarchy of placement for orphaned or abandoned children. By foreclosing the option of intercountry adoption, the laws codified the misguided proposition that a foster family, or even an institution, is preferable to an adoptive family outside the child's country of birth. On November 29, the European Commission issued a press release stating that "according to the Romanian Office for Adoptions, there are 1,355 Romanian families registered to adopt one of the 393 children available for adoption. Thus there is little scope, if any, for international adoptions.'' The European Commission's press release fails to mention that more than 80,000 children in Romania are growing up without permanent families--in orphanages, foster care, maternity hospitals, or on the streets. That less than 400 have been declared available for adoption is a denunciation of the child welfare system. Barely 1,000 children have ever been domestically adopted in Romania in any given year and since enactment of the new laws in 2004, the rate of domestic adoption has fallen further. There is no doubt that if more children were to be made available for adoption, there would be a great need for intercountry adoption to provide them with permanent, loving homes. For thousands of children abandoned annually in Romania, intercountry adoption offered the hope of a life outside of foster care or an institution. That hope has now been taken away. This will fall hardest on the Roma children who are least likely to be adopted in-country due to pervasive societal prejudice. The Romanian Government and the European Commission are attempting to use a Potemkin Village to hide a grim reality of suffering children and bureaucratic obstacles which prevent them from being declared legally available for adoption. In one case that has come to the Commission's attention, an adoptive family is waiting for biological parents to sign away their rights to a child they abandoned at birth and who has spent the first four years of her life with her prospective adoptive parents. She knows no other parents. Her biological parents have on four previous occasions relinquished their parental rights and yet, because of the new laws, the child has still not been declared available for adoption. Other sources also belie a Potemkin approach. A November 5th article in the British journal The Lancet entitled "Romania's Abandoned Children are Still Suffering,'' quotes a charity worker saying, "of course something needs to be done to help the children here, but at the moment all the Romanian government is doing is signing forms sending children back to their parents ..... It doesn't seem to matter that the parents might be alcoholics or have no means to look after their kids as long as the numbers are cut.'' The article continues, "Romanian authorities have proudly claimed that last year only 1,483 children aged 0-2 years were in state institutions, compared with 7,483 in 1997. But those figures do not include hospitals, where staff admit they rely on donations from charities and individuals to keep helping such children. ..... The head of the Neonatology Department at the University Hospital in Bucharest says abandoned children stay on average for 6-7 months [and] the situation is almost as bad as it was in Ceausescu's time.'' The article also quotes the head of the Neonatology Section at the Bucur Maternity Hospital, also in Bucharest, as saying "last year, we had more abandoned kids than ever because the law changed. And it changed for the worse for the people in the maternity wards because the law forbids us to send children under 2 years old to state orphanages.'' At a Helsinki Commission hearing on September 14, Dr. Dana Johnson, Director of the International Adoption Clinic and Neonatology Division at the University of Minnesota Children's Hospital, testified that Romania's concentration on the reunification of an abandoned child with his or her biological family is only superficially consistent with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. According to Dr. Johnson,"in neither of those documents is the mention of time. . . . It doesn't tell you how long you should spend reunifying that child with the family. . . . Contemporary child development research has clearly shown that there is a known amount of deterioration that occurs in children who are in hospitals or institutional care and outside of family care during the first few years of life. . . . You can predict that every child who is in institutional care during that period of time will lose one month of physical growth, one month of motor development, one month of speech development for every three months they're in institutional care. You also can predict that from age four months through 24 months of age, they will lose one to two I.Q. points a month during that period of time. The other thing we know is that by placing them into a caring, competent family, that you can recover some of this function. . . . A child that is abandoned in Romania today at the end of next summer will have permanently lost 15 I.Q. points. That child two years from now will have permanently lost 30 I.Q. points, which means that half of those kids are going to be mentally retarded.'' Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking for Romania's children. H. Res. 578 notes that Romania is a party to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption which recognizes that "intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her State of origin.'' State Department officials and nongovernmental experts from the adoption and child welfare communities have testified that Romania's child welfare and adoption laws are inconsistent with Romania international commitments under this and other agreements. The resolution further notes that UNICEF has issued an official statement in support of intercountry adoption which, in pertinent part, reads: "for children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care, which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. Intercountry adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution. In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the role of the European Union in this debacle, I ask who in the European Union will stand with Members of Congress to protect these defenseless children? All children deserve better than to spend their lives in group homes or warehoused in institutions where their physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual well-being is critically endangered. It is indeed tragic if the price of admission to the European Union is the sacrifice of thousands of Romania's orphaned or abandoned children. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. For the sake of the innumerable children in need of permanent families, the voice of the United States Congress must be heard clearly in this transatlantic dialogue on intercountry adoption.

  • Remarks by Benjamin L. Cardin on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as an original cosponsor of H.R. 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. As the Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, let me commend Chairman Chris Smith for all of his hard work on this issue both in the United States and around the world. I also want to thank International Relations Committee Ranking Member Tom Lantos for his strong support.   In 2000 Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVRA), which for the first time provided definitive protection for victims of human trafficking. Governments estimate that between 600,000 and 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year, yielding approximately $10 billion annually in illegal gains. When considering internal trafficking within a country, this number rises to an estimated 4 million persons.   Human trafficking destroys families and communities across the world. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, which traps people into forced labor or sexual slavery. Human traffickers violate the most basic human rights of their victims. The international community must oppose human trafficking in all its forms, and work together to eradicate this scourge on humanity. I commend the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for addressing this issue in a comprehensive manner, by creating an Action Plan to combat trafficking and appointing a Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings.   The United States also has a problem with human trafficking as a destination country for many trafficking victims, as we heard in a recent Helsinki Commission hearing on domestic trafficking. The State Department believes that more than 14,500 people are trafficked into the U.S. every year, either for forced labor or sexual exploitation and slavery. Traffickers bring these victims--mainly women and children--from all over the globe, including Southeast Asia and the Americas. Traffickers often use criminal gangs to transport their human cargo. I am pleased that the government has created special “T” visas for victims of human trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement officials.   In 2003 Congress adopted the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which created a new country “watch list'' under the supervision of the Department of State. This list has had a measurable effect on the behavior of offending countries. The State Department places the worst offenders on Tier 3 and makes these countries subject to certain economic and trade sanctions by the U.S. The number of Tier 3 countries has dropped from 27 in 2001 to 14 in 2005, so we have made measurable progress in raising awareness on this issue, but more work needs to be done.   This legislation will require USAID and the Department of Defense to include anti-trafficking policies in post-conflict and humanitarian assistance programs. Governments must put in place special measures to combat trafficking in countries that do not have a functioning and effective central government. This bill would enhance U.S. efforts to combat trafficking involving international peacekeepers.   The bill also authorizes $15 million annually for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a pilot program to establish U.S. residential treatment facilities for minors who are victims of domestic trafficking. The bill also expands counseling programs for victims of severe forms of trafficking. In total, the bill authorizes $68 million annually to combat human trafficking and assist victims.   We must keep the pressure up on other countries that do little to stop human trafficking, by implementing sanctions when needed and by using all available diplomatic channels. United States courts need to prosecute those individuals who commit these crimes on U.S. soil to the full extent of the law, and to send a message that the United States does not and will not tolerate human trafficking. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

  • Remarks by Benjamin L. Cardin Urging the Russian Federation to Withdraw Legislation Restricting the Establishment of Nongovernmental Organizations

