Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, ex-President Barack Obama, the abortion President, has done serious harm. No human rights abuse, however, need be forever. Today, we have an extraordinary opportunity. We have, I would submit, a duty to protect the weakest and most vulnerable and to reassert protections that have been sadly lacking for the last 44 years. Protecting unborn children and their mothers is the most important human rights cause on Earth. And this week, on Friday, thousands are expected to march for life, to march for this fundamental human right-- the right to live. Now, as never before, we must work, pray, and fast for that day when every life is cherished as a gift; every life loved, despite one's disability, race, sex, color, religion, or condition of dependency; and every life welcomed, no matter the inconvenience. Earlier in this Special Order, Steve King talked about caring for people at every stage of development--every stage--including the unborn. Birth is an event that happens to each and every one of us. It is not the beginning of life. Again, ultrasound imaging of the unborn child has just opened up everyone's eyes to the little child--twins if there are two--that resides within. He also talked about, and I would agree with him, children with disabilities need to be welcomed. A prenatal diagnosis of disability should mean empathy and concern for the child, not exclusion or a death sentence, because every life is a gift. Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging as to how many young people are stepping up to protect and lead in this human rights cause. Increasingly, the young people on college campuses, Students for Life, and so many young people in their 20s, the millennials--and the polling shows the millennials are pro-life--are stepping up. Tom Brokaw often talked about the Greatest Generation. They are stepping up as the next Greatest Generation who by their compassion, faith, and determination will transform America into a culture of life. All of us in the pro-life movement are especially thankful for the growing number of courageous women who are silent no more. Some of the groups are called the Silent No More Awareness campaign. For example, women, all of whom have had abortions, have suffered psychological and emotional harm, and yet they, thank God, have found reconciliation and peace, often through faith. But now they blaze a hope-filled path for other post-abortive women to find healing, reconciliation, and inner peace. They admonish society not to offer the false solution of killing an unborn child. There are two victims in every abortion: the baby, the most obvious, but equally the mother. Women deserve better than the false solution of dismembering or chemically poisoning unborn children. The other side of the issue seldom talks about the child, if ever, don't even use the word abortion much anymore, just choice or reproductive rights, and just refuses to accept or to acknowledge or to debate what the deed actually does. Children have their arms and legs torn off their bodies by the abortionist as well as decapitation. Chemicals literally starve the child to death. RU-486 is euphemistically called medical abortion like the other pills that are provided. First, the child starves in the womb, and then another chemical brings on labor. For the pro-life movement, we all acknowledge that the way forward is fraught with obstacles that must be overcome. The promotion of human rights is never easy. The promotion of human rights is never obstacle free. If past is prologue, the history of the pro-life movement, however, shows that we will never quit. Earlier today, the House voted on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, H.R. 7, to end taxpayer complicity and funding of abortion. I especially want to thank our very principled leadership, great people like the Speaker, Paul Ryan; Kevin McCarthy, our majority leader; Steve Scalise, our whip; and Cathy McMorris Rodgers; and so many others who take a principled stand for the unborn and equally for their mothers. No matter what The Washington Post or The New York Times might say, they are willing to stand into the wind rather than to go along with it because the sanctity of life--the preciousness of those children and equally of their mothers--demands it. I want to thank them for their extraordinary leadership. As we all know, the bill passed 238-183. The extraordinary news is about the Hyde amendment and its consequences. It has saved the lives of over 2 million children, and that is a conservative estimate. There may be many more. Other funding bans at State levels, as well as our funding bans in our Federal policies, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, have also saved lives because the money was not there to facilitate the demise--the violent demise--of those children. Even the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, acknowledges that about 25 percent of the Medicaid abortions that otherwise would have occurred do not occur. Those children go on to be born, and that is where the 2 million figure, about 60,000 per year--children who evade the scalpel or the chemical poisoning of abortion. Forty years ago, Congress enacted the Hyde amendment. It has been continued every year, and now it will be made permanent if this bill were to become law. We know, as was said during the debate by my friends on the other side of this issue, that they are determined to eviscerate the Hyde amendment, and those 2 million children, had they had their way over the last 40 years, would have been killed. We also want to take abortion out of ObamaCare. The President stood right at that podium, Mr. Speaker, in September of 2009, and said: ``Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. . . . '' We know that is absolutely untrue. He also signed an executive order where he said that the Hyde amendment would be applied to the plans in the exchanges. So we went to the Government Accountability Office and asked for a study. It took about a year, and they came back and said that 1,036 insurance plans across the country paid for abortion on demand with taxpayer funding. H.R. 7, title II, would end that complicity of the taxpayer with the procurement of abortion. Let me also say that we hope to bring up in this House a bill that was sponsored last Congress and is again today by Trent Franks of Arizona, a great champion of life. It is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to legally protect most babies at 20 weeks postfertilization. Of course, many of those kids die of dismemberment. Again, we need a national debate on abortion because the methods