Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Sadly, the drumbeat for unilateral United Nations action on this issue continues. On October 14, the U.N. Security Council held a special debate, titled, ``Illegal Israeli Settlements: Obstacles to Peace and the Two-State Solution.'' The session was held at the request of Security Council members Egypt, Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal, and Angola, with the backing of the Palestinians. Such one-sided initiatives only damage prospects for peace. Last April, 390 Members of the House on both sides of the aisle signed a letter to the President. It was signed by so many of us, including some in this room, including Nita Lowey, Kay Granger, Karen Bass, Ted Deutch, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ed Royce, Eliot Engel, Kevin McCarthy, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and myself--390 in all--that laid out the simple principles that have guided our policy. These principles include: A refusal to support counterproductive efforts aimed at imposing a solution on the parties; Opposition to Palestinian efforts to seek recognition of statehood status in international bodies; and A willingness to oppose, if need be, a one-sided U.N. resolution by way of a veto. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5711, the No U.S. Financing for Iran Act, introduced by my good friend Bill Huizenga. This bill also includes the outstanding work of my good friend Peter Roskam, who introduced H.R. 5715, the No Ex-Im Assistance for Terrorism Act. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has made an endless stream of concessions to the Iranian government. Most recently, in September, the administration announced that it would issue special export licenses for Boeing and Airbus to sell dozens of commercial aircraft to Iran--a deal that together is valued at upwards of $50 billion. Yet the deal is not finalized because Iran is having difficulty financing it. The No U.S. Financing for Iran Act will guarantee that the U.S. plays no part in facilitating this financing: it blocks the Treasury Department from authorizing U.S. financial institutions from supporting such transactions and prevents the U.S. Export-Import Bank from extending direct or indirect credit to the Government of Iran. Although the Ex-Im Bank is prohibited from providing direct financing to Iran, it could do so through a third-party. For instance, Reuters last week reported that after months of negotiations, Iran secured financing possibly through an Emirati leasing company for the first 17 planes it plans to buy from Airbus. If the U.S. Ex-Im Bank were to provide financing to such a third-party company, it would in effect be facilitating Iran's purchase of the aircraft. It is important to recall why Iran should not be receiving these planes in the first place: until President Obama implemented his nuclear deal, Iran Air had for over four years been subject to U.S. sanctions due to the company's notorious working relationship with Iran's military and Revolutionary Guards Corps. For years, Iran Air has smuggled rockets, missiles, and other sensitive materiel aboard its passenger and cargo planes bound for regional hotspots, such as Syria, home to Iranian terrorist proxies and murderous regimes. The Obama Administration was absolutely wrong to drop these sanctions in connection with the nuclear deal because this support has little or nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program. On the contrary, much of this activity is related to Iran's sponsorship of terrorism--for which the United States still imposes sanctions on Iran. It is long past time for the Administration to stop accommodating this genocidal regime and rather hold it to account. Just last week the IAEA reported that Iran had for the second time this year exceeded its quota for heavy water as stipulated in the nuclear deal. But instead of calling this violation what it is, the Obama Administration chose to sweep it under the rug. Such passivity in the face of Iranian violations only emboldens the regime to see what more it can get away with. This is a dangerous game to play when the consequences are so grave for our national security and that of our close ally Israel. The Administration's nuclear deal with Iran itself contained far too many major concessions: it recognized Iran's right to enrichment, despite longstanding United States policy against such recognition, and settled for a weak inspections regime that is anything but ``anytime, anywhere.'' We must act again today to put a stop to the concessions. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to pass this urgent measure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce; Ranking Member Eliot Engel; and Ms. Bass, who is the ranking member on the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee, for their strong support for this legislation, H. Res. 780, which seeks to avoid a looming crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or DRC, by urging respect for the constitution of that country in a peaceful, democratic transition of power. Mr. Speaker, on November 19--just days from now--the DRC was supposed to hold elections for President and the Parliament. However, after stalling on election preparations for more than a year, the government of President Kabila has used a constitutional loophole to extend his rule despite the opposition of not only political opponents but also his country's citizens. In a recent poll done in partnership with the Congo Research Group at New York University, President Kabila had less than 8 percent support among his people. U.S. officials believe that he has lost even more support in the months since that poll was taken. Mr. Speaker, from 1996 to 2006, more than 3 million people died in the DRC, more than 4 million were internally displaced as a result of internal and regional wars, and significant violence persists in eastern Congo today--a place that I have visited. There are now widespread fears that opposition to the extension of Kabila's rule will spark demonstrations that will be met by violence by a government determined to maintain its hold on power. We are facing the real danger that the DRC--a nation that borders on nine of its neighbors and which makes vital contributions to the global economy--could be thrown into a level of chaos that will have an adverse impact not just within its borders but far beyond its borders as well. President Kabila continues to make every effort to maintain power, even sending delegations abroad to mislead foreign governments on his intention to hold elections at the earliest possible date. His emissaries assured us in September that the scheduled 2016 elections could be held in the summer of 2017 as a result of national dialogue. However, Kabila manipulated this dialogue, which was boycotted by the genuine political opposition, civil society, and DRC's churches. The eventual conclusion, if this can be believed, was that the elections would be held in late 2018, about 2 years from now. However, the constitution, which prevents Kabila from running for a third term or changing the constitution to achieve that goal, will be broken if he manages to extend his rule. Even as he interprets the constitution to allow him to continue in office, the constitution makes no provision for parliament to continue to operate. So when the current DRC Government mandate expires on December 19, President Kabila will rule his country with no restraint and no checks or balances from a legislative body. H. Res. 780 acknowledges the various efforts to frustrate DRC's constitution and democratic process and calls for the Obama administration to levy targeted sanctions on government officials who have acted to prevent free and fair elections from taking place. The administration has placed some sanctions on some officials, but the pace and scope of sanctions need to match the urgency of the approaching electoral crisis. The leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee, and the full Foreign Affairs Committee have sent a letter to President Obama urging him to widen the targets, and we recommended that a couple of weeks ago. Finally, Mr. Speaker, time is running out for our government to make the strongest possible statements to the Kabila government to achieve a peaceful, democratic resolution to the crisis that they face. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Ed Royce, the chairman of our committee, for his leadership on all things related to the Syrian crisis, the Iranian crisis, and the large number of hearings that we have had that have brought a focus on these horrific atrocities being committed by Assad. And I want to thank Eliot Engel for sponsoring the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2016. Mr. Speaker, for more than 5 years, the Assad regime has been committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians, including murder, torture, and rape, and has been doing so on an industrial scale. No one has been spared from its targeting--not even children. These atrocities have fueled the largest refugee crisis since World War II, overwhelming the region and propelling a refugee crisis in Europe. More than 6 million people are also internally displaced inside of Syria, which has become one of the most deadly places in the world to deliver humanitarian assistance. The administration's response has not stopped the carnage, nor have the European efforts. This has emboldened the regime; and for months the Syrian and Russian militaries have systematically been bombing Aleppo, Syria's most populous city before the conflict, and they have been bombing it into rubble. The United States must impose the strongest available sanctions on perpetrators in the Syrian regime who are complicit in these atrocities and foreigners who feed its killing machine. This legislation is a very, very important step in that direction. I urge its support and, again, thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair for his sponsorship of the Iran Sanctions Extension Act, H.R. 6297. This is a must-pass measure that would extend for 10 years the Iran Sanctions Act, a critical set of sanctions targeting Iran's energy sector that would otherwise expire on December 31st. As we all know, the administration lifted the vast majority of the act's sanctions following the purported implementation of the egregiously flawed Iran nuclear deal in January, but these restrictions on investment in Iran's nuclear sector would form the backbone of the so-called snapback sanctions that the U.S. could impose in response to Iranian violations of the agreement. Mr. Speaker, let's not kid ourselves, the Iran nuclear agreement is a mess. There is no anytime/anywhere inspections protocol. Today Iran is massively expanding both the number and the capability of its ballistic missile arsenal. Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Now flush with billions of new funding, they are on a weapons procurement frenzy and are acquiring weapons of many kinds, including SAM missiles. There is cheating on a number of fronts. Under the Iranian deal, it is a matter of when, not if, but when will Iran become a nuclear state. This is a minimal policy that will at least snap back and say: when you violate the terms and conditions of the agreement--which I find flawed and many others do as well--that, at least, there is a snapback, and those sanctions will be kicked into place. If they don't exist, it is not going to happen. So for 20 years, we all know sanctions have played a critical role in mitigating Iran's destabilizing weapons program and state sponsorship of terrorism. By imposing sanctions on entities anywhere in the world that invested in Iran's nuclear sector, the Iran Sanctions Act for years targeted a key source of revenue that the Iranian Government used to finance its activities. So again, I think this is an important bill, and I hope that the Senate will take it up quickly after House passage. Again, I thank Chairman Royce and Eliot Engel for their leadership. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is the barest minimum that we can do in the face of such a flawed agreement.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Friday September 30 marks 40 years since the life-saving Hyde Amendment was first enacted. This annual appropriations amendment stops taxpayer dollars from being used to fund most abortions and abortion coverage through government programs like Medicaid. Thanks to new analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute we now know that as many as 2 million children--some obviously much older now--are alive today because of the Hyde amendment. Prior to enactment of Hyde, the Medicaid program paid for about 300,000 abortions annually. Research, including by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, has long shown that stopping taxpayer funded abortion reduces the abortion rate. In an analysis released just this week, the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde amendment saves as many as 60,000 lives each year. I remember the day several years ago when my friend and author of the amendment, Henry Hyde of Illinois, first learned that about one million children were alive because of his amendment. He was overcome with joy knowing that a million mothers were spared the agony of post abortion pain, a million children were alive and well, growing up, going to school, playing sports, dating, marrying and having kids of their own. Today that number is estimated at two million--all because abortion subsidies have been prohibited by law. Since the first bitter and protracted battles over this policy, the Hyde amendment has generally, if begrudgingly, been accepted as the status quo. President Bill Clinton--who supported partial-birth abortion--and President Barack Obama--who pledged to veto a bill protecting children born alive after abortion, both consistently signed the Hyde amendment into law. Yet Hillary Clinton represents a new era of pro-abortion extremism. Not only does she fall in party line with her opposition to the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the ban on sex selection abortion, and the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, she will have an abortion litmus-test for every judge and justice. And in a new assault on innocent human life, she has vowed to decimate the Hyde Amendment and fund abortion on demand using taxpayer dollars. In 1980 the Hyde amendment narrowly overcame a constitutional challenge in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. If Hillary Clinton appoints just one justice, the Hyde amendment will be nullified. Hillary Clinton is outside of the mainstream. Today, more Americans support the sanctity of life and oppose taxpayer funding for abortions than ever. An ever-growing majority in America believes that our government should not fund abortion. A July 2016 Marist poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion--including 45% of those who identify as ``pro-choice.'' The Hyde Amendment is not extreme. Hillary Clinton is. Hillary Clinton is so extreme and outside the mainstream that when MSNBC's Chuck Todd asked her in an April 3rd interview: ``When, and if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?'' Hillary Clinton fired back: ``unborn persons don't have constitutional rights . . .'' Clinton acknowledges that unborn children are persons, but denies them their right to life and wants taxpayers to pay for their destruction. When Hillary Clinton was awarded the Margaret Sanger award by Planned Parenthood in 2009, she said she was ``in awe'' of Margaret Sanger, the infamous founder of Planned Parenthood. Shockingly its American affiliate alone claims responsibility for the death of over seven million babies. In her 2009 speech Clinton also said she admired Sanger for her vision and that Sanger's work here in the United States and across the globe was not done. ``Not done'' means more abortions, paid for by the taxpayer, and an end to conscience rights for those who don't agree. If we lose the Hyde Amendment our country will be carrying out Sanger's eugenic legacy--incentivizing the destruction of the poor and vulnerable by paying for their death. There are nearly 60 million Americans missing from 43 years of legal abortion. 60 million lives with potential that have been snuffed out by state-sanctioned killing. Let's be clear. Hillary Clinton poses an existential threat to the welfare and wellbeing of unborn children and their mothers in the United States and around the world. Rather than expand the culture of death and shred the Hyde amendment--as Hillary Clinton promises--women and men of conscience have a duty to protect the weakest and most vulnerable from the violence of abortion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the troubling rise of anti-Semitism and to call for action against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement--a hateful weapon intended to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish community. According to Pew Research Center, instances of anti-Semitism are at a 7-year high. It is getting worse everywhere, particularly in the Middle East, but also in Europe and even in the United States. That's why I've cosponsored the Combating BDS Act of 2016 (H.R. 4514). This legislation clarifies that state and local governments have the authority to pass and enforce laws that prohibit public funding to institutions that engage in the odious BDS campaign, the purpose of which is to apply double standards that delegitimize and demonize Israel. Thankfully, many states have responded to the BDS campaign by enacting legislation that denies public support to any organization engaged in the campaign--just last month my home state of New Jersey became the 11th state to enact such a law. The boycott campaign against Israel is a complete discredit to its organizers--the government of Israel has by far the best record for human rights, democracy, rule of law, and general humanity toward both its own citizens and its neighbors' citizens, including the Palestinians--of any country in the Middle East. This despite the fact that some of its neighboring governments support or harbor terrorists whose goal is the genocidal annihilation of Israel. Congress must not only commend Israel's record, and applaud those state and local governments that seek to withdraw public funding from the BDS campaign, we must also support and sustain the state and local initiatives. Combating BDS Act does exactly that. I encourage my colleagues to support it and also encourage my colleagues to read the Simon Wiesenthal Center's report, ``Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Against Israel: An Anti-Semitic, Anti-Peace Poison Pill,'' which details the disgusting anti-Semitic record of the BDS movement, particularly making use of Natan Sharansky's ``3Ds test for anti-Semitism.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, for yielding; and I want to thank Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. King for their extraordinary leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the President of the United States, the central argument in this veto message accompanying the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, reciprocity is weak, unsupported, and egregiously flawed. The White House drafters of the veto message either didn't read the carefully crafted bipartisan bill or are seeking to conflate the plain legislative text since JASTA only permits access to U.S. courts by waiving immunity from foreign governments, not foreign government officials or employees, and corrects conflicting case law, except in the cases where someone knowingly aids, abets, or conspires with a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization. Thus, the President is wrong to assert that, under the hallowed principle of reciprocity, U.S. officials and military personnel could be subjected to lawsuits. It is worth noting that nothing precludes that now or ever, but as an argument for veto, it simply doesn't pass muster. While sovereign immunity has its place in the conduct of responsible diplomacy, it is not absolute, as even the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act contains nine exceptions. In 2008, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed legal action against Saudi Arabia and other defendants, holding U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction. Other actions by the courts have thwarted the full accountability Americans expect and deserve. JASTA corrects that. The victims of 9/11 and their grieving families deserve what JASTA empowers: a judicial process to discover the unfettered and ugly truth that, to this day, remains cloaked, concealed, and covered up. JASTA provides a way to hold perpetrators and enablers of terrorism to account. Anyone who has read the recently declassified 28 pages of findings from the House-Senate Intelligence Committee's joint inquiry in 2002, despite the heavy redactions, knows the provocative evidence of Saudi complicity in 9/11, and that remains unexamined. The 28 pages are filled with names and suspected associations with the Government of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with and befriended many of the 9/11 surviving family members--many who died on 9/11 were from my district-- and I can state unequivocally that there would have been no 9/11 Commission and other historic policy initiatives without the 9/11 family members. They have been extraordinary, tenacious, committed, and courageous. On September 20, many family members gathered outside the White House to appeal to the President to sign JASTA. Two of the remarkable widows from New Jersey, Lorie and Mindy, carried this sign to my left, your right, with a picture of President Obama and Saudi King Salman from the front page of the New York Daily News. The headline read: ``Don't choose them over us''--the U.S., the United States. The President chose the king, and he vetoed the bill. We can correct that today. Vote to override.