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 312, to urge the Russian Government to alter or withdraw the proposed legislation affecting nongovernmental organizations, NGO's, operating in Russia. The Russian legislation would severely restrict foreign assistance to NGO's in Russia and would also force existing Russian NGO's to reregister with the government.   The draft Russian bill raises a number of serious concerns, and may violate Russia's commitments to the OSCE. Several hundred thousand nongovernmental organizations currently operate in Russia, representing all sections of society. By forcing all NGO's to reregister, the Russian Government will have the power to subjectively deny registration to some organizations and limit the activities of others. This legislation strikes at the heart of basic democratic freedoms: the right of individuals to freely associate and participate in society. Some of the provisions in this bill would also increase the oversight of financial auditing of NGO's, which the government could use to place restrictions on opposition groups.   Just months ago, the Russian President Vladimir Putin outlawed any foreign funding of political parties in Russia. This legislation goes further and affects human rights groups and other NGO's who are only seeking to improve the nature of Russia's civil society. Foreign organizations would be required to register as legal Russian entities, seriously hindering their attempts to promote democracy and accountability in Russia. Many organizations which have conducted prominent and important human rights work in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union would see their activities curtailed under the Russian bill, which may lead to the partial or complete closure of critical offices inside of Russia.   Last month, the State Duma in Russia approved the first reading of the bill by 370 to 18 votes, despite more than 1,000 NGO's appealing for the Duma to reject it. This Friday, December 16, the Duma has scheduled a second reading of the bill. As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission, I have worked closely with Commission Cochairman Chris Smith in opposition to this bill. The Helsinki Commission sent a bipartisan, bicameral letter in November--which I cosigned--to the Chairman of the Russian State Duma urging the rejection of this legislation. In particular, the letter emphasized the importance that nongovernmental organizations play in civil society and in fulfilling Russia's obligations as a democratic state and member of the international community.   Russia has made great strides since the end of the Cold War. There were serious concerns that Russia would not have a smooth transition to a fully functioning democracy. I am gravely concerned about recent developments in Russia. President Putin himself has said that “modern Russia's greatest achievement is the democratic process (and) the achievements of civil society." I therefore call on President Putin and the State Duma to be true to their word and reject this bill, to reaffirm their commitment to the democratic process and civil society.

  • Remarks by Christopher H. Smith on Recommending Integration of Croatia into NATO

    Mr. Speaker, I would just thank Chairman Gallegly for sponsoring this resolution. I am happy to be a cosponsor. I would just make the point that this supports the accession of Croatia into NATO. As either chairman or subcommittee chairman of the Global Human Rights and International Ops Committee for 6 years in the 1990s and as either chairman or cochairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have watched very closely the issues relating to Croatia over these many years.   As a matter of fact, Frank Wolf and I actually got into Vukovar while it was under siege and saw the incredible devastation that occurred early in that war with Serbia, and one house after another, one block after another being literally decimated by the Serbian offensive.   But so much has changed. So much has changed dramatically. As a matter of fact, over the last 5 years we have seen the real changes. For a while there, regrettably, the government was very wedded and many people in Croatia to nationalism, and some would even say extreme nationalism. That has now dissipated largely and now we have a Croat group of people, a free press, increasingly the NGOs, the church, all speaking on one accord for more human rights; and I do think over time and hopefully sooner rather than later they will make their way into NATO, provided the additional benchmarks are met.   So this is a good statement of solidarity with the people of Croatia saying that we think it is time. I thank, again, Mr. Gallegly for sponsoring this.   Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Res. 529, I rise in strong support of this resolution that supports the accession of Croatia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have followed developments in Croatia extensively, both as a Chairman of the International Relations Committee and as Chairman or Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission. I can particularly recall--indeed, it would be hard to forget--the horror that accompanied the siege and ultimately the fall of Vukovar during the conflict in Croatia in 1991. That was the year Croatia proclaimed its independence from the disintegrating Yugoslavia. Few would have predicted that in such a short period of time Croatia would be advancing toward European integration at its current pace.   It is true, as stated in this resolution, that since achieving independence, the people of Croatia have built a democratic society, based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and a free market economy. To be more precise, however, it is worth noting that most of this progress occurred in the last five years, after Croatia was able to move beyond the conflict but also to make its own transition away from nationalism. The lack of progress which occurred in the early years of Croatia's independence is not something to hide. It makes the progress achieved since 2000 all the more profound.   It is also true that the people of Croatia deserve the credit. It was the Croatian people who became fed up with supporting the agenda of others. Through non-governmental organizations, independent media outlets and ultimately the ballot box, they earned their independence and freedom. Those representing Croatia's Serb community who made the decision to return to their homes, despite fears and lingering obstacles, also deserve credit for Croatia's progress. They have challenged the country to recover and to reconcile, and Croatia is stronger as a result. The people of Croatia have built a democratic society based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and a free market economy.   They have sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led security force in support of the war on terrorism and have provided strong support to U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Mr. Speaker, just last week, the one remaining impediment to Croatia's entry into NATO was removed when General Ante Gotovina, the alleged Croatian war criminal, was arrested in Spain. General Gotovina has been transferred to The Hague to stand trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.   Mr. Speaker, the resolution states that once it meets NATO guidelines and criteria for membership, Croatia should be invited to join NATO at the earliest possible date. With its location, resources and talented people, a Croatia which satisfies the guidelines and criteria for NATO membership will strengthen the alliance.   Support for Croatia's integration into NATO should also encourage others in the region to make similar progress. Two other Adriatic Charter partners, Albania and Macedonia, immediately come to mind. It is also my deepest hope that Bosnia and Herzegovina, ten years after the Dayton Accords ended the conflict there, can move beyond what have become the restraining effects of that peace agreement's ethnic balancing act, adopt serious constitutional reform and accelerate its integration into Europe as well. Finally, we all hope that people in Serbia will continue their efforts to overcome the bankrupt legacy left by extreme nationalism, in particular by taking every effort to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, so that Serbia, too, can move forward.   H. Res. 529 commends Croatia's significant progress in strengthening its democratic institutions, its support for the global war on terrorism and its ability to make significant contributions to NATO. It also applauds their ongoing cooperation with the international war crimes tribunal.   Mr. Speaker, Croatia is not only a strong ally of the United States. The American and Croatian people share a love of freedom and democracy. Croatia has been a steadfast friend, and it will make an important contribution to security and peace in Europe and throughout the world as a member of NATO.   Both the Europe and Emerging Threats Subcommittee and the House International Relations Committee unanimously approved House Resolution 529, and I urge its passage by the full House.