have been hidden by the facade of the abortion industry. They have been very good at cloaking, concealing, and diminishing any focus on what happens to the baby. Even when abortion is through ultrasound-guided abortions and the mother is there, semi-sedated, they turn the screen away from her so she doesn't see the dismemberment of the child, because, obviously, as Dr. Nathanson, the founder of NARAL and an abortionist, once said--he came to the conclusion after having killed 60,000 children and then became a pro-lifer--he said that if wombs had windows, if everyone, including the woman, could see the child, she would run out of that abortion mill. So, again, I want to say thank you to Trent Franks. I know he is here, and I hope that he will join us tonight. He has led on born-alive legislation, which is also transformative. Imagine that the former President of the United States, Barack Obama, said that he would veto a bill that would provide a standard of care, including a right to private action, when the child is born alive from a later term abortion. We can't even help that child? Yet Obama, the abortion President, said: No, we can't. Trent Franks, again, has been the leader on that as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) who is a good friend and colleague, and then to close, Congressman Trent Franks.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman so much for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce that my friend Anna Eshoo and I today introduced the Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act of 2017 (H.R. 390). H.R. 390 would require the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development to identify the urgent humanitarian needs of Christians and other genocide survivors from religious minority communities and to start supporting some of the entities effectively aiding them on-the-ground. This bill is urgently needed because Christian survivors of the ISIS genocide are facing an emergency. Just before Christmas, I went to Erbil in the Kurdistan region of Iraq to meet with these survivors. They told me the United States had abandoned them. I saw first-hand how the Obama administration has failed to help them. I was in Erbil at the personal invitation of the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Erbil, Bashar Warda. More than 70,000 Christians--10,500 families--who escaped from ISIS have relied on the Archdiocese of Erbil for food, shelter, and medical care to survive. Yet the Obama administration and United Nations have refused to give a single dollar to the Archdiocese to help them. They have been kept alive only because of the generosity of organizations like the Knights of Columbus and Aid to the Church in Need. However, the needs are so great that the Archdiocese is chronically in crisis mode, unsure whether it will soon run out of resources to sustain these Christians. The winter temperatures are freezing and the risk of related illness is high. Iraq's Christian population is less than 250,000, down from up to 1.4 million in 2002, down from 500,000 in 2013 just before ISIS began targeting Christians for genocide. Having fled ISIS, these Christians may have to flee their homelands. Perhaps they will take the little money they have left, and pay smugglers to get them to Europe. They would risk becoming prisoners of human traffickers or perishing in the Mediterranean Sea, where more than 5,000 refugees and migrants died or went missing in 2016. For a few of these genocide survivors unable to return home, the only long-term option may be resettlement in a country like the United States as a refugee. Our legislation would create a Priority Two designation that they are of ``special humanitarian concern'' to the United States. The P-2 designation would ensure that they are able to get an overseas interview with the U.S. government to be considered for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program without needing a referral from the United Nations, an NGO, or another U.S. government entity. This would not guarantee acceptance and admission and they would have to clear the same security screening as every other Iraqi and Syrian refugee before being admitted. But at least they will be considered. The other key element of our bill focuses on accountability. It would require the U.S. government to identify and support some entities that are conducting criminal investigations, and collecting evidence, on perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Iraq and Syria. This evidence is usable in future criminal trials. Until now, the State Department has been considering these crimes merely as human rights violations, rather than as crimes. Archbishop Warda has put it clearly. ``These coming months may well decide the fate of Christianity in Iraq: whether it survives and is given a chance for rebirth; or whether it perishes, existing only as a few scattered museum pieces with caretaker clergy, of interest to tourists and academics perhaps, but without the Christian people who had lived there for two-thousand years.'' As the Syriac Archbishop of Mosul, who had to seek refuge in Erbil from ISIS together with his people, told me during my mission, ``We pray that President Trump will help us. We are the last people to speak the Aramaic language. Without help, we are finished.'' Archbishop Nicodemus had reason to be hopeful. On September 9, 2016, at the Voter Values Summit, then-candidate Trump said, ``ISIS is hunting down and exterminating what it calls the Nation of the Cross. ISIS is carrying out a genocide against Christians in the Middle East. We cannot let this evil continue.'' If our legislation moves quickly onto the floor for a vote and to President Trump for his signature, I am confident that he will sign it and ensure that it is fully implemented. The Christians of the Middle East are counting on us. Many groups support H.R. 390, including the Knights of Columbus, Family Research Council, In Defense of Christians, 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, Commission for International Justice and Accountability, HIAS, Aid the Church in Need USA, Open Doors, A Demand for Action, Yezidi Human Rights Organization International, Religious Freedom Institute, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, and Syrian Accountability Project, and Civitas Maxima. It is also supported by all the former U.S. Ambassadors-at Large for War Crimes, David Scheffer (1997 through 2001), Pierre Prosper (2001 through 2005), Clint Williamson (2006 through 2009), and Stephen Rapp (2009 through 2015), as well as the Founding Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, David Crane, the Director of the Center for Religious Freedom Nina Shea, and the author of Defying ISIS, Rev. Johnnie Moore. Fifteen of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, are original cosponsors of H.R. 390. I call on my other colleagues to cosponsor this bill and help ensure that it gets to the new President as soon as possible so that Christian genocide survivors in Iraq and elsewhere get the help they so desperately need.