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 5461, the ``Iranian Leadership Transparency Act,'' introduced by my colleague Bruce Poliquin. This bill will give the Iranian people some measure of the transparency they deserve--but have long been denied--about the corrupt financial dealings of their government. H.R. 5461 would require the Administration to produce an annual report on the financial and other assets owned by Iran's senior leaders and the highest ranks of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The report will be published in an easily downloadable format in English, Farsi, Arabic, and Azeri to make sure the information winds up in the hands of Iranians and empowers transparency advocates. With a corruption index ranking of 130 out of 168 countries from Transparency International and a media freedom ranking of 169 out of 180 from Reporters Without Borders, Iran is one of the most difficult climates in which to discover and report the truth about official corruption. This United States Government report would provide unique insights for Iranian and international audiences, particularly since so much of Iran's economy is controlled by shadowy organizations, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The United States Institute of Peace assesses that the IRGC is Iran's single largest economic force with major stakes in most sectors of the economy, including construction, energy, and telecommunication, among others. To further draw back the curtain on Iran's shadowy dealings, the report would detail how the IRGC and Iranian leaders acquired these assets, how they use them, and any methods or techniques they have employed to launder them. Mr. Chair, the report will also enable us to whether the Administration is doing everything in its power to curtail Iran's well- known money laundering practices--which serve as the conduit for much of the support Iran provides to the terrorist groups and armed proxies that threaten American and Israeli lives on a daily basis. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the STAND for Ukraine Act. I'd like to thank my good friend and colleague Mr. Engel for introducing this legislation, which aims to solidify U.S. support for Ukraine's territorial integrity, under assault by the Russian government since 2014. Last weekend Russian-occupied Crimea took part in Russia's parliamentary elections for the first time since Russia took over the peninsula in 2014. In the judgment of OSCE election observers, the elections took place in an environment marked by ``restrictions to fundamental freedoms and political rights, firmly controlled media and a tightening grip on civil society. . . .'' In timely response, this legislation solidifies the U.S. commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The administration has applied various sanctions to Russia. In its leading provisions, this bill will give the sanctions created by executive orders the permanence of statutory law--until Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea is fully restored. These sanctions relate to blocking property of certain persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine. In addition, the bill provides that no federal agency shall take any action or extend any assistance that recognizes Russian sovereignty over Crimea. Mr. Speaker, the Russian government's invasion of Ukraine, and particularly its land grab in Crimea--its forcible, illegal attempt to incorporate that peninsula into Russia--violated the core principles of several bilateral and multilateral agreements and treaties, including all ten of the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act. In July I led the U.S. delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which met this year in Tbilisi. Russian parliamentarians continually sought to undermine, and even demean and provoke the Ukrainian delegation. Mr. Speaker, our delegation provided strong and constant support for the Ukrainians. In the words of this bill's policy statement, we used our ``voice, vote, and influence in international fora to encourage others to provide assistance'' to Ukraine, particularly to restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity. In my own speeches, I focused on the issue of Crimea, and on the sharply declining human rights situation there. Russian ``anti-extremism'' laws have been used to criminalize opposition and stifle free speech. The majority of victims have been Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, who have been subject to killings, kidnappings, torture, harassment and intimidation. I urge my House colleagues to support this measure that will ensure the United States' non-recognition of Russia's illegal occupation, solidify and sharpen sanctions against Russia over Crimea, and support the full territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the citizens of Eritrea, then a province of Ethiopia, voted to become an independent nation. Ethiopia had annexed Eritrea in 1962, and its citizens no doubt believed they were well on their way to controlling their destiny. Unfortunately, their hopes would soon be dashed. Elections have been repeatedly postponed, and opposition political parties are no longer able to organize. Those same initial hopes for democracy and good government in Eritrea also were held by the international community. In a March 1997 report on the U.S. Agency for International Development program in Eritrea, the American aid agency had high praise for its collaboration with the Eritrean government: ``Over the past year, the young state of Eritrea continued its exciting and pace-setting experiment in nation- building, and, similarly, USAID/Eritrea established itself as Eritrea's leading development partner.'' Within a few years, the Government of Eritrea ended its relationship with USAID, but this decision was originally taken as a sign that Eritrea was ready to become an example to the rest of the developing world by managing its own humanitarian needs. Yet Eritrea's government instead merely became less open, and when an East African drought occurred in 2011, we knew very little about how Eritreans were faring. Today, we know that two-thirds of Eritreans live on subsistence agriculture, which has had poor yields due to recurring droughts and low productivity. What we also know is that Eritrea's citizens are living under a regime that does not honor their human rights. In June of this year, the UN Human Rights Council released a report that accused the Government of Eritrea with a variety of violations, including extrajudicial executions, torture, indefinitely prolonged national service and forced labor, and sexual harassment, rape and sexual servitude by state officials. In its Trafficking in Persons Report from June 2016, the State Department listed Eritrea as `Tier 3' and stated, ``Eritrea is a source country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labor . . . the government did not investigate, prosecute, or convict trafficking offenders during the reporting year . . . the government demonstrated negligible efforts to identify and protect trafficking victims . . . the government maintained minimal efforts to prevent trafficking.'' In their most recent International Religious Freedom Report, the State Department listed Eritrea as a Country of Particular Concern. Moreover, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom lists Eritrea as a Tier 1 Country of Particular Concern for its egregious religious freedom violations. Eritrea's government interferes with the internal affairs of registered religious groups and represses the religious liberty of those faith groups it refuses to register, such as Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims who do not follow the government-appointed head of the Islamic community. Furthermore, the government has a record of arbitrary arrests of believers and their leaders and reportedly tortures those in prolonged detention. As a result of the authoritarian government's actions, Eritrea is considered one of the world's fastest emptying nations, with about half a million of the country's citizens having left their homes for often dangerous paths to freedom. An estimated 5,000 Eritreans leave their country each month. In a July 9, 2015, hearing by our subcommittee on African refugees, John Stauffer, President of the America Team for Displaced Eritreans, told us that Eritrean Government officials operated freely in eastern Sudan, arresting and bringing back to Eritrea those they considered high-value targets among refugees, such as government officials or church leaders. He also testified that refugees moving east may be kidnapped and extorted locally for a few thousand dollars, or taken off to Egypt or Libya where they are abused. That abuse often included organ harvesting. In the past year, the world has witnessed a flood of Eritrean refugees risking their lives on too-often unseaworthy boats bound for Europe. The prevalence of Eritreans among refugees has been overshadowed by refugees from the Middle East, especially Syria. The United Kingdom, one of the prime destinations for Eritrean refugees, apparently wanted to slow down the flow of Eritreans into the country. Earlier this year, the UK reduced the percentage of Eritrean asylum claims from 95 percent to 28 percent. Directly addressing the root causes of the flight of Eritreans seems a better policy than trying to determine the final destination of Eritreans who feel forced to leave home. That means an enhanced level of communication between Eritrea's government and the international community. There have been quiet contacts between Eritrea's government, the U.S. Government, and civil society. A hearing I convened yesterday examined how such contacts have developed. Can the United States form a relationship with a government it has under sanction? Does the dire situation in which Eritrea's people live require an alteration of U.S. policy? What would a change in policy mean for the international effort to hold Eritrea's government responsible for blatant human rights violations? These and other questions must be answered before there is any policy adjustment toward Eritrea.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark Suicide Prevention Month and to join with my colleagues in helping to raise awareness of--and combat--the staggering rate of suicide among our veteran population. The men and women of our military make tremendous, selfless sacrifices on behalf of each and every American. As a result, many veterans return from service with physical and/or invisible wounds and a disturbingly high number are taking their own lives. In July, the VA released the most comprehensive study analyzing suicide among our veteran population to date, reviewing 55 million veterans' records since 1979. It showed that every day an estimated 20 veterans commit suicide. This number is tragic beyond words, unacceptable and numbing. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of what can only be described as a staggering mental health crisis costing the lives of 20 of our nation's heroes every day. Too many veterans are being left behind and too many families are left with the pain and anguish of losing a loved one. Often times, family members witness the veteran struggling but the VA refuses to take their observations into account. As the son of a WW2 combat veteran, I have witnessed the residual wounds of war, the struggle to cope with the post-traumatic stress that can continue for decades and the pain that a lack of access to services can cause for veterans and their families. This Congress, we have passed legislation to give the VA additional tools and give veterans key support, including the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act (P.L. 114-2), which targeted the gaps in the VA's mental health and suicide prevention efforts; and the Female Veteran Suicide Prevention Act (P.L. 114-188), which is intended to prod the VA to take into account the complex causes and factors that are driving the disproportionately high suicide rate among women veterans and use that information when designing suicide prevention programs. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (P.L. 114-198) included provisions to direct the VA to take several actions to expand opioid safety initiatives that help prevent veterans from becoming opioid abusers. As a recent Frontline investigation entitled ``Chasing Heroin'' summarized: ``Veterans face a double-edged threat: Untreated chronic pain can increase the risk of suicide, but poorly managed opioid regimens can also be fatal.'' The VA must do better: they cannot simply dole out drugs, as we saw in Tomah. It is a dereliction of duty for VA medical staff charged with the sacred task of caring for our nation's veterans and this law will help ensure proper management and controls are in place when the VA treats a veteran's chronic pain. The VA does have a number of suicide prevention programs that can be a resource for veterans, servicemembers, their families and loved ones, including and especially the Veterans Crisis Hotline. Any veteran in danger of self-harm or suicide can call, 24 hours a day. It is anonymous and confidential. It is staffed by trained professionals who will ``work with you to reduce the immediate risk, help you get through the crisis, make sure you are safe, and help you to connect with the right services.'' We have an obligation to repay the debt we owe to those who have fought in defense of our nation and a sacred duty to ensure that we do everything in our power to get our vets the physical and psychological support they need. This year's Suicide Prevention Month theme is `Be There.' During the darkest hours in our history, the men and women who serve in uniform have always been there to answer the call. We can and must do better to be there for them.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 5961, the Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act of 2016. Since ISIS' blitzkrieg across the multiethnic and religiously diverse mosaic of eastern Syria and western Iraq in 2014, I have chaired four hearings focused on the implications of this appalling advance for religious and ethnic minorities in those areas. Events in the region and the expert testimony of witnesses quickly revealed that ISIS was not merely focused on territorial conquest--the group was ideologically committed to exterminating ancient religious communities and cleansing its self-proclaimed caliphate of anything but its vicious and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Many of my colleagues and I were certain early on that ISIS was committing genocide. We pressed the Administration to formally acknowledge that fact until the Secretary of State did so in March of this year. But the most pressing question issue has always been the lives of those religious minorities right now that face extinction under this tyranny of terror. The Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act of 2016 is an answer to the question of what the United States can do to mitigate this suffering, save lives, and build a more sustainable future for Syria and Iraq. The bill tackles this overwhelming challenge on three fronts by directing the Administration to take additional measures to improve the lives of displaced genocide survivors, provide some of them with an additional lifeline to escape their war torn lands, and support efforts that will help preserve the presence of religious minority communities in those areas for years to come. In a hearing this May that I chaired called ``The ISIS Genocide Declaration: What Next?'' Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus--who has been a leader in drawing attention to the plight of Christians in this conflict--testified that ``Repeatedly we hear from Church leaders in the region that Christians--and other genocide survivors--are last in line for assistance from governments.'' We can and must do better. To that end, H.R. 5961 requires the Administration to assess and address the humanitarian vulnerabilities, needs, and triggers to flee, of religious and ethnic communities that were targeted for genocide or otherwise severely persecuted. It directs the Administration to fund entities that are effectively providing assistance to these communities and guarantees that faith-based organizations on the ground are not excluded from U.S. assistance. One such example is the Chaldean Catholic Archdiocese of Erbil, which provides assistance to internally displaced families of Yezidis, Muslims, and Christians, including food and resettlement from tents to permanent housing, as well as rental assistance, for Yezidis, medical care and education to Yezidis and Muslims through its clinics, schools, and university--which are open to everyone. The Archdiocese provides some form of each of these kinds of assistance to all of the estimated 10,500 internally displaced Christian families in the greater Erbil region. Yet as it provides these critical services, it has not received a single penny from any government. H.R. 5961 is clear that the Administration must be supporting entities, regardless of whether they are faith-based, that are heroically providing assistance to genocide survivors on the ground. In recognition of the extraordinary suffering of these religious and ethnic communities, and their extraordinary vulnerability to persecution, H.R. 5961 requires the Administration to create a Priority Two, or ``P-2,'' visa category of special humanitarian concern that would provide one additional avenue for genocide survivors to seek resettlement in the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. It is important to note that this is not a ``fast track'' to resettlement--P-2 applicants undergo the same security screening as all refugee applicants. But this special category allows them to access an overseas interview wherever the United States interviews refugee applicants, without needing a referral from the UN, an NGO, or a US Embassy, as is usually the case. This bill also addresses a critical factor that will influence the continued presence of smaller, vulnerable religious communities in Syria and Iraq beyond this conflict: accountability for those who perpetrate heinous crimes against them. H.R. 5961 directs the Administration to prioritize supporting the criminal investigation, prosecution, and conviction of perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. These efforts will be focused on funding and supporting entities that are conducting criminal investigations, building Syrian and Iraqi investigative and judicial capacity, or collecting and preserving evidence for eventual use in domestic courts, hybrid courts, or internationalized domestic courts. Whether they are members of the Assad regime, ISIS, or some of the Popular Mobilization Brigades in Iraq, there can be no impunity for individuals who committed these dreadful crimes. H.R. 5961 also directs the Administration to identify gaps in our criminal statutes to facilitate the prosecution of American perpetrators, and non-Americans present in the United States, of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Without accountability, without humanitarian assistance reaching these religious and ethnic communities, we risk losing the invaluable, ancient presence of these communities in these countries altogether. This will feed violent extremism and dim the future of Iraq and Syria. I urge my House colleagues to support this measure that will deliver immediate assistance to genocide survivors, help prosecute and punish perpetrators, and invest in a sustainable future for these persecuted religious and ethnic communities in the lands in which they have lived for so many generations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his extraordinary work on this legislation, Mr. Conyers, and, of course, Peter King who has been absolutely tenacious picking up the good work that Dan Lungren, a former member of Congress and Attorney General of California, had done on this legislation previously. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and it has to be signed by the President. I certainly hope--echoing comments of the previous speaker--that the President will, indeed, sign it into law. This bill holds the promise of some measure of justice for the victims of al Qaeda's horrific terrorist attack on the United States 15 years ago this Sunday. Time has not diminished the suffering of those who have lost loved ones on that day, nor has it brought accountability and, certainly, has not brought closure. This bill aims to change that to some degree by overturning the legal challenges that have stood between the victims and the justice they rightly seek from foreign governments and individuals suspected of financing the 9/11 attacks. I have worked extensively with the 9/11 survivors and the family members. I have worked with the Jersey Girls, as they became known, who pushed so hard for the 9/11 Commission that was chaired by my former Governor Tom Kean, who did yeoman's work to get to the bottom of what happened and what we might do to mitigate such a crisis going forward. Unfortunately, there still are gaps, and this is one of those gaping holes that need to be closed. Here today are some of those family members, many of them widows: Kathy Wisniewski, who works on my staff who lost her son, Alan; Mindy Kleinberg; Lorie Van Auken; Monica Gabrielle; and Carol Ashley are here in the Chamber and have pushed so hard for this legislation. Not here but here in spirit: Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, and Sheila Martello. Mary and Frank Fetchet also are with us. They lost their son Brad. These are people who have said ``never again'' needs to mean never again so no other Americans would suffer what they have endured at the loss of their loved ones. This is why this legislation is another major step forward. Look at the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the impediments that it has placed. As some of my colleagues have said earlier, we just want in court to be able to get at the truth: who was part of the facilitating and the financing of the 9/11 murderers--the terrorists-- that killed some 3,000 people, 50 of whom--more than 50 who lived in my own congressional district. This bill also would amend the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987. The bill will open foreign officials to accountability to so-called secondary liability, such as aiding and abetting or conspiring with terrorist perpetrators. These are very commonsense and modest changes to the law that will hopefully get us closer to justice for those who have suffered so much. It is a great bill. Again, I thank Chairman Goodlatte. Pete King has been absolutely tenacious, and our leadership has heeded those calls and is supportive. I want to thank them for ensuring it came up today prior to the 15th anniversary of that infamous event.