  • Remarks by Christopher H. Smith on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005

    Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago when Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, the United States assumed a leadership role in combating the modern-day slavery known as human trafficking. As chief sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, or TVPA, helped transform the way governments and the private sector around the world respond to human trafficking.   Enactment of H.R. 972, the reauthorization of the act, will ensure that we continue to make progress and significant in-roads. Along with many new initiatives, H.R. 972 also reauthorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for anti-trafficking programs of all relevant Federal agencies.   It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that in the past 4 years twice as many people in the United States have been prosecuted and convicted for trafficking than in the prior 4-year period. I would note parenthetically in my own State, Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney, has gone after one group of traffickers after another, Russian mobsters and those who have trafficked women in from Latin America, and has gotten convictions while simultaneously liberating the women from this scourge of modern-day slavery. Worldwide, more than 3,000 traffickers were convicted last year, a significant increase from the previous year. These numbers reflect an increasing number of countries adopting the laws necessary to combat trafficking and having the political will to implement those laws.   I would also note that since 2001, more than 800 survivors of trafficking in the United States have been found eligible for assistance. More than 400 victims have received a T visa. Likewise, in many countries, victims--mostly women and young girls--are now receiving shelter, job training, and critical medical assistance.   Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were in Lima, Peru, and went to a trafficking shelter and saw young women who had been trafficked, who were now getting life skills, but also getting the kind of medical and psychological assistance to get their lives back together again.   Without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, much has been accomplished; and yet an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 people are still being trafficked across international borders each and every year. Possibly millions more are trafficked internally within the borders of countries.   Upon enactment, title I of this bill would continue to fight against international trafficking. H.R. 972 will put pressure on international organizations to implement reforms needed to tackle the unconscionable situation of peacekeepers or other international workers being complicit in trafficking and sexual exploitation.   I would point out that on December 6, the OSCE adopted a decision calling on States to prevent peacekeepers from being complicit in trafficking or abusing in a sexual way the local population. We only have to remember what happened in the Congo, where little 13- and 14-year-old girls were raped by U.N. peacekeepers, and that is as recent as just a few months ago. Thankfully, there is a zero tolerance policy now; and, hopefully, it will have real meaning in the field.   Indeed, as confirmed in an October report by Refugees International, peacekeeper reform has not been implemented at some U.N. missions in places such as Haiti and in Liberia because of a deep-seated culture of tolerating sexual exploitation.   H.R. 972 would also require the annual Trafficking in Persons report to include information by groups like the U.N., the OSCE and NATO to eliminate involvement in trafficking by any of the organizations' personnel. We know we can recount one instance after another where in-country when they are in a very authoritative position these personnel, peacekeeping and non-peacekeeping alike, have exploited the local population.   Under H.R. 972, the Secretary of State would also report to Congress before voting for a peacekeeping mission about the measures taken to prevent and, if necessary, punish trafficking or sexual exploitation by peacekeepers.   To ensure that our own house is in order, the bill would create criminal jurisdiction over Federal employees and contractors for trafficking offenses committed overseas while on official business.   The bill will also focus the State Department, USAID and DOD on improving trafficking prevention strategies for post-conflict situations and humanitarian emergencies in which indigenous populations face a heightened vulnerability to violence.   The legislation also would amend the criteria used in the annual TIP report, or Trafficking in Persons report. The new criteria will include consideration of governments' efforts to reduce demand for prostitution, to prevent sex tourism, to ensure that peacekeeping troops do not exploit trafficking victims, and to prevent forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards.   Unlike transnational cases of trafficking, few governments are yet willing to recognize internal trafficking within their own borders. Even in the United States, Mr. Speaker, American citizens and nationals who are trafficked domestically, often from one State to another, are still viewed through the lens of juvenile delinquency, rather than victims of crime, worthy of compassion and assistance.   Title II of H.R. 972 shines a new light on our own domestic trafficking problem. Enactment of this bill will begin to shift the paradigms so that these exploited girls and women will receive assistance that they so desperately need.   I would like to thank my good friend and colleague, Deborah Pryce for her good work on this provision. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) was the author of legislation, the End Demand Act, and those provisions are in this legislation, mostly intact, and I want to thank her for her leadership in doing that. It will make a difference for many American girls, mostly the runaways who are then victimized by the traffickers; and I certainly appreciate her work on this.   The bill's domestic provisions, Mr. Speaker, respond to a very real need, and I will give my colleagues one example. On December 6, there was an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that said that Seattle has become a major hub on the child trafficking circuit. The article states: ``Despite Seattle's extensive network of services for youths, there is one 15-bed temporary shelter, it is the only place, other than a jail cell, where children trapped in prostitution can find respite, albeit brief. There is nothing in the city, or even in Washington State, dedicated to helping young people permanently free themselves from sex work.''   We find that is the case all over the country, including my own State of New Jersey.   Having seen this void, again, this legislation responds. It also provides money for a pilot program under the Department of Health and Human Services to help these victims of trafficking.   The bill also, Mr. Speaker, enhances State and local efforts through grants to encourage the enforcement of anti-trafficking and anti-prostitution laws, re-education programs, modeled after what they call ``john schools'' for people arrested for soliciting prostitution, and training for law enforcement on how to work compassionately and effectively with trafficked persons. All of the funded programs will involve collaboration between law enforcement agencies and NGOs.   Again, I would just like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this legislation: Chairman Sensenbrenner, who marked this legislation up and wrote some very, very good provisions; again, I mentioned Chairman Pryce who, again, was so effective in getting the domestic language into this bill; Chairman Hunter, Chairman Barton, Chairman Hyde, my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lantos, who is ever a great friend and colleague when it comes to anything dealing with human rights and, in particular, on human trafficking.   I also want to thank our Republican leadership, particularly Majority Leader Blunt and Mike Pence, who were original cosponsors, along with almost 100 Members of the House, both sides of the aisle, that have joined in to make this legislation possible. I also want to thank a number of staff members who were instrumental in getting this bill to the floor: Eleanor Nagy, Director of Policy for the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee of the committee I serve as chairman; Maureen Walsh, to my left, General Counsel of the OSCE, or Helsinki Commission; Renee Austell; Jack Scharfen; and David Abramowitz. Again, David and I worked with Joseph Reese, way back when the first bill was enacted, and he did yeomen's work on writing provisions and working with us. Dr. King as well for his great work. Katy Crooks from the Judiciary Committee. And Cassie Bevin from the Majority Leader's Office. There are just so many people who have corroborated on this, and I want to thank them for their tremendous work.