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and for offering this important resolution, along with the ranking member, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. President Obama's decision to abstain and not veto Security Council Resolution 2334 seriously undermines the peace process, abandons Israel at a critical hour in its life as a nation, and does serious injury to the historical record. The egregiously flawed U.N. text says that all Israeli settlements after the 1949 armistice line including East Jerusalem and West Bank have no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law. The pending House resolution repudiates 2334 and makes clear that a durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations, not one-sided, anti-Israel U.N. resolutions. Mr. Speaker, the U.N. resolution could open Israeli leaders and even average Israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. Israel's enemies are likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the International Criminal Court for construction activities, even though the vast majority of this activity takes place legally, pursuant to Israeli law. A few hours ago, the European Jewish press reported that ``Leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called for France to cancel or, at least, postpone what they called an `ill-conceived, poorly timed and damaging' event--the Paris Mideast conference--scheduled for January 15.'' I hope that we will also call upon our government not to go to this right before a transition of the White House and the Presidency and mischief that could be forthcoming from that. They pointed out in their statement that ``Israel has long sought direct talks'' and ``it is time for the Palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to use international fora to avoid the only true path to a lasting peace''--and that is a negotiated settlement. Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America pointed out that the U.N. has a long-established bias against Israel. As my good friend from Florida said a moment ago, 20 anti- Israel resolutions against just 4 in 2016--a bias and a discrimination against Israel. President Obama's decision to abstain and not veto Security Council Resolution 2334 seriously undermines the peace process, abandons Israel at a critical hour in its life as a nation, and does serious injury to the historical record. The egregiously flawed UN text says that all Israeli settlements after the 1949 armistice line including East Jerusalem and the West Bank have no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law. The pending House resolution repudiates 2334 and makes clear that a durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations not one-sided anti-Israel UN resolutions. With over three thousand years of Jewish history bound up in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, it is preposterous to assert that Israel has no legitimacy in defending its connections to this extraordinary heritage. Sadly, these kinds of prejudiced and revisionist claims are all too common in the United Nations where UNESCO voted just a couple months ago on measures that excise any mention of Judaism and Christianity's ancient ties to East Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, the UN Resolution could open Israeli leaders and even average Israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. Israel's enemies are likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the International Criminal Court (ICC) for construction activities, even though the vast majority of this activity takes place legally, pursuant to Israeli law. By calling on countries to distinguish between the State of Israel and Israeli settlements, 2334 enables the narrative of the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, or BDS movement, that is aimed at delegitimizing Israel. And in mere days, the error of 2334 could be further compounded. A few hours ago the European Jewish Press reported that ``Leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called for France to cancel or, at least, postpone what they called an `ill-conceived, poorly timed and damaging' event--the Paris Mideast conference--scheduled for January 15th.'' ``The international community should not plunge forward with the ill- conceired and poorly timed Paris conference,'' CPMAJO Chairman Stephen M. Greenberg and Vice Chairman and CEO Malcolm Hoenlein said in a statement . . . According to the Conference of Presidents, there are a number of compelling reasons to postpone the Paris event, including the impending transition to the Trump administration, just five days later. ``It makes no sense that the next administration is precluded from participating in a discussion of an essential component of U.S. foreign policy with which it will be engaged,'' they explained. `` `Israel has long sought direct talks, it is time for the Palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to use international fora to avoid the only true path to a lasting peace,' they added. Hoenlein cautioned it was possible the Obama administration could--following the recent passage of the anti-Israeli settlement Security Council resolution--take a `further damaging step against the Jewish state before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.' '' Nathan Diament, Executive Director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, wrote me a letter today and said, ``On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, a blatantly anti-Israel resolution condemning Israel's building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It has long been U.S. policy that any progress toward an agreement in the region must be based on direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, not a vote of third-party nations at the UN.'' ``Unfortunately the UN has a long and established bias against Israel. In 2016 alone, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 anti-Israel resolutions and just four against other countries: North Korea, Syria, Iran and Russia. The World Health Organization condemned Israel as the world's only violator of `mental, physical and environmental health,' while the U.N. Women condemned Israel as the world's only violator of women's rights. The International Labor Organization condemned Israel as the world's only violator of labor rights. These same UN committees were silent on the issue of human rights violations in China, Libya, or the Congo.'' ``Clearly, the UN has an agenda to undermine and delegitimize the state of Israel, and in that regard UN support for Resolution 2334 was not surprising. What was surprising--and deeply concerning--was the silence of the United States on this issue. Rather than exercising its veto power, the United States chose to abstain from voting, and thereby threatened the trust and support Israel has long placed in its most important ally. Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama has repeatedly assured American Jews and others concerned about Israel's security and welfare that his commitment to U.S. support for Israel's security was `unshakeable.' By allowing the UN Security Council's resolution to pass in the final weeks of his Administration, President Obama undermined his legacy and threatened the longstanding alliance between the United States and Israel.'' ``Whether the abstaining vote was a parting statement from the Obama Administration or the influence of anti-Israeli forces at the UN, the incoming Trump Administration and the 115th Congress must make the United States' support of Israel and our common goals of peace, democracy, and fighting terrorism--a pillar of its foreign policy. Today's resolution condemning UN Resolution 2334 will send an important message to the world that the United States stands with Israel and will continue to support our common goals.'' Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I would like to note that many of us in Congress have been warning about these kinds of reckless gambits for months. Three-hundred and eighty of us in the House signed a letter in April to President Obama specifically calling on him to veto any one- sided resolution like 2443 if it were raised in the Security Council. In late November, the House voted overwhelmingly for H. Con. Res. 165 further stressing the need for the United States to stand by Israel and veto biased Security Council measures. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 11 to denounce this dangerous Security Council action. I look forward to working with President-elect Trump to align U.S. policy with the overwhelming consensus in Congress: that we are and remain committed to Israel's sovereignty and security. OU Advocacy Center, Washington, DC, January 5, 2017. Hon. Chris Smith, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Smith: On behalf of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union)-- the nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization-- please accept our gratitude for your support of today's resolution opposing UN Security Council Resolution 2334, and thank you for submitting this letter to the official record of the House of Representatives. On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, a blatantly anti-Israel resolution condemning Israel's building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It has long been U.S. policy that any progress toward an agreement in the region must be based on direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, not a vote of third-party nations at the UN. Unfortunately, the UN has a long and established bias against Israel. In 2016 alone, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 anti-Israel resolutions and just four against other countries: North Korea, Syria, Iran and Russia. The World Health Organization condemned Israel as the world's only violator of ``mental, physical and environmental health,'' while the U.N. Women condemned Israel as the world's only violator of women's rights. The International Labor Organization condemned Israel as the world's only violator of labor rights. These same UN committees were silent on the issue of human rights violations in China, Libya, or the Congo. Clearly, the UN has an agenda to undermine and delegitimize the state of Israel, and in that regard UN support for Resolution 2334 was not surprising. What was surprising--and deeply concerning--was the silence of the United States on this issue. Rather than exercising its veto power, the United States chose to abstain from voting, and thereby threatened the trust and support Israel has long placed in its most important ally. Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama has repeatedly assured American Jews and others concerned about Israel's security and welfare that his commitment to U.S. support for Israel's security was ``unshakeable.'' By allowing the UN Security Council's resolution to pass in the final weeks of his Administration, President Obama undermined his legacy and threatened the longstanding alliance between the United States and Israel. Whether the abstaining vote was a parting statement from the Obama Administration or the influence of anti-Israeli forces at the UN, the incoming Trump Administration and the 115th Congress must make the United States' support of Israel and our common goals of peace, democracy, and fighting terrorism--a pillar of its foreign policy. Today's resolution condemning UN Resolution 2334 will send an important message to the world that the United States stands with Israel and will continue to support our common goals. Again, thank you for your support of Israel and today's resolution. I urge all members of the United States Congress to stand with Israel and vote in favor of the McCarthy-Royce resolution. Best Regards, Nathan Diament, Executive Director.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1150) to amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to improve the ability of the United States to advance religious freedom globally through enhanced diplomacy, training, counterterrorism, and foreign assistance efforts, and through stronger and more flexible political responses to religious freedom violations and violent extremism worldwide, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, eighteen years ago, Congress had the foresight to pass the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. That landmark bill made advancing the right to religious freedom a U.S. foreign policy priority. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 needed to be upgraded to meet some of the new challenges of the 21st century. This bill, the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2016, accomplishes that goal by integrating international religious freedom into U.S. foreign policy; improving the ability of the U.S. government to advance religious freedom globally through enhanced diplomacy, training, counterterrorism, and foreign assistance efforts; and giving the Secretary of State stronger and more flexible political responses to growing religious freedom violations. Religion is an even more relevant foreign policy issue today than it was eighteen years ago. From China and Vietnam to Syria and Nigeria, we are witnessing a tragic, global crisis in religious persecution, violence and terrorism, with dire consequences for religious minorities and for U.S. national security. The biggest threats to our nation often come from those most violently opposed to religious freedom. Thus, the promotion of religious liberty is not an isolated human rights concern, but a fundamental component of our national security. The global religious freedom crisis we are experiencing today has created millions of victims and undermines liberty, prosperity and peace in places vital to U.S. national interests--posing direct challenge to the U.S. interests in the Middle East, Russia, China and sub-Saharan Africa. Ancient Christian communities in Iraq and Syria are on the verge of extinction and other religious minorities in the Middle East face a constant assault from the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS is committing genocide, mass atrocities, and war crimes to advance its cause--they must be stopped and those facing genocide must be giving the assistance. A robust religious freedom diplomacy is necessary to advance U.S. interests in stability, security, and economic development. Research has shown that where there is more religious freedom, there is more economic freedom, more women's empowerment, more political stability, more freedom of speech, and less terrorism. More than ever before, vigorous U.S. leadership and diplomacy are needed to address religious freedom violations globally. It is clear that our national security will depend on the protection and advancement of this fundamental freedom. The Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act will upgrade the tools and used by the Administration to improve U.S. religious freedom diplomacy efforts globally; better trained and equipped diplomats to counter extremism; address anti-Semitism and religious persecution, and mitigate sectarian conflict. The bill does this by: Requiring that the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom report directly to the Secretary of State. Elevating the position of the Ambassador within the Federal Government: Gives the Ambassador responsibilities to coordinate religious freedom policy throughout the government; develop training curriculum for all Foreign Service officers; and administer grants to promote religious freedom policy globally. Requiring training in international religious freedom for all Foreign Service Officers: Requires development of curriculum and training for all incoming Foreign Service Officers and for Deputy Chiefs of Mission and Ambassadors going out to new posts. The curriculum used by the State Department will be made available to the U.S. Military and other relevant government agencies. Creating an ``Entity of Particular Concern'' Designation for Non- State Actors: Gives the Secretary of State authority to designate as ``entities of particular concern'' in recognition of the fact that in the 21st century some of the most egregious religious freedom violations are committed by non-state actors. Requiring more frequent Presidential actions to counter severe religious freedom violations globally: Requires annual Country of Particular Concern (CPC) designations. Limits the number of sanctions waivers (except in cases of the national interest) and requires more frequent reporting on countries where sanction waivers are used. Creating a comprehensive Religious Prisoner's List: Lists of religious prisoners would be made available upon request from Members of Congress. Increasing congressional oversight of State Department actions against individual religious freedom violators through the creation of a ``Designated Persons List:'' The list will include individuals who have been denied a visa or sanctioned because of their involvement in severe violations of religious freedom. Congress will receive frequent and regular updates on the list. Requiring the State Department to create a ``Special Watch List'' of countries that tolerate severe violations of religious freedom but which may fail to meet the CPC threshold. Sets Congressional Expectations for Staffing of the IRF Office and Expansion of Religious Freedom Program Grants: Requires ``appropriate staff' for the IRF office and seeks office staffing at FY 16 levels. Urges the State Department to request ``sufficient funding for vigorous promotion'' of international religious freedom policy. The bill is named after former Congressman Frank Wolf, a tireless champion for the rights of the poor and the persecuted globally. 18 years ago, he had the foresight to make advancing the right to religious freedom a high U.S. foreign policy priority. It is largely because of his efforts that religious freedom is taken seriously as a foreign policy issue. I had the distinct honor and pleasure of working with him for over thirty years. This bill is a fitting tribute to his work and service to our great nation. I want to thank Rep. Anna Eshoo for her partnership on this legislation and her advocacy on behalf of religious minorities in the Middle East and the cause of all those oppressed for the beliefs they hold. I also want to thank Senator Marco Rubio for his commitment to the cause of human rights and international religious freedom and for his assistance in getting this bill passed in the Senate. As with many pieces of bipartisan legislation, this bill would not have gotten this far without the assistance of many individuals and groups invested in its passage. I want to thank Senators Bob Corker, and Ben Cardin, for assisting with the bill's amendment and passage on the Senate side. Congressman Ed Royce and Eliot Engel and their staff for helping to move this bill on a bipartisan basis through the House. Also, I want to recognize the contribution David Saperstein, the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, who's worked to strengthen the bill and assure its passage. Finally, I want to recognize and thank the many staff members, in the House and Senate, who have worked hard for this bill's passage over the past two years including, Scott Flipse, Elyse Anderson, Mary Noonan, Hannah Murphy, Caleb McCarry, Jaime Fly, Doug Anderson, Piero Tozzi, Sajit Gandhi, and Janice Kaguyutan. International religious freedom is not a partisan or party issue. The freedom to practice a religion without persecution is a precious right for everyone, of whatever race, sex, status, or location on earth. This human right is enshrined in our own founding documents, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is a bedrock principle of open and democratic societies for centuries. We Americans understand the importance of religious liberty. It is the First Freedom on which our nation was founded. We should be united in defending it, standing up for those who suffer grievously for its absence, and for the noble and essential cause of protecting our own country. I urge passage of this bill without objection.