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on April 27 of this year, the subcommittee I chair held a hearing on South Sudan's prospects for peace. An accord that appeared to finally end the civil war that broke out in December 2013 was reluctantly signed by both the Government of South Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement--In Opposition in August 2015. Perhaps too much was read into the signing of that agreement and not enough into the continuing criticism of the accords by both sides. Peace was never fully established in South Sudan as a result of the August 2015 agreement. In fact, fighting spread to areas that had not previously seen armed conflict. An estimated 50,000 South Sudanese have been killed since December 2013, more than 2.5 million have been displaced, and 4.8 million face severe hunger. According to the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan, or UNMISS, ``gross violations of human rights and serious violations of humanitarian law have occurred on a massive scale.'' South Sudanese women have long reported cases of sexual assault by armed forces throughout the country--sometimes in sight of UNMISS bases. This past July, between 80-100 armed soldiers broke into the Terrain apartment compound, which houses aid workers and international organization staff, and for several hours, they sexually assaulted women, beat residents, murdered one South Sudanese journalist and looted the facility. UNMISS did not respond to the desperate calls for help from residents, even though their own personnel lived in the Terrain compound, and UNMISS officials say the various components of UNMISS didn't respond to orders to mobilize from within the organization. UN peacekeepers were minutes away but refused to intervene despite being asked and having a robust legal mandate to do so. A contingent of the South Sudanese military ultimately rescued the victims from other rampaging troops. The investigation by the South Sudanese government is scheduled to be completed within days, and there must be consequences for those found guilty. The rapidly deteriorating security and the increasingly dire humanitarian situation led me to undertake an emergency mission to South Sudan two weeks ago along with Staff Director Greg Simpkins. I have known Salva Kiir since he became First Vice President in the Government of the Republic of Sudan in 2005--as a matter of fact I met him in Khartoum only weeks after he assumed that office--and I hoped my visit might convey to him the outrage over the murder, rape, sexual assault, attack on aid workers, and the precarious situation his government faces. South Sudan is at a tipping point. The United Nations will likely take up a measure to impose an international arms embargo on South Sudan this month. The International Monetary Fund has strongly recommended a mechanism for financial transparency and meets next month, likely expecting a response from South Sudan. Meanwhile the House and Senate both have measures that contain an arms embargo and other sanctions. In Juba, we met with President Kiir, his Defense Minister Kuol Manyang Juuk and the top members of the general staff, including Chief of General Staff Paul Malong, considered by many to be a major power behind the scenes. I emphasized to them that the widespread rape and sexual exploitation and abuse by soldiers must stop now, and that perpetrators of these despicable crimes must be prosecuted. In response, both President Kiir and Defense Minister Jook agreed to produce a `zero tolerance' presidential decree against rape and sexual exploitation and abuse by all armed forces. Such a decree not only informs perpetrators that they will be punished for their actions, but it places the government on the line to enforce such a decree. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has previously described the South Sudan government's efforts to hold perpetrators of abuses accountable as ``few and inadequate.'' That must change. President Kiir also gave us a copy of a presidential order forming a commission to investigate the incident at the Terrain compound. The result of that investigation is due any day now. There are four military officers and one civilian in custody for looting the Terrain compound, but no one has been arrested for the sexual assaults, beatings or the public murder of the South Sudanese journalist. One of the victims of sexual assault at Terrain is from my congressional district. After relaying horrible details of the sexual assault by two soldiers, she gave us the name of the soldier who ``rescued'' her and who might be able to provide information that could be used to find and prosecute those who attacked her at the Terrain compound. There are about 20,000 humanitarian aid workers in South Sudan-- 2,000 of whom are from the United States and other foreign countries. If there is not greater security for these humanitarian personnel and supplies, vital assistance will diminish at the time it is needed most. The exploitation of children as child soldiers must stop as well. According to UNICEF, 16,000 child soldiers have been recruited by all sides since civil war began in December 2013. Moreover, this year's US State Department Trafficking in Persons Report gave South Sudan a failing grade--Tier 3--in part because of child soldiers. South Sudan faces the possibility of a UN arms embargo and other sanctions. A new 4,000 Regional Protection Force--designed to augment the over 13,000 UN uniformed peacekeepers--has already been approved by the UN Security Council. There is yet time for South Sudan to make its pivot to peace and good governance by faithfully implementing the comprehensive peace accord--including and especially the establishment of a Hybrid Court-- signed one year ago but time is running out. The governments of the three guarantors of South Sudan's peace--the United States, the United Kingdom and Norway--all have expressed their disgust with the South Sudan government and its armed opposition for not adhering to the August 2015 peace agreement and providing to the extent it can for the security and well-being of its own people. However, expressions of disdain are not enough. This hearing I convened on South Sudan today was not only intended to examine culpability for the current situation, but also to try to find solutions that will safeguard the future of one of the world's newest nations and its citizens. As a guarantor of the peace, we can and should do no less.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution (H. Res. 660) to support the territorial integrity of Georgia. I want to thank my good friends and colleagues Mr. Poe and Mr. Connolly for introducing this excellent resolution, which condemns Russia's ongoing illegal activities along the occupation line in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Mr. Speaker, Russia's invasion and occupation of Georgian territory violates the Helsinki Final Act, as well as the core principles of several multilateral agreements, the Budapest Memorandum, and the United Nations Charter. The United States has not recognized Russia's illegal attempt to separate Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia as legitimate in any way--and this resolution sends a powerful message that in this policy the administration has the full support of Congress. I was in Georgia in August, 2008, arriving about two weeks after the Russian invasion. The human suffering generated by the invasion was immense, with over 192,000 people displaced and several hundred killed. Several of my constituents found themselves trapped behind Russian lines in South Ossetia—we were able to get them out with help from our very capable ambassador, John Tefft, now serving as our ambassador to Russia, and the assistance of another country's diplomatic mission. The Russian occupation of Georgian territory is a festering sore that has not healed in the eight years that have elapsed since the invasion. Mr. Speaker, the resolution notes: ``the Russian Federation is building barbed wire fences and installing, so-called `border signs' and other artificial barriers along the occupation line and depriving the people residing within the occupied regions and in the adjacent areas of their fundamental rights and freedoms.'' Mr. Speaker, I saw this new Iron Curtain with my own eyes in July. I was in Georgia, leading the U.S. Delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and made a visit to what our embassy calls the occupation line with some of my congressional colleagues. We looked over Russia's fortified line from an observation platform--and what we saw reminded me of the old Soviet Union. The Russian troops came to the checkpoint and made people wait upwards of 12 hours to cross over with foodstuffs and reach people on the other side. A Russian guard used a camera to film me and the other members who were standing on the platform. Tensions were thick. Mr. Speaker, this resolution comes at a timely moment, as Georgia prepares for its parliamentary elections in October. It reminds Georgians as they prepare to go to the polls that the U.S. supports them in their efforts to develop a sovereign, independent, and prosperous country. I thank my good friend Mr. Poe for introducing this resolution in support of Georgia and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue and Ranking Member Engel, and especially thank Chairman Salmon for authoring this important piece of legislation. North Korea, as we know, poses an existential threat to its neighbors and requires constant vigilance and close cooperation of regional allies. The alliance between the United States, South Korea, and Japan is vital to curtail North Korea's ever-worsening saber rattling and to ensure regional security and human rights. A strong relationship between the region's leading democracies is also critically important to provide a balance to China's increasingly uncertain diplomacy. China subsidizes North Korea's bad behavior, enables the torture of asylum seekers by repatriating those who escape to China in direct contravention