  • Romania's Ban on Intercountry Adoptions

    Mr. Speaker, last month I introduced a resolution, H. Res. 578, expressing disappointment that the Government of Romania has instituted a virtual ban on intercountry adoptions that has very serious implications for the welfare and well-being of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission), I am pleased to be joined as original cosponsors by the Commission's Ranking House Member, Representative Cardin, fellow Commissioners Representative Pitts and Pence as well as Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Representative Burton, and Representative Northup, Costello, Jo Ann Davis, Tiahrt, Bradley and Frank.   Mr. Speaker, the children of Romania, and all children, deserve to be raised in permanent families. Timely adoption of H. Res. 578 will put the Congress on record:   Supporting the desire of the Government of Romania to improve the standard of care and well-being of children in Romania;   Urging the Government of Romania to complete the processing of the intercountry adoption cases which were pending when Law 273/2004 was enacted;   Urging the Government of Romania to amend its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease barriers to adoption, both domestically and intercountry, including by allowing intercountry adoption by persons other than biological grandparents;   Urging the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to work collaboratively with the Government of Romania to achieve these ends; and   Requesting that the European Union and its member States not impede the Government of Romania's efforts to place orphaned or abandoned children in permanent homes in a manner that is consistent with Romania's obligations under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.   In 1989, the world watched in horror as images emerged from Romania of more than 100,000 underfed, neglected children living in hundreds of squalid and inhumane institutions throughout that country. Six weeks after the end of the dictatorial regime of Nicolae Ceausescu, I visited Romania and witnessed the misery and suffering of these institutionalized children. They were the smallest victims of Ceausescu's policies which undermined the family and fostered the belief that children were often better cared for in an institution than by their families.   Americans responded to this humanitarian nightmare with an outpouring of compassion. For years now, Americans have volunteered their labor and donated money and goods to help Romania improve conditions in these institutions. Many families in the United States also opened their hearts to Romania's children through adoption. Between 1990 and 2004, more than 8,000 children found permanent families in the U.S.; thousands of others joined families in Western Europe.   The legacies of Ceausescu's rule continue to haunt Romania and, when coupled with widespread poverty, have led to the continued abandonment of Romania's children. According to a March 2005 report by UNICEF, “child abandonment in 2003 and 2004 [in Romania] was no different from that occurring 10, 20, or 30 years ago.” UNICEF reports that more than 9,000 children a year are abandoned in Romania's maternity wards or pediatric hospitals. According to the European Union, 37,000 children remain in institutions; nearly 49,000 more live in nonpermanent settings in “foster care” or with extended families. An unknown number of children live on the streets.   During Romania's first decade of post-communist transition, the corruption which plagued Romania's economy and governance also seeped into the adoption system. There is no question that corruption needed to be rooted out. The U.S. Government and the U.S. Helsinki Commission have been steadfast in our support of Romania's efforts to combat corruption and to promote the rule of law and good governance.   I strongly disagree, however, with supporters of the current ban on intercountry adoption who allege that it was a necessary anti-corruption measure. There are many indications that corruption has been used as a hook to advance an ulterior agenda in opposition to intercountry adoption. In the context of Romania's desire to accede to the European Union, unsubstantiated allegations have been made about the fate of adopted children and the qualifications and motives of those who adopt internationally. Romanian policy makers chose to adopt this law against intercountry adoption in an effort to secure accession despite the fact, as stated in H. Res. 578, that there is no European Union law or regulation restricting intercountry adoptions to biological grandparents or requiring that restrictive laws be passed as a prerequisite for accession to the European Union.   The resolution notes that the Romanian Government declared a moratorium on international adoptions in 2001 but continued to accept new applications and allowed many such applications to be processed under an exception for extraordinary circumstances. Then, in June 2004, Law 273/2004 was adopted, taking effect on January 1, 2005, which banned intercountry adoption except in the exceedingly rare case of a child's biological grandparent living outside the country. At the time of enactment, approximately 1,500 adoption applications were registered with the Romanian Government; of these, 200 children had been matched with prospective parents from the United States and the remainder from Western Europe.   Intercountry adoption is, and always should be, anchored on the need to find homes for children, not to find children for would-be parents. Nonetheless, the individuals who applied to adopt Romanian children in the past few years committed their hearts to these children and we must recognize that the Romanian Government's mishandling of their applications has put them through a years-long emotional agony. H. Res. 578 calls on the Government to conclude the processing of these cases in a transparent and timely manner. Since introduction of the resolution, the Romanian press has reported that intercountry adoption would be denied in all of the pending cases. If indeed this is accurate, then it is impossible to believe that the standard applied in each case was that of the best interest of the child.   Romania's new adoption law and another addressing child protection, Law 272/2004, create a hierarchy of placement for orphaned or abandoned children. By foreclosing the option of intercountry adoption, the laws codified the misguided proposition that a foster family, or even an institution, is preferable to an adoptive family outside the child's country of birth.   On November 29, the European Commission issued a press release stating that “according to the Romanian Office for Adoptions, there are 1,355 Romanian families registered to adopt one of the 393 children available for adoption. Thus there is little scope, if any, for international adoptions.” The European Commission's press release fails to mention that more than 80,000 children in Romania are growing up without permanent families, in orphanages, foster care, maternity hospitals, or on the streets. That less than 400 have been declared available for adoption is a denunciation of the child welfare system. Barely 1,000 children have ever been domestically adopted in Romania in any given year and since enactment of the new laws in 2004, the rate of domestic adoption has fallen further. There is no doubt that if more children were to be made available for adoption, there would be a great need for intercountry adoption to provide them with permanent, loving homes. For thousands of children abandoned annually in Romania, intercountry adoption offered the hope of a life outside of foster care or an institution. That hope has now been taken away. This will fall hardest on the Roma children who are least likely to be adopted in-country due to pervasive societal prejudice.   The Romanian Government and the European Commission are attempting to use a Potemkin Village to hide a grim reality of suffering children and bureaucratic obstacles which prevent them from being declared legally available for adoption. In one case that has come to the Commission's attention, an adoptive family is waiting for biological parents to sign away their rights to a child they abandoned at birth and who has spent the first four years of her life with her prospective adoptive parents. She knows no other parents. Her biological parents have on four previous occasions relinquished their parental rights and yet, because of the new laws, the child has still not been declared available for adoption.   Other sources also belie a Potemkin approach. A November 5th article in the British journal The Lancet entitled “Romania's Abandoned Children are Still Suffering,” quotes a charity worker saying, “of course something needs to be done to help the children here, but at the moment all the Romanian government is doing is signing forms sending children back to their parents ..... It doesn't seem to matter that the parents might be alcoholics or have no means to look after their kids as long as the numbers are cut.” The article continues, “Romanian authorities have proudly claimed that last year only 1,483 children aged 0-2 years were in state institutions, compared with 7,483 in 1997. But those figures do not include hospitals, where staff admit they rely on donations from charities and individuals to keep helping such children. ..... The head of the Neonatology Department at the University Hospital in Bucharest says abandoned children stay on average for 6-7 months [and] the situation is almost as bad as it was in Ceausescu's time.'' The article also quotes the head of the Neonatology Section at the Bucur Maternity Hospital, also in Bucharest, as saying “last year, we had more abandoned kids than ever because the law changed. And it changed for the worse for the people in the maternity wards because the law forbids us to send children under 2 years old to state orphanages.”   At a Helsinki Commission hearing on September 14, Dr. Dana Johnson, Director of the International Adoption Clinic and Neonatology Division at the University of Minnesota Children's Hospital, testified that Romania's concentration on the reunification of an abandoned child with his or her biological family is only superficially consistent with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. According to Dr. Johnson, “in neither of those documents is the mention of time. . . . It doesn't tell you how long you should spend reunifying that child with the family. . . . Contemporary child development research has clearly shown that there is a known amount of deterioration that occurs in children who are in hospitals or institutional care and outside of family care during the first few years of life. . . . You can predict that every child who is in institutional care during that period of time will lose one month of physical growth, one month of motor development, one month of speech development for every three months they're in institutional care. You also can predict that from age four months through 24 months of age, they will lose one to two I.Q. points a month during that period of time. The other thing we know is that by placing them into a caring, competent family, that you can recover some of this function. . . . A child that is abandoned in Romania today at the end of next summer will have permanently lost 15 I.Q. points. That child two years from now will have permanently lost 30 I.Q. points, which means that half of those kids are going to be mentally retarded.”   Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking for Romania's children. H. Res. 578 notes that Romania is a party to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption which recognizes that “intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her State of origin.” State Department officials and nongovernmental experts from the adoption and child welfare communities have testified that Romania's child welfare and adoption laws are inconsistent with Romania international commitments under this and other agreements.   The resolution further notes that UNICEF has issued an official statement in support of intercountry adoption which, in pertinent part, reads: “for children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care, which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. Intercountry adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution. In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.”   Finally, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the role of the European Union in this debacle, I ask who in the European Union will stand with Members of Congress to protect these defenseless children? All children deserve better than to spend their lives in group homes or warehoused in institutions where their physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual well-being is critically endangered. It is indeed tragic if the price of admission to the European Union is the sacrifice of thousands of Romania's orphaned or abandoned children.   I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. For the sake of the innumerable children in need of permanent families, the voice of the United States Congress must be heard clearly in this transatlantic dialogue on intercountry adoption.