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4939) to increase engagement with the governments of the Caribbean region, the Caribbean diaspora community in the United States, and the private sector and civil society in both the United States and the Caribbean, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit statements or extraneous materials for the Record on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1150.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 710) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare a comprehensive security assessment of the transportation security card program, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 8) to provide for the approval of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6302) to provide an increase in premium pay for United States Secret Service agents performing protective services during 2016, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3842) to improve homeland security, including domestic preparedness and response to terrorism, by reforming Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers to provide training to first responders, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, for his enormous efforts and those of his staff to, out of an abundance of caution, address some of the issues that were raised by my friend from Texas. I don't think some of his concerns were included or at risk in the bill, but we clarified and made very clear about voluntary participation and the issue of noninvasiveness and nonpermanent, which is now clearly defined in the legislation. So it is an improvement. Mr. Goodlatte was the one who came up with that language. The language that deals with the collection, use, and retention of data is solely for the purpose of preventing injury or death to the patient. Mr. Speaker, in the year 2000, I cofounded two caucuses: the Autism Caucus and the Alzheimer's Caucus. I wrote three laws on autism, including the most recent Autism CARES Act, which not only provides $1.3 billion for autism and research at NIH, CDC, and HRSA, but also looks at the aging out issue. Law enforcement is not ready to deal with severely autistic children who, when you approach them, need a certain approach so that they don't react violently, especially if they have a sense of threat. As my good friend and colleague from Virginia, the distinguished chairman said, about 50 percent of autistic children wander. We know at least 100 children since 2011 have died. The bill is named after two of them who drowned. A benign tracking device that is noninvasive, there is no collection or use other than for the prevention of injury or death, and, of course, there is no national storage. If you ask, I say to my colleagues, your local sheriffs, your law enforcement about the lifesaving program, some have it, some don't. Within about one-half hour of an Alzheimer's patient or an autistic patient being lost, wandering, they find them. Those who are not found in 24 hours, not only have got a 50 percent chance of getting hurt themselves, but can hurt other people. About 60 percent of the Alzheimer's community wander at some point. This is a way of protecting and preventing injury. I say to my colleague, my good friend from Texas, he is reading into the things that are not there. One of the groups put out an alert suggesting a vote against this and hadn't even read the clarifications out of an abundance of caution, again, put in there by Mr. Goodlatte. So I would hope that Members would support this. This will save lives. And we are not reinventing the wheel. The Alzheimer's program was in effect without any parade of horribles occurring as a result. I check with Alzheimer's patients all the time, Alzheimer's Association and, of course, Autism Speaks, and others who are all for this. They want this desperately because wandering is a serious problem. We want to get our loved ones, find our loved ones who have developmental disabilities or have Alzheimer's, and make sure they get back to a safe and secure environment as quickly as possible. That is all this does. So I urge my colleagues to support it. I, again, thank the chairman. I thank Mr. Conyers and others. This is a bipartisan bill. Senators Grassley and Schumer sponsored it on the Senate side, Ms. Maxine Waters--it is the left, right, middle, everybody in between. This is about helping people who are at grave risk when they wander.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for his very eloquent remarks about our great friend and colleague, the distinguished Joe Pitts. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama, Robert Aderholt.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee, Diane Black.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentlewoman very much for those very, very eloquent remarks. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Randy Hultgren.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend from California for his very, very fine remarks. General Leave

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, as there are a number of Members who would like to submit, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, it is hard to imagine a Congress without the incomparable Joe Pitts--a remarkable and highly accomplished lawmaker, a distinguished statesman, a man of principle and bedrock moral conviction and a Christian, who faithfully seeks to do God's will on Earth as it is in Heaven no matter the cost, no matter the sacrifice, no matter the hardship. As I think some of my colleagues know--particularly those who know him well--Joe was born in Kentucky into a family of strong Christian faith, a faith that has been passed on to his own three children; Carol, Karen, and Daniel. Joe's father was an Army chaplain during World War II, serving in the South Pacific after the war. The elder Pitts returned to the Philippines with his wife and children to serve as a missionary in a war-ravaged country. It was there that Joe saw the after effects of war; and that so profoundly affected him, he developed a heart there