of the Refugee Convention, which they have signed and ratified, and provides Kim Jong-Un needed currency by employing thousands of trafficked workers. Though the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on North Korea recommended the U.N. impose targeted sanctions on the North Korean leaders responsible for massive crimes against humanity, China blocked effective U.N. actions. That is why the U.S., South Korea, and Japan must work together to identify and list those North Koreans responsible for egregious human rights abuses. Pyongyang's enablers, abusers, and nuclear customers must be identified, and those responsible individuals for gross human rights violations ought to be held to account individually. There is growing evidence that sanctions are having some effect. We know that high-level diplomats and military leaders are defecting, recognizing that they will be held accountable if they continue to support Kim Jong-Un's barbaric regime. The trilateral relationship is also critically important to ensure regional security. North Korea's nuclear quest and the multiple recent tests of missile technology demonstrate again that China cannot or will not control its protege. Despite China's objections, there is need for deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and to conduct joint military exercises to strengthen coordination and cooperation posed by the threat of the North Korean military. I support the resolution strongly and hope the House votes unanimously for it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for his leadership on AGOA in general. I thank Karen Bass, who has worked doggedly for years, last year for the reauthorization. I see Mr. McDermott, who has also been so active over the years on this and critical to its passage at the beginning. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2845, the AGOA Enhancement Act. When the African Growth and Opportunity Act was enacted into law in May of 2000, it was intended to help eligible Sub- Saharan African countries increase economic growth by providing duty- free, quota-free access to U.S. markets for more than 6,400 items from meats to textiles and apparel, to petroleum, to leather goods. Because there were issues that needed to be addressed to enable AGOA to be more effective as intended, Congress has fine-tuned this important legislation since then and made adjustments several times to facilitate African exports to the United States. H.R. 2845 is the latest noble effort to make AGOA work for more African producers primarily by enhancing the technical assistance and information provided to African producers, including the establishment of a Web site to provide this information. People need to know what is available and how they can access this important treaty and its subsidies. The bill further allows for countries with the Millennium Challenge account grants to foster regional economic integration. It also targets inter-Africa trade, which is still less than 10 percent of all Africa international trade. My colleagues have explained other aspects of the bill in great detail, so I won't be redundant. But extending AGOA as we did in the last Congress was a laudable achievement but will not have the full intended effect if African producers have limited information or abilities to effectively take advantage of international trade opportunity. This is a job creator both in Africa and in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his authorship.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Harper, and Ms. Esty for their strong support for the bill. Ms. Esty is one of the cosponsors of the bill. I also want to thank Chairwoman Miller for her leadership and good work in shepherding this important bill through the committee and Ranking Member Brady for his support of the initiative. I also appreciate the work of the committee staff, including Brad Walvort and Bob Sensenbrenner, and my legislative director, Cate Benedetti, and especially Majority Leader McCarthy and Kelly Dixon for posting the bill for consideration this afternoon. I do rise in strong support and urge my colleagues to support the Gold Star Families Voices Act, legislation designed to ensure that immediate family members of servicemembers who are killed or missing in action or have died as a result of their service participate in the Library of Congress' Veterans History Project. Congress created the project, as Mr. Harper pointed out, to collect and catalog stories of American war veterans. We did this in 2000 to help preserve their memories so that current and future generations may hear and better appreciate the realities of war and the sacrifices borne by those who served in uniform. The project is designed to turn their memories into our history to memorialize the lives of heroes whose selfless sacrifice has contributed, and continues to contribute, to our freedom and liberty and our collective understanding of who we are as a Nation. It has been a great success. In fact, earlier this year, the Library announced that it reached a milestone, with 100,000 veteran stories archived. There are now more than 100,000 testimonies of veterans who served in military engagements since World War I in our permanent record. However, conspicuously missing from the rich project's history are the veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice. Currently--which this bill will correct--the project accepts only firsthand accounts of living veterans, unintentionally leaving out the men and women who did not return from the battlefield and can no longer speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, this issue was first brought to my attention by Vietnam veteran Terry Fearon and the New Jersey Gold Star Mothers organization. Its president, Judi Tapper, the proud mother of Petty Officer First Class David Tapper, a Navy SEAL who was killed in Afghanistan on August 20, 2003, recently told me: ``Never in history has there been a forum to replace our heroes' silenced voices.'' Enactment of this bill will help change that. It will ensure we record and remember the lives and sacrifices of all who have served by providing family members the opportunity to create a lasting narrative and living record of their fallen loved ones. This bill is endorsed by the national organization known as the American Gold Star Mothers, whose second vice president, Becky Christmas, said: The legislation gives our family, our children, a voice that they no longer have. The Gold Star Families Voices Act will ensure that the experiences and lives of all veterans, including our sons and daughters who fought and died for our country, are remembered, honored and preserved. Mr. Speaker, during my quarter of a century of service on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and as we crafted this bill, I have had the great privilege of working with the Gold Star Mothers. They are an incredibly inspiring, committed, and dedicated group of women who have worked tirelessly and successfully to bring about meaningful change to better the lives of servicemembers, veterans, and their families. So I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and honor the men and women who gave ``the last full measure of devotion'' in the service of our Nation by allowing their family members to tell their stories, so that all Americans can hear, appreciate, remember, and honor these patriots.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it has been one year and eight months since President Obama announced a major change in our country's policy towards Cuba. It has been eleven months since Secretary Kerry visited Havana and reopened our embassy. And it has been nearly four months since our President visited Cuba. Clearly, a lot has changed in just over a year and a half. But for the people of Cuba, what has changed? At a hearing I convened last week, we examined the sorry state of civil and political rights in the Castro brothers' Cuba, and how, despite all the promises by this administration that an opening to Cuba will lead to a greater opening domestically for the Cuban people we still see political repression--including, it must be noted, repression directed at the Afro-Cuban population. This is not the first time this subcommittee has expressed concern about the lack of openness to democracy and dissent in Cuba. In fact, one of our witnesses, the courageous Dr. Oscar Biscet, offered dramatic testimony before this subcommittee in February of 2012, when he testified via telephone from the U.S. Interests Section in Havana after evading the Cuban police to get there. Likewise, on February 5, 2015 we held a hearing entitled ``Human Rights in Cuba: An opportunity squandered,'' wherein we asked whether the Obama administration had used the considerable leverage that it wields to seek to better the condition of the Cuban people, or whether it was squandering the opportunity. Since then, our fear that the administration has not been pushing sufficiently for the release of political prisoners and other human rights concerns has only grown, with the focus on Obama's ``legacy'' instead of the Cuban people. For example, when President Obama made his visit to Cuba, he and Raul Castro appeared in a photo op press conference. CNN's Jim Acosta, much to his credit, asked the hard question about Cuba's political prisoners. Raul Castro, much to his discredit, denied that there were ANY political prisoners in Cuba. ``Give me a list of the political prisoners and I will release them immediately,'' Castro taunted. ``Just mention the list.'' And President Obama just stood there. Well, Mr. President, I have a list, of more than fifty political prisoners compiled by my good friend and colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. This is a list that President Obama should have had in breast pocket, ready to pull out when Raul Castro dared him to call his bluff. When I came to Congress in 1981, with Ronald Reagan, in the days of the old Soviet Union, one of the first issues I worked on was the plight of Soviet Jews and refusniks who were either imprisoned or not allowed to leave the Soviet Union. I recall George Shultz, when he was Secretary of State, saying that whenever he met with his Soviet counterpart, and from him down to the lowest State Department officer, he would bring with him a list of imprisoned dissidents and human rights advocates. Front and center of any discussion, whether about nuclear arms or tensions in the Middle East, Secretary Shultz would bring up dissidents, naming them by name. It was this constant focus on human rights that helped move the Soviet government to allow Jews and others to leave the Soviet Union, people such as the great Natan Sharansky. And I have another list of names, that of six members of the Cuban National Front of Civic Resistance who have applied for visas to come to the United States but for some reason, inexplicably, our State Department has refused to allow to visit the United States. These are: Orlando Gomez Echavarria Jose Alberto Alvarez Bravo Yaite Diasnell Cruz Sosa Yoel Bravo Lopez Lazaro Ricardo Fiallo Lopez Ciro Aleixis Casanova Perez I call upon Secretary Kerry to allow these brave people entry to the United States, so that they can meet with me and my colleagues and enlighten us further as to the current state of affairs in Cuba. Finally, I note that the administration has failed to secure the release of fugitives from justice such as Joanne Chesimard, who is on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list, convicted of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. The administration must insist upon the unconditional return of Chesimard and all other fugitives from justice, as well as demand that the Castro regime respect the civil and political rights of the Cuban people, before making any further concessions. And to underscore the point, unconditional means unconditional-- there should be no ``swap'' whereby we exchange convicted Cuban spies Ana Montes or Kendall Meyers for these fugitives as a concession to the Castro regime. The effect of that would be to trade Americans who have committed crimes in the United States for other Americans who have committed crimes in the United States, demoralizing our intelligence community further in the process. With that, I want to turn to our witnesses, noting as I do that last week, on July 13, it was the anniversary of the tugboat massacre of 1994, when 37 victims, including 11 children, were killed by the regime. How little has changed for the Cuban people.