  • Remarks by Benjamin L. Cardin on Recommending Integration of Croatia into NATO

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution as the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission. I visited Croatia in 2000, shortly after new leadership came into power, and I was confident of the country's commitment to reform. I believe, 5 years later, we have seen that the people of Croatia truly are committed to reform.   Of particular interest to me as a determinant of U.S. policy toward southeastern Europe has been the degree to which countries cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague. While Croatia has had a generally good record in this regard, the Gotovina case remained as a blot on that record. Fortunately, with Gotovina's recent apprehension on Spain's Canary Islands, Croatia can put this issue behind it.   I hope, however, that the people of Croatia will view the work of the Tribunal as a necessary step to determine guilt or innocence, and that Croatian courts will similarly seek justice regarding cases relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity that it considers, regardless of who was responsible for these crimes and who were the victims.   I also call for all remaining indictees to be apprehended and transferred to The Hague, in particular Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. The House made a similar call earlier this year when passing the resolution marking the massacre at Srebrenica in Bosnia. There has been some progress this year, but both Bosnian Serb and Serbian authorities need to do more. Otherwise, they will fall further behind in European and Euro-Atlantic integration to their own detriment.

  • Remarks by Christopher H. Smith Urging Russian Federation to Withdraw Legislation Restricting Establishment of Nongovernmental Organizations

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 312, introduced by the very distinguished chairman of our full committee, Chairman Henry Hyde, urging the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have a chilling effect on civil society in that country.   Amazingly, as Russia prepares to assume leadership of the G-8 and the Council of Europe next month, Russian lawmakers have been working feverishly to subordinate pockets of independent thought and action to state control. The focus of recent days has been on nongovernmental organizations, especially those working in the fields of human rights and democracy. In essence, the provisions would require all nongovernmental organizations to re-register with a government commission empowered with invasive powers to monitor NGO activities.   The Duma has passed amendments to the Law on Public Associations by a vote of 370-18, but the measure must go through further readings scheduled for next week and signed then by Vladimir Putin before it becomes law. In mid-November, members of the Helsinki Commission, which I am co-chair of, sent a letter which I will make a part of the RECORD to the Speaker of the Russian Duma, Boris Gryzlov, urging the Duma to reject the pending proposed amendments, purportedly crafted with input from Putin's advisers.   The move against NGOs, Mr. Speaker, is not occurring in a vacuum, but is calculated to move in a lead-up to the critical parliamentary elections that are scheduled for 2007 and a presidential contest the following year to replace Putin, who is prevented from seeking another term.   In response to expressions of concern from the United States and others, some modifications to the draft are apparently being considered, though it is still unclear the extent to which the amendments will be revamped. We will not have a full picture until next week. By then, it may be too late to change before landing on President Putin's desk. Thus, consideration of Chairman Hyde's measure comes at a critical time for the House to be on record opposing the burdensome compulsory registration requirements being proposed.   As originally drafted, the proposed amendments will require Russia's approximately 450,000 NGOs to re-register with a government commission under a complicated registration procedure and would expand the ability of the government to deny registration permission.   Financial auditing, a tactic currently used to harass opposition NGOs, would also become more intrusive under the bill's provisions. No doubt there would be negative impact on foreign-based organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and the Carnegie Foundation, while increasing controls over NGOs of Russian origin.   Mr. Speaker, whatever package of amendments to the legal framework for NGOs in Russia finally emerges, they must be evaluated in light of that country's commitments as a member of the Council of Europe and participating state in the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe. Do the proposals under consideration in the Russian Duma fully respect the right of individuals to freedom of association, or do they undermine that fundamental freedom under the guise of fighting corruption and terrorism? That is the key question. This resolution gets us on record, and hopefully it will have some sway with the Duma and with President Putin.   Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter I referred to earlier to the Chairman of the Russian State Duma, Boris Gryzlov.

  • The Dayton Agreement's Tenth Anniversary

    Mr. Speaker, the tenth anniversary of the Dayton "General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina" is being commemorated here in Washington, in Dayton, Ohio, and in various European capitals.   Despite its shortcomings, the Dayton Agreement has, in fact, formed the basis for maintaining peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and building a country devastated by a horrible conflict that included atrocities on a scale not seen in Europe since World War II. The very fact that discussions now center on moving beyond the confinement of Dayton's provisions through constitutional reform is a confirmation of the agreement's success. This success, as is widely known, did not come easily but required constant pressure from the international community.   One area of particular concern to me has been the necessity, recognized in Dayton, to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague and commonly known as ICTY, in order to punish those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Officials in Republika Srpska, one of the two political entities into which Dayton divided Bosnia and Herzegovina, have been particularly recalcitrant in this regard, and most persons captured in this entity have been through the efforts of NATO-led peacekeeping units. Officials in Serbia have also resisted cooperating with The Hague in transferring indictees and providing access to evidence and witnesses.   Fortunately, a combination of outside pressure--including conditionality on assistance and on Euro-Atlantic and European integration--and increasing revelations of the true nature of the Milosevic regime and its activities have led to considerable improvements in the last year. Many more individuals have now been taken into custody. Both in Bosnia and in Serbia, it is increasingly recognized that cooperation with international tribunal will not go away as a demand of the international community. Some go a step further and note that the same criminal circles which harbor persons indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide also undermine democratic institutions and thwart economic recovery. Some, but too few, also see it as a moral necessity to recognize the horrors that were committed in name of the nation.   I applaud the efforts of those brave persons representing non-governmental organizations who have helped to document the atrocities which have taken place and increased public awareness of what really happened. I am also pleased to know that, ten years after Dayton, a War Crimes Chamber in the Courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been established and, with continued assistance, will relieve ICTY's work load and continue its work as necessary. Together, prosecuting war crimes will provide justice to the victims, strengthen the rule of law in the region, and hopefully serve to deter future war criminals from committing crimes against humanity.   There would be added enthusiasm for commemorating Dayton, however, if it were coupled with the arrest and transfer of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who have been indicted by ICTY particularly for their responsibility regarding the genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995. The House commemorated the anniversary of that horrific event in which almost 8,000 individuals, mostly men and boys, were massacred in the days following an assault on the undeclared "safe haven." Other at-large indictees also must be arrested and transferred.   I therefore use this time, the commemoration of the Dayton Agreement signed ten years ago, to call upon those authorities in Serbia and in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina to do the right thing, apprehend the remaining indicted persons, transfer them, and erase this as an outstanding issue not only in our bilateral relations but as an obstacle to integration. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to continue to support efforts that require consideration of ICTY cooperation as a determinant of U.S. policy.