for human rights and a commitment to a strong national defense. After high school, Joe attended Asbury College in Kentucky, as my friend and colleague earlier pointed out. He met Virginia--Ginny, as we know her--a wonderful lady. My wife Marie and I and Joe and Ginny have traveled and have been together many times. She is just a wonderful wife of a half a century. Again, they not only have three children but a number of grandchildren as well. Joe taught math, science, English, and physical education, as well as coached basketball. He served 5\1/2\ years in the United States Air Force, including three tours in Vietnam. He was the EW officer, electronic warfare officer, on a B-52 and completed 116 combat missions and earned the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters. Here in Washington, Joe has worked hard helping political prisoners, including people like Saeed Abedini and other Christian and non- Christian--Jewish and other religious and political prisoners around the world. He has been tenacious in promoting prayer breakfasts all around the world so that members of parliaments and congresses from many countries would know the blessings of fellowship and prayer and being in touch with God. He even traveled to Mongolia for the first prayer breakfast in the late 1990s. Joe leads an ambassadors' prayer breakfast fellowship at the Cedars, right nearby in northern Virginia. I have had the privilege to join him for those breakfasts on occasions. It is a time for ambassadors to get together from all over the world--different regions meeting at different times, sometimes many from many regions--to break bread, to talk about the Scriptures with some emphasis on policy but mostly about how God does minister to us, how forgiving He is, and how all of us are in need of reconciliation. And Joe Pitts is there leading that fellowship and has been doing it for decades. Joe has been a leader in the fight against ongoing human rights abuses in Western Sahara and elsewhere. He is co-chair of the Lantos Human Rights Commission. And in Congress, of course, we know he has served in a number of key leadership positions, including his current position as chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, obviously working on so many important issues on diseases and disabilities. Top officials from the healthcare system present themselves before his committee for his review and oversight. He has been a problem-solver--he and his staff, working across the aisle to try to find solutions to these often vexing issues of health care. On the greatest human rights issue of our time--protecting unborn babies and their mothers from the violence of abortion--Joe Pitts has not only saved countless precious lives and fostered reconciliation and hope for post-abortive women, but he has also been an extraordinary inspiration to all of us in Congress. The way he comports himself. He never gets angry. He deals with the issue in a way that reaches out to people who may have a different view in the hopes that they will see the wisdom of protecting the innocent and most vulnerable. Joe has been a leader on every pro-life congressional policy--bills, amendments, administrative actions--since he won his seat in Congress in 1996. We are grateful for his powerful voice and vote on ending the hideous method called partial birth abortion; enacting multiple annual abortion funding bans; proscribing sex selection abortion, which is the ultimate violation of women's rights to say: you are susceptible to killing because you happen to be female; protecting pain-capable unborn children as well as born-alive infants; and enforcing the conscience rights of pro-life Americans has been remarkable. His leadership has been remarkable. Had the Senate adopted the House-passed Pitts-Stupak amendment, ObamaCare, with all of its egregious flaws, would have at least been abortion-free. Joe Pitts has been the greatest friend and ally of persons with disabilities, including his robust defense of Terri Schiavo. His service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly from 1973-1997, including his chairmanship of the powerful Appropriations Committee, to which he was elected by his peers, was filled with accomplishments, including his bold leadership in enacting the Abortion Control Act. Someday future generations will look back on America's culture of death and wonder how and why a seemingly enlightened society, so blessed with civil rights protections, wealth, educational opportunities, information, medical breakthroughs, a free press, and a strong and diverse faith community could have allowed 60 million unborn children to be killed by abortion. When the day comes and legal protections for the weak and the most vulnerable are restored, I believe future generations of Americans will remember and celebrate the tenacious heroes, the human rights heroes of today, people like Henry Hyde, compassionate women like Mother Teresa, and Joe Pitts, who persevered, prayed, and worked tenaciously on behalf of the least of these. St. Francis once famously said: Always preach the gospel, and when necessary, use words. By his example, by his perpetual radiating of Christ--just look at his eyes; there is kindness and compassion and empathy in Joe Pitts' eyes--he has inspired all of us to strive to do His will on Earth, as it is in Heaven. And it is a distinct privilege and honor to be known as one of Joe Pitts' friends. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce, for his leadership on this important bill. I thank Eliot Engel, the ranking member, and, of course, Senators Corker and Cardin. This is a true bipartisan piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, a highly skilled group of Foreign Service Officers-- about 15,000 strong--are deployed worldwide to promote peace and human rights, to support prosperity, and to protect Americans while advancing the vital interests of the United States abroad. For most, posting overseas requires serious personal sacrifice. For some, deployment entails serious danger--from disease, crime, and terrorism. Mr. Speaker, after the American Embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi were attacked by terrorists in August of 1998, I chaired hearings on Embassy security in my subcommittee and authored the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2000 and 2001 to significantly boost Embassy security, including reconfigured Embassies, setbacks--a zone that puts the street farther away from the building--and additional diplomatic security personnel. The bill, dubbed the ``Embassy Security Act,'' which passed the House in 1999, never even got a vote in the Senate; but