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 launched a bold comprehensive public-private sector strategy that included sheltering, political asylum, and other protections for the victims; long jail sentences and asset confiscation for the traffickers; a myriad of preventative initiatives and tough sanctions for governments that failed to meet minimum standards prescribed in the TVPA. As the prime sponsor of that law, which also created the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report and tier rankings, I remain deeply disappointed and concerned that both last year's TIP Report and the current one gave passing grades to several nations with horrific records of government complicity in human trafficking. Falsifying a country's human trafficking record not only undermines the credibility of the report but was especially dehumanizing to the victims who suffer rape, cruelty and horrifying exploitation. The politically contrived passing grades for more than a dozen failing governments was exposed by a series of investigative reports by Reuters, which found that the professionals at the State Department's TIP office made one set of recommendations--only to be overruled at a higher level for political reasons. A hearing I held last week looked closely at the newly released Trafficking in Persons Report, which assesses and ranks 188 countries each year on their records of prosecuting traffickers, protecting victims, and preventing human trafficking. Sadly, this year's TIP Report has again failed many victims. Some of the rankings comport with the records of certain countries. Burma and Uzbekistan, for example, are designated Tier 3--as they should be. But other nations including trading partners Malaysia and China are given a free pass despite their horrific records of government complicity in human trafficking. Cuba, a dictatorship highly favored by this administration, is again falsely touted with a passing grade. China was also allowed to keep its Tier 2 Watch List ranking, despite the fact that the reason for their upgrade two years ago was found to be a fraud. Alexandra Harney, Jason Szep, and Matt Spetalnick of Reuters authored an expose on China's politicized ranking, finding that, ``Two years after China announced it was ending the ``re-education through labor'' system, extrajudicial networks of detention facilities featuring torture and forced labor thrive in its place.'' China had deceived the U.S. in 2014, and when that became apparent last year--we let them keep their ill-gotten upgrade in 2015, and again in 2016. I chair the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and based on both sex and labor trafficking, China deserves a Tier 3 ranking--egregious violator-- as much if not more than any other nation on the list. Malaysia, whose ranking was upgraded to the Tier 2 Watch List last year on the flimsiest of justifications and fears it would be disqualified from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, was allowed to maintain its Tier 2 Watch List ranking--despite the fact that Malaysia faltered in its anti-trafficking progress over the last year. In fact, Malaysia, a country with 4 million migrant workers, prosecuted fewer trafficking cases and convicted only 7 traffickers last year--that's less than when it was a Tier 3 country. Meanwhile, women from Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Nepal are trafficked to China for forced marriages or sexual exploitation. North Korean laborers worked under conditions described by experts as forced or slave labor to earn income for the North Korean government. Prisoners of conscience and other prisoners continue to be held in administration detention facilities where there are numerous credible reports of prisoners being trafficked for the purpose of organ harvesting. The State Department must get the TIP Report right, or we will lose the foundational tool created to help the more than 20 million victims of trafficking enslaved around the world today. A tier ranking is about protecting vulnerable lives--lives destroyed or saved by the on-the-ground impact of a government's inaction or action. The easiest cases for a Tier 3 ranking should be those where the government itself is profiting from human trafficking, such as in Cuba, where thousands of Cuban medical professionals labor in dangerous countries not of their choosing, their passports taken, their movements restricted, their families and licenses threatened--and their salaries heavily garnished--by the Cuban government. It is not a coincidence that Cuban law does not recognize labor trafficking. Maria Werlau testified at our hearing in March that, ``. . . trafficking is a huge operation run by the government through numerous state enterprises with . . . accomplices, participants, sponsors, and promoters all over the world.'' Cuba is also a known destination for child sex tourists, and Cuba reports no convictions for child sex tourism. Yet, Cuba is ranked Tier 2 Watch List. We've seen many countries take a Tier 3 ranking seriously and make real, systemic changes that improved their tier rankings, but more importantly, protected trafficking victims--countries such as South Korea and Israel. When the Bush administration branded South Korea and Israel Tier 3 based on their records, both countries enacted and implemented policies to combat human trafficking and were given earned upgrades for their verifiable actions. But other countries attempt to end-run the accountability system with endless, empty promises of action or mostly meaningless gestures of compliance. China sat on the Tier 2 Watch List for eight years, each year promising the State Department they would implement their anti- trafficking plan. Each year, the State Department took the bait until Congress put a limit on the Tier 2 Watch List--two years only, unless the President gives the country a waiver. Well, China has once again promised to implement a plan--and the President just gave them a waiver to stay on the Watch List a third year. Tier rankings are about real prosecutions, real prevention, and real protection--for real people who are suffering as slaves. The TIP Report was meant to speak for the trafficking victims waiting, hoping, and praying for relief. While the 2016 TIP Report speaks for many of them, too many are still unheard.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone, especially all of the left-behind parents, who attended a hearing I convened last week to discuss what the U.S. Department of State's second annual report under the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act tells us about the Department's implementation of the Goldman Act thus far. On a positive note, the numbers of new abductions from the United States in 2015 remained below their pre-Goldman Act mark, probably due to increased abduction prevention. According to the report, 600 more children were abducted to other countries last year, quickly replacing the 299 children, abducted in various years, who were returned. Overall, approximately 1,000 children remain in a foreign country, separated from their American parent. As many of you have experienced, international parental child abduction rips children from their homes and whisks them away to a foreign land, alienating them from the love and care of the parent and family left behind. Child abduction is child abuse, and it continues to plague families across the United States. For decades, the State Department has used ``quiet diplomacy'' to attempt to bring these children home. In a hearing I held on this issue back in 2009, then-Assistant Secretary of State Bernie Aronson called quiet diplomacy ``a sophisticated form of begging.'' Thousands of American families still ruptured and grieving from years of unresolved abductions confirm that quiet diplomacy is gravely inadequate. In 2014, Congress unanimously passed the Goldman Act to give teeth to requests for return and access. The actions against non-cooperating governments required by the law escalate in severity, and range from official protests through diplomatic channels to the suspension of development, security, or other foreign assistance. Extradition of abducting parents also may be the case. The Goldman Act is a law calculated to get results, as we did in the return of Sean Goldman from Brazil in 2008. This year's report, as required by the Goldman Act, singles out 19 countries in total, including India, Brazil, Japan, and Tunisia for failures to work with the United States in the return of abducted American children. For instance, the report notes 83 abductions to India still open at the end of the year--with 25 of those being new in 2015. Only one was closed with a court-ordered return to the United States. These numbers will continue to climb each year until India creates a mechanism for resolution. Right now India is a magnet for abductions because taking parents are almost guaranteed to get away with their crime. Brazil had 17 abduction cases open at the end of 2015 with a 27 percent resolution rate. Brazil has been a Convention partner with the United States since 2003, and yet consistently fails to comply with the Convention. Devon Davenport, who has testified before this Subcommittee, has won every one of his 24 appeals in Brazil's Courts over the last 7 years--and yet he still cannot get his daughter Nadia home. If there was ever a textbook case for sanctions, Brazil is it--they have met the legal threshold 10 times over. The Report lists Japan as a ``country