  • Riding Roughshod Over Rights in Belarus

    Mr. Speaker, as co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission and the sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act, I remain deeply concerned about the violations of human rights occurring every day in Lukashenka's Belarus.   During a recent news conference, the autocratic Belarusian leader expressed confidence in his victory in the presidential election scheduled for next year, rhetorically asking why should he be rigging this election. Given his intensified assault on civil society, his dismal human rights record, and penchant for rigged elections, Mr. Lukashenka's statements ring hollow. Yet, Lukashenka's actions against democratic forces, non-governmental organizations and the independent media belie his stated confidence regarding electoral victory.   Last week, the lower chamber of Lukashenka's pocket parliament passed a law endorsing tougher new penalties for activities “directed against people and public security,” a proposal submitted to the parliament only days before passage. These changes to the Criminal Code increase penalties for participation in organizations that were liquidated or warned to stop their pro-democratic activities, or for the training and other preparations for unauthorized demonstrations or other civic actions.   Mr. Speaker, to cite just one of the draconian provisions, the Code now gives authorities the leeway to jail an individual for up to 2 years for “providing a foreign country, a foreign or international organization with patently false information about the political, economic, social, military, and international situation of the Republic of Belarus.” Putting aside the matter of such a provision violating free speech norms, if the past is any guide, it is clear who would be the arbiter of what constitutes “false information.” There can be no doubt that the law aims to stifle the democratic opposition, and the head of the KGB (yes, in Belarus it is still called the KGB) himself recently admitted that the reasons for the law is to discourage street protests during the upcoming presidential race.   This law, while particularly blatant, is part and parcel of other actions designed to strengthen the regime's control and deny the Belarusian people any alternative voices as the presidential election campaign unfolds. Last month, a new law further controlling political parties came into force. A recent Council of Ministers decree clamps down on organizations that conduct public opinion polls. A Lukashenka decree further discriminates against independent trade unions, stipulating that only trade unions belonging to the pro-governmental federation are granted the right to premises at no cost. Yet another decree considerably limits students' opportunities to travel abroad.   Meanwhile, opposition activists are routinely beaten up or detained. Just last week, for instance, Ales Kalita was detained and at the hands of the police suffered a dislocated arm for merely distributing the independent newspaper “Narodna Volya.” Viktor Syritsya, a lecturer at Baranavichi College was fired for organizing a meeting of students with presidential opposition candidate Alexander Milinkevich. Belarusian State Economic University in Minsk expelled fourth-year student Tatsyana Khoma because she took a brief trip to France, where she was elected to the executive committee of the Brussels-based National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), an umbrella organization of 44 national student unions from 34 countries. The police beat activist Mikita Sasim. They detained youth activists Yauhen Afnagel and others. Other repressive actions include frequent arrests of activists of democratic youth movements such as ZUBR, a ban on worship by some religious congregations and other repressive actions against selected religious minorities, and continued harassment of members of the Union of Poles in Belarus.   Moreover, there is an emerging pattern of the regime putting obstacles in the way of Mr. Milinkevich. Recently, a public meeting he held in Borbuisk was disrupted by the authorities, with participants being told by the authorities to go home and threatened with tax inspections. During a press conference, the electricity in the room was cut off, as well as a “hot-line” phone with town residents.   Especially egregious has been the regime's intensification of the war against the already repressed and struggling independent media. Newspaper closures, suspensions, threats, and exorbitant and absurd libel fines, pressures on advertisers and other forms of harassment have become routine. Outright police confiscations of independent newspapers are also not uncommon. A seemingly more subtle tactic, implemented just a few weeks ago, involved the decision by Belarus' monopoly state postal service to stop delivery to subscribers of a dozen private periodicals. Meanwhile, the suspicious murder in 2004 of journalist Veronika Charkasova has not been resolved. Authorities have refused to open a criminal investigation into journalist Vasil Hrodnikau's death. Lukashenka himself recently admitted to Russian journalists that his regime applies very serious pressure on the media, somewhat incongruously adding that ``this does not mean I am crushing them.''   Mr. Speaker, what I have cited is by no means an exhaustive list of abuses perpetrated by the Lukashenka regime, merely a sampling of the types of repressive actions employed on a daily basis by Europe's last dictator. As Helsinki Commission Co-Chair, I will continue to monitor closely and speak out forcefully regarding these and other violations of Belarus' freely undertaken OSCE commitments. I urge the Bush Administration to step up efforts to break the Lukashenka regime's near monopoly over the country's information space and provide timely assistance to pro-democracy forces in Belarus.   It is clear that Mr. Lukashenka and his minions are laying the groundwork for yet another un-free and unfair election--similar to the 2001 presidential elections and the 2000 and 2004 parliamentary elections--that will fall far short of OSCE standards. Lukashenka is once again showing that, despite his confident rhetoric, he fears his own people and profoundly fails to respect their dignity as citizens and as human beings.

  • Ten Years After Dayton

    Mr. Speaker, ten years ago this month a genocidal conflict was brought to an end in the Balkans. By initialing a "General Framework for Peace" at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, on November 21, 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged from almost four years of that conflict wondering whether it could survive as an independent unitary state and recover from the utter destruction not only of its towns and cities but of its own, multi-ethnic society. Time dulls our recollection of what the carnage in Bosnia was really about, so I believe it important to recall the nature of this, the most horrific phase of Yugoslavia's violent and bloody demise. Active on the Helsinki Commission which I co-chair today, I took part in many sobering hearings which documented the atrocities and discussed policy responses. The Bosnian conflict was, in large part, characterized not by opposing military forces but by groups of thugs, armed and orchestrated by the Milosevic regime in Serbia, wreaking havoc on innocent civilians. Tens of thousands were raped or tortured in detention centers and camps established across the country. While figures may vary substantially, the death toll is commonly estimated at about 200,000, while two million people--half the country's population--were displaced. We can well remember the photos of emaciated detainees at Omarska, the live coverage of the shelling and siege of Sarajevo, and the recently released video footage of the execution of captured young men near Srebrenica. While the decreasing advantages enjoyed by the Serb militants by late 1995 made a settlement possible, the Dayton Agreement did, in fact, help to bring this nightmare to an end. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that its compromises reflect a failure by the international community, including the United States, to intervene much earlier in the conflict in response to clear violations of international principles and what many, including myself, consider genocide. The international community repeatedly failed to take decisive action, including the credible threat of the use of force, to compel the brazen Serb militants to stop their aggression. Instead, time was spent deploying peacekeeping forces under United Nations auspices when there was no peace to keep. UNPROFOR's presence thwarted more effective responses, such as lifting the arms embargo which denied the sovereign country of Bosnia and Herzegovina its right, as a member of the United Nations, to defend itself. As town after town, including some declared to be "safe-havens" by the United Nations, fell to the forces of ethnic cleansing, the international community acquiesced to a reality, codified by Dayton, of a country divided into two political entities characterized by an ethnic bias unworthy of 21st century democracy. One entity is a Bosnian Federation forged by the United States in 194 between Bosnia's Muslims or Bosniaks, and Croats. The other entity, Republika Srpska, is dominated by Serbs and represents what the militants among them started the conflict to create. The compromises accepted at Dayton, influenced by years of international inaction, also have made subsequent implementation difficult, and extremely expensive in terms of personnel, equipment and funds. Many persons indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide evaded justice for years, some to wreak havoc later in Kosovo and elsewhere, and some like Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, remain at large. With the economy destroyed and both organized crime and official corruption rampant, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina became passive and dependent on the international community for their very survival. Perhaps the greatest flaw in the Dayton Agreement was its heavy reliance on Slobodan Milosevic himself to follow its terms, which he did only under considerable pressure. Betting on the man most responsible for igniting the conflict meant undercutting the development of democratic forces in Serbia which are necessary for the long-term stability of southeastern Europe. Many of us worked hard to correct this flaw in the immediate post-Dayton years, and continue to encourage democratic forces in Serbia to reckon fully with the Milosevic legacy. Fortunately, along with the eventual ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, we have seen more vigorous and positive action to move ahead in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the past five years. More of the displaced have returned to their original homes than was thought possible when Dayton was negotiated. It hasn't been easy for many who return as members of a minority population, but determination has helped them to prevail. More and more individuals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including Milosevic, have been transferred to The Hague, and, at a recent Helsinki Commission briefing, we learned that Bosnia's own War Crimes Chamber has been established and is ready to conduct sensitive trials in accordance with the rule of law. Srebrenica is being acknowledged as the crime that it was. Defense and police reform are underway, helping to pave the way for Bosnia's further Euro-Atlantic and European integration. The region around Brcko, so brutally contested during the conflict that not even Dayton could determine its status, now provides a model of multiethnic cooperation and economic recovery for the rest of the country. There are now discussions of constitutional reforms which, if adopted, will hopefully make the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina a sum of its citizens and not a balance of its ethnicities. If the Dayton Agreement succeeded in anything, Mr. Speaker, it was because its detailed provisions and improved implementation have provided the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina with both the parameters of a state and enough time to bring their country back from the abyss. I have increasing confidence that they will succeed in moving from what was admittedly a "General Framework for Peace'' to a solid basis for unity, freedom, prosperity and integration. In the meantime, the international community has much it still needs to learn and develop. The conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina gave new purpose to NATO and enabled it to begin operating out of area. Fifty years after the Holocaust, those who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide no longer operate with complete impunity. Still, the international community, whether the United States and its allies, regional bodies or the United Nations, remains slow in responding to human suffering, or in recognizing the implications massive human rights violations can have on international security. It too readily accepts the reality of innocent people being attacked, brutalized and killed. Look at the response during the assault on Srebrenica and then at the response to Darfur today; the similarities are strong. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that Dayton's tenth anniversary is commemorated in a way that includes not only encouragement for Bosnia and Herzegovina to move beyond the agreement's limiting provisions, but encouragement for all policymakers to learn from the lessons of inaction in the face of evil.