after much lobbying, my bill was included in its entirety in the FY 2000 appropriations omnibus. In 2005, Congress enacted into law another bill I sponsored, the Department of State Authorities Act, which, among other things, boosted danger pay. Today, the Royce-Corker-Engel-Cardin bill authorizes $4.8 billion for Embassy security. It continues the all-important work of ensuring the most effective security possible for our Foreign Service and Americans abroad by directing joint DOD-State contingency plans--including the rapid deployment of Armed Forces--the designation of high-risk, high- threat posts with adequate funding and training commensurate with the danger, and the utilization of ``best value'' contracting. The bill provides numerous enhancements of personnel issues for our men and women in the Foreign Service--from promotion opportunities to updated cost-of-living adjustments to improved care of Foreign Service officers' children-dependents with autism spectrum disorders. During markup--and I thank the chair for being so gracious for supporting it--I sponsored an amendment that was approved that recognizes applied behavior analysis, or ABA, as proven evidence-based intervention for autistic children and that the Secretary of State should ensure that coverage of and access to ABA for dependents with ASD of overseas employees is provided. I travel all over the world, and I often hear from Foreign Service Officers who cannot get ABA treatment for their children. They are anguished because, if they try to go to a deployment where that is provided, it may hinder their Foreign Service careers; and, of course, they put their children first. That shouldn't be the case. There should be no choice. The children need to be supported as well as the Foreign Service Officers. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also adopted another amendment I offered during markup, which is whistleblower protections for U.N. personnel--we have had hearings on that in our subcommittee--the capacity to investigate allegations of sexual exploitation committed by peacekeepers and to hold those who commit such heinous crimes accountable. Mr. Speaker, I have traveled to places like Goma, in the DRC, where peacekeepers were raping 13-year-olds--U.N. peacekeepers. The series of hearings that we held on it found that the zero tolerance policy of the U.N. was really zero compliance. That has to improve. There have been some improvements made but far fewer than what are required. This legislation helps to push that ball significantly down that lane. Hopefully, the peacekeepers will do just that--protect. It is a duty for us to make sure that that happens. There are many other good things in this bill. Again, I thank Chairman Royce for his leadership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his extraordinary leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, 24 years ago, I met--along with a great advocate, Pat Smith--with top officials of NIH and CDC on Federal guidelines that precluded the existence of chronic Lyme disease. Subsequently, every Congress, I would introduce legislation trying to get a diversity of viewpoints so that clinicians, patients, and other advocates could be heard. Today, CDC estimates there are about 380,000 cases of Lyme disease; and a provision in this bill, an important, game-changing provision, insisted upon by Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Chairman Upton requires that a new working group on tickborne disease includes members with a diversity of viewpoints, including patients, clinicians, and researchers. This working group will make a difference. Those patients--and there are tens of thousands of them--have been told chronic Lyme disease doesn't exist, what you are feeling can be attributable to some other disease, and they don't get better. I thank the chairman for doing this. Also, as cofounder and co- chairman of both the Alzheimer's Caucus 16 years ago and the Autism Caucus 16 years ago, I am thankful for the great work that this will do for those patients as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 165, in support of direct bilateral negotiations to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, introduced by Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel. This resolution is much more than a restatement of longstanding U.S. policy. It is an urgent defense of our commitments to the State of Israel in the face of innumerable threats. The United States has long insisted that the only path to peace for the Israelis and Palestinians is through direct, bilateral negotiations. Any so-called resolution imposed from the outside is doomed to failure because it inherently lacks the political support of both parties to the conflict. Peacemaking is hard work, but that reality has not stopped others from looking for a shortcut. The U.N. Security Council is one such forum that has served as a platform for anti-Israel schemes for many, many years. Thankfully, the United States has always resolutely imposed such unilateralism and, when necessary, through both Democratic and Republican White Houses, has always resolutely used the veto. Since 1972, the United States has used its veto power 42 times to block anti-Israel measures in the Security Council. However, in the closing days of this administration, this longstanding policy is being called into question. Mr. Speaker, there are many reports that President Obama is considering moving the needle on the peace process before he leaves office by supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution enshrining certain conditions for peace. Just last month, The New York Times editorial board came out forcefully in favor of this scheme. The editorial board wrote: ``The best idea under discussion now would be to have the United Nations Security Council, in an official resolution, lay down guidelines for a peace agreement covering such issues as Israel's security, the future of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and borders for both states.'' On the contrary, this is just about the worst idea. It would have the effect of dangerously undercutting the peace process. Israel's security, the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and borders-- anyone familiar with this issue knows--are the four most sensitive matters at stake in this conflict and should not be imposed from without. The United States ought to be very clear when faced with such proposals. Any attempt to determine the fate of these issues outside of direct, bilateral talks undermines the sovereignty of our strong ally Israel, destroys goodwill, and threatens to prolong the conflict further.