  • Coerced Sterilizations in the Czech Republic and Slovakia

    Mr. Speaker, last week, the district court in the Czech town of Ostrava reached a very important decision. The court concluded that, in 2001 after the birth of her second child, a local Romani woman was sterilized without informed consent. In fact, since last year, the Czech Ombudsman has been examining dozens of similar cases. Although he has not yet issued any public findings, it is expected that the Ombudsman will confirm that many other Romani women experienced similar violations of their rights, as documented by several Czech human rights groups and the European Roma Rights Center.  Sadly, the issue of sterilizations without informed consent is not new in this region. As early as 1977, the dissident group Charter 77 reported on systematic efforts to target Romani women in Czechoslovakia for coerced sterilization. While the vast majority of sterilizations in the Czech Republic and Slovakia since 1989 were performed with informed consent, the Ostrava case demonstrates that the practice of performing sterilizations without informed consent did not completely end with the fall of the communist regime.  That precedent-setting court decision sheds light on a number of legal points in one specific case. At the same time, there are many larger questions still at issue, including whether racism against Roma contributed to the abuse. Frankly, given the large percentage of Roma among the victims of sterilization without informed consent compared with the small percentage of the Czech population that Roma constitute, it is hard for me to believe that race did not play some role. There are, of course, other possible factors to consider: what role did a poor quality of medical care or training play in these cases of medical malpractice? Did a lack of respect for an individual's liberty--a hold-over mentality from the totalitarian period--also contribute to the abuse?  I welcome the Ostrava court's decision and commend the plaintiff in that case, Helena Ferencikova, for her courage in bringing it forward. I have also been heartened by the apparent seriousness of the Ombudsman's investigation into this difficult and sensitive matter.  Unfortunately, similar issues in neighboring Slovakia continue to be met with government denials and stonewalling.  In 2003, the Slovak Government concluded a year-long investigation into allegations that some Romani women were sterilized without informed consent, even after the fall of communism. That investigation was deeply flawed. At one point, for example, a spokesperson for the Minister for Human Rights threatened that anyone bringing forward allegations of sterilization without informed consent would go to jail, one way or another. This is not the way to foster confidence in an investigation or to encourage victims to speak out.  Significantly, the Czech investigation and the Slovak investigation both revolved around the same 1992 Czechoslovak law on sterilizations, put in place before the two countries split apart. Czech authorities have understood that law as requiring that sterilizations had to be requested by the person who was going to be sterilized, that there had to be evidence of consent by that person, and that consent had to be meaningfully informed. Being "informed" means, for example, that the expectant mother must be told why the procedure is necessary. If someone was given false information about the procedure, which was the case in many instances, then she was not meaningfully "informed."  When interpreting the same law, however, Slovak authorities maintained that consent did not have to be "informed." Accordingly, Slovak investigators examined numerous cases where there was no informed consent but still concluded there was no violation of the 1992 law because, according to their twisted logic, consent didn't have to be informed!  In reality, the Slovak Government seemed to organize its investigation into the sterilization cases in a way that was designed to cover up the magnitude of the problem. The Slovak Government's investigation revealed seven cases of Romani minors who were sterilized in violation of the then-existing Slovak law. In reality, the Slovak Government's interpretation of the concept of "consent" could not be reconciled with modern health norms and had to be changed to explicitly require that consent is informed. (The new law went into effect at the beginning of this year.) In reality, numerous international officials have repeatedly expressed concern over the sterilization practices in the Slovak Republic and the inadequacy of the Slovak Government's response to them, including in the April 2005 report on the situation of Roma issued by the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner.  In light of all this, it is extremely frustrating to read that Slovak officials have, in recent months, made misleading statements about this important issue. Apparently one official has even declared that "illegal sterilizations of Romani women never happened in Slovakia."  Mr. Speaker, when the institutions of justice are perceived to follow one set of rules for the majority and another for minorities, this is a recipe for social unrest--as we know from our own painful history.  I understand that it is always a difficult exercise for any government to admit its own wrongdoing or the wrongdoings of the majority society--we know this, too. But Romani mistrust of government institutions will only deepen if the Slovak Government persists in denying the wrongs perpetrated against their community.

  • Religious Speech Limitations in Sweden

    Mr. Speaker, freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief is a fundamental element of international human rights norms. It is inextricably intertwined with other fundamental rights, including the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Considering this, I am increasingly concerned by European trends to place limitations on religious speech under the guise of preventing offense or limiting hate speech. One such case concerns Ake Green, the pastor of a Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, who was sentenced to 1 month in prison for “inciting hatred” against homosexuals.   Pastor Green’s troubles began on July 20, 2003, when he expressed his disapproval of homosexuality in a sermon, founded upon his understanding of the Bible. He did not incite nor encourage his congregation on the small southeastern island of Oland to violence. He did, however, express his personal opinion on homosexuality and made a personal moral judgment that the lifestyle was sinful. He later circulated the sermon text to media outlets in an attempt to insert an alternative view into Sweden’s “marketplace of ideas.”   When prosecutors saw the sermon printed, they brought charges against Pastor Green for “inciting hate” toward homosexuals. A district court agreed in June 2004, finding his sermon to be criminal. One particularly alarming quote from the district court’s decision stated, “It is forbidden to use the Bible or similar material to threaten or express disrespect for homosexuals as a group.” Mr. Speaker, should pastors really be sent to jail for sermons that a court deems “disrespectful” or “offensive”? Should the state really dictate how a religious leader interprets the Bible, the Torah, or other religious texts? The district court’s ruling raises the question of whether ministers and priests in Sweden are really free to preach their beliefs.   I recognize that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and not all speech is protected. After 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings, we have all seen how criminals abuse religion to preach violence and lead others in criminal deeds. Authorities are within their rights to take legal action to curtail the speech when it rises to the level of posing an imminent threat of actual criminal action. The international community and the European Court of Human Rights have recognized this high threshold for limiting speech activity. Yet we must be careful to not limit religious liberties and speech rights.   Thankfully, Pastor Green has not spent a night in jail while his case is on appeal. Also encouraging was the February decision by an appellate court to overturn the conviction, saying it is not illegal to preach a personal interpretation of the Bible. However, Sweden’s chief prosecutor, Fredrik Wersaell, appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that Green violated Sweden’s 2003 hate crimes law. The Supreme Court will hear the appeal on November 9th.   Undoubtedly, Swedes enjoy tremendous religious freedoms and generally Sweden is a staunch defender of human rights. However, in this case, the government has sought to limit basic religious teachings. I believe the criminalization of the use of the Bible to express beliefs, if not overturned, will have frighteningly broad ramifications for the free practice of religion in Sweden and beyond.

  • Recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the Solidarity Movement in Poland

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 328, a resolution recognizing the 25th anniversary of the workers' strikes in Poland in 1980 that led to the establishment of the Solidarity Trade Union.  This legislation praises Polish workers in the shipyards of Gdansk and Szczecin for rising up against the repressive Soviet controlled communist regime in demand of greater political freedom. The actions of these courageous and peaceful individuals were directly responsible for the establishment of the Solidarity Trade Union, a profound social movement that ultimately ended communism in Poland without bloodshed.  This resolution rightly expresses the sense of Congress that our government should recognize and honor the struggle and sacrifice of the citizens of Poland, whose tireless efforts succeeded in restoring democracy to their country while simultaneously highlighting the correlation between organized labor and strong democratic institutions.  Now, more than ever, it is important that Congress pay tribute to, and support, those nations that willingly and actively allow the unimpeded formation of labor unions. For it is those countries that exhibit the most free and fair democratic policies. No such phenomenon is better exemplified than in the case of the Solidarity Trade Union. The formation of this important group ultimately led to the election of Poland's first post-World War II non-communist Prime Minister, Mr. Tadeusz Mazawiecki.  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this legislation and encourage my colleagues' support. It should be a priority of this Congress to pay homage to members of the Solidarity Trade Union on the 25th anniversary of its inception and acknowledge the ensuing bond of friendship that has flourished between our two nations on account of workers' rights.

  • Recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the Solidarity Movement in Poland

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H . Res . 328, recognizing the 25th anniversary of the workers' strikes in Poland that led to the founding of Solidarity. Mr. Speaker, Stalin once said that trying to impose communism on Poland was like trying to put a saddle on a cow. As history showed, that was one time the Soviet Union's dictator was right. From the end of World War II, when the Soviet Union spread its suffocating net across a Central Europe devastated by war, Poles struggled to be free. Time and again, from the 1956 riots in Poznan, when workers took to the streets “For Bread and For Freedom,” through the intellectual upheavals of the 1960s, Poles struggled to stretch the boundaries of freedom. Each time, they came closer, but each time they were pulled back into the Soviet fold.  The year 1976 marked an historic turning point. In that year, Polish intellectuals stood outside the court room door while workers stood inside, waiting for verdicts to be meted out against them for their strikes at the Ursus tractor factory. At those trials, only family members were allowed to be present. And, as one onerous prison sentence after another was handed down, the intellectuals standing outside the courtroom would hear only the sobs of family members. The harshness of the regime only served to galvanize opposition to it.  By 1980, when the workers struck in Gdansk, they were no longer alone; they were joined by intellectuals who had been pursuing a parallel path. The newly elected, Polish-born Pope, John Paul II, had countenanced his countrymen and women to "be not afraid.'' And an extraordinary individual, Lech Walesa, scaled the walls at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk to lead his country to a place in history. The Gdansk shipyard workers had 31 demands, one of which was a call for the Polish Government to fulfill its obligations it had under the in the 1976 Helsinki Final Act.  By December 13, 1981, the Soviet Union had seen enough of this Polish experiment and martial law was imposed. But, it seems, the power of the people could not be truly repressed. The joining of workers and intellectuals in Poland produced the only mass dissident movement in all of Eastern Europe. In spite of mass arrests and other forms of repression during the 1980s, Solidarity remained a force with which to be reckoned and, by 1988, the tide was inexorably turning. In that year, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, a Solidarity activist who--in a few years’ time--would be Minister of Defense, came to Washington and testified before the Helsinki Commission about the human rights situation in his country. It was the first time a dissident from an East European Communist country had testified before Congress and then actually returned to his country. Although authorities briefly considered bringing criminal charges against him for his daring appearance before the Helsinki Commission, those plans were quickly abandoned.  By 1989, Solidarity's disciplined strikes had forced Communist officials to the negotiating table. These so-called “Round-Table Talks” produced an agreement to allow a fraction of the seats in parliament to be openly contested in June elections--the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. In July, when Tadeusz Mazowiecki was elected Poland's first non-Communist Prime Minister in the post-War era, a delegation from the Helsinki Commission, led by Senator DeConcini, sat in the gallery of the parliament and watched this extraordinary moment unfold.  Mr. Speaker, there are many factors that led to the collapse of communism, and many heroes--some tragically fallen--who deserve credit for restoring freedom to Eastern Europe. The Solidarity Trade Union played a singular role in achieving that great goal, and I give my wholehearted support to this resolution which honors the men and women of that movement.

  • Examining Efforts to Eradicate Human Trafficking

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

  • 90th Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide

    Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. Every year we participate in this solemn commemoration but this year it has a special significance.  For the families of the victims and the survivors, the horrors of that bygone era remain so painful that it is hard to believe how much time has passed. The passage of years has not dimmed the memory or eased the grief. Not a relative or friend has been forgotten, nor have fond memories of native cities faded away.  Moreover, no accounting for mass murder has been made. Though many governments and legislative bodies around the world have recognized the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish Government consistently refuses to acknowledge what happened. For Armenians everywhere, Turkey's policy of aggressive denial sharpens the feeling of loss, embittering the lives of those who miraculously survived.  Today, those of us without Armenian blood share the sorrow of Armenians everywhere. I had the privilege in September 2000 of chairing hearings on the Armenian Genocide in the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the International Relations Committee. The reading I have done over the years, which has included detailed descriptions of the atrocities, shock me. But, I am resolved to speak about this issue, loudly and often.  The Armenian Genocide has significance for all of us. It created a monstrous precedent which launched a century of genocides. In numerous countries and cultures, an ethnic group that controlled the state has used its instruments of coercion to slaughter members of a minority group, religion or class. It is enough to recall Adolf Hitler's smug remark, "Who remembers the Armenians?'' to grasp the universality of what happened to the Armenians.  Much has changed in the world since the mass, planned murder in 1915--two world wars, the fall of the Ottoman, Habsburg and Romanov Empires, the rise of the American superpower and most recently, the fall of the Soviet Union. One would have thought that we would have grown wiser over the years. Alas, we have not learned the appropriate lessons from the 20th century's first genocide. Just a few years after Rwanda, at this very moment, another genocide is taking place in Darfur. Yet, instead of mounting a united response, the international community has waffled or slithered away from responsibility, as hundreds of thousands are slaughtered.  The record of man's inhumanity to man is awful enough to produce a feeling of resignation. But we must fight that tendency. We must continue to remind the world of what occurred in 1915 and keep calling on Turkey to won up. We must not restrain ourselves from speaking of the Armenian Genocide. Along with many of my colleagues, I urge President Bush to speak the truth to Ankara, which needs to come to terms with its own past.  As this somber time, I want to note one optimistic point: OSCE negotiators are guardedly hopeful about the prospects of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. True, we have experienced such moments before and should not get our hopes up. Still, I am encouraged to hear that there is at least some reason for hope. We all pray for a peaceful solution to this conflict, which has caused over 30,000 deaths and many more casualties. Next year, when we once again commemorate the Genocide of the Armenians, I hope their descendants will be living in peace with their neighbors, building a democratic, prosperous country that will be a light unto the world.

  • Urging Albanian Authorities to Hold Free and Fair Elections

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

Pages