that has failed to comply with one or more of its Hague Convention obligations'', specifically ``in the area of enforcement of return orders.'' Multiple parents have won pyrrhic victories in court, only to discover Japan has what the report calls ``systemic flaws'' with enforcement. What remains inexplicable is why Japan was kept off the list of non- compliant countries for a second year in a row when even the State Department condemned them for ``systemic flaws'' in their ability to enforce court orders to return U.S. children. Failure to enforce return orders is an automatic trigger for landing on the non-compliant list. One parent had to go outside the Convention framework to achieve enforcement in an extraordinary case resolved after the reporting period. The report should have also counted against Japan the 40 pre- Convention abduction cases it mentions as still pending--most of them for more than 5 years. Countries should be listed as worst offenders if they have high numbers of cases--30 percent or more--that have been pending more than a year. Countries also may be so listed if their law enforcement, judiciary, or central authority for abduction regularly fails in their duties under The Hague Convention or other controlling agreement; or if the country simply fails to work with the U.S. to resolve cases. Accurate reporting, including inclusion on the worst offenders list, is critical to family court judges across the country and parents considering their child's travel to a foreign country where abduction or access problems are a risk. However, reporting is just step one. Once these countries are properly classified, the Secretary of State then determines which of the aforementioned actions the U.S. will apply to the country in order to encourage the timely resolution of cases. Such actions could bring an end to the nightmare of the Elias family, whose children, Jade and Michael, have been missing in Japan for 8 years. Such actions could end the nightmares of any of the parents who shared their stories at last week's hearing.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind our government that the human rights abuses committed by Turkish President Erdogan are grave and ongoing, and to distinguish between the Turkish president and the Turkish people--and to stand with the people. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has in recent years been aggressively violating the human rights of Turkish citizens and undermining the rule of law, in order to root out dissent and consolidate his personal power. The freedom of the press and the rights of common citizens to run schools, businesses, and volunteer associations have come under direct threat. Since assuming the presidency two years ago, President Erdogan has undermined the independence of the judiciary, jeopardizing access to a fair trial and undercutting government accountability. In 2014, he worked to stack the country's High Council of Judges and Prosecutors with party loyalists, enabling his government to ease arrest procedures and curtail opportunities for appeal. This facilitated the detention of thousands of activists, journalists, and businessmen under the country's overbroad terrorism statute. The President has exploited his growing leverage over the courts: his government's reshuffling last month of 3,700 judges and prosecutors rewarded pliant members of the judiciary while punishing others who ruled against the government or heard cases involving official corruption. A law passed earlier this month dismissed most of the judges on Turkey's highest courts, leaving it up to the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors to reappoint them or pick their successors. Mr. Speaker, in addition to undermining government institutions, President Erdogan's tightening grip on Turkey is also weakening the vitality of Turkish society. Under President Erdogan's direction, state authorities are undertaking a campaign of retribution against Erdogan's critics. Since Erdogan assumed the presidency in 2014, the government has opened nearly 2,000 cases against people suspected of ``insulting the president''--a crime in Turkey. Professional journalists and major news outlets in particular have incurred the wrath of the President. For reporting that is unflattering to Erdogan, whether on national security issues, the conflict with the Kurds, or official corruption, press outlets have been charged with ``supporting terrorism'' or have had their entire operations taken over by government-appointed trustees. In one of the most egregious examples, Turkish authorities in March raided the offices of the nation's highest-circulation newspaper, Zaman, and overnight placed it under hand-picked, progovernment management. Mr. Speaker, President Erdogan has taken to politicizing the charge of ``supporting terrorism''--undermining the serious business of fighting terrorism, one of the gravest threats faced by the Turkish people. One persistent critic of Erdogan's centralization agenda and authoritarian tendencies is Fethullah Gulen, the founder of Hizmet, a moderate, Islamic civic movement dedicated to promoting education, popular piety, and civic engagement. Because of this criticism, Hizmet and its followers have suffered wave after wave of unfounded terrorism charges and forcible government seizures of businesses, universities, and schools. In May, the Turkish Cabinet approved a decision to designate Hizmet a ``terrorist organization,'' guaranteeing that this campaign of political retribution will continue. Gulen's followers have been placed in the crosshairs of the very arbitrary policies they criticize. Yet neither our State Department, nor the European Union, nor any other respected body outside Turkey, has ever characterized Hizmet as a terrorist group or anything like it--the Cabinet's designation is absurd. Mr. Speaker, in recent months, the Turkish people have been struck by a wave of violent attacks perpetrated by Islamist and Kurdish terrorists--most recently, a triple-suicide attack at Istanbul's international airport by Islamist extremists killed 44 innocent civilians. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those maimed in these attacks, to all those who lost beloved family and friends. I am confident that the Turkish people--for centuries renowned for their bravery--will never be cowed by terrorists, and that they will equally resist President Erdogan's attempt to undermine their rights, laws, and freedoms. Our government should stand with the Turkish people on both fronts.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, Mrs. Foxx for yielding and thank her for her extraordinary Pro-life leadership. Madam Speaker, in an unconscionable abuse of power, for almost 2 years, the State of California has forced all insurance plans under its purview and the people in institutions that pay the premiums--to subsidize abortion on demand. Numerous faith-based entities filed complaints pursuant to law with the HHS Office for Civil Rights seeking, and fully expecting, relief. Effective June 21, however, the Obama administration flatly refused to enforce U.S. law--current law--protecting the civil right of conscience. Cardinal Timothy Dolan said, ``It is shocking that HHS has allowed the State of California to force all employers--even churches-- to fund and facilitate elective abortions in their health insurance plans.'' I would note parenthetically to my colleagues, this isn't about ObamaCare and the massive taxpayer funding for abortion embedded-- according to GAO's analysis--in over 1,000 insurance plans on the exchanges, which was contrary to what the President had promised right here in this Chamber, 30 feet away from me, in a joint session of Congress in 2009. No. This is about private health insurance plans of Catholic dioceses, religious schools, and others who have been ordered to violate their deeply held convictions and pay for the killing of unborn children by hideous dismemberment procedures, toxic compounds, or chemical poisoning. The Weldon Federal conscience clause, authored by Congressman Dave Weldon of Florida and continuously in effect for well over a decade, is explicit and comprehensive, but it is not being enforced by the Obama Administration. The Weldon amendment says, in pertinent part, that it is illegal for any ``discrimination'' against a healthcare entity ``on the basis that the healthcare entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.'' The law's definition of healthcare entity explicitly includes ``a health insurance plan.'' Despite the absolute clarity of the Weldon language, injured parties, including the Catholic church, have been denied relief. The Obama Administration's refusal to enforce the civil right of conscience is not only unfair and unjustified, it violates the rule of law, makes a mockery of the President's 2009 Notre Dame speech, mentioned by my colleague from Missouri, when Obama said: ``Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.'' Mr. Obama's words don't match his deeds and he is not honoring the civil rights of conscience. The Conscience Protection Act of 2016, authored by Congresswoman Diane Black, seeks to end discrimination against people, plans, and providers for refusing to be involved in the killing of unborn children. The bill says that the Federal Government or any State or local government that receives Federal assistance may not penalize, retaliate against, or otherwise discriminate against those who refuse to perform, refer for, pay for, or otherwise participate in abortion. The linchpin of this legislation, of the Conscience Protection Act, protects people, insurance plans, and other entities from being forced to participate by providing a private right of action. The HHS Office for Civil Rights has failed miserably. In this country, we need a remedy that is durable and that will provide the protection that people are demanding, especially today in California, but really the entire country.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Global Food Security Act promotes food security, resilience and nutrition in developing countries in keeping with U.S. national security interests. It utilizes agriculture-led economic development as a vehicle for lessening dependence on emergency food aid assistance while enhancing efficiency among federal departments and agencies and leveraging the participation of other non-U.S. governmental partners. We must and we do emphasize nutrition and--in particular--nutrition during the critical window of the first 1000 days of life, beginning at conception until about age two. Indeed, there is perhaps no wiser investment that we could make in the human person than to concentrate on ensuring that sufficient nutrition and health assistance is given during the first one thousand days of life. We know that children who do not receive adequate nutrition in utero are more likely to experience lifelong cognitive and physical deficiencies, such as stunting. UNICEF estimates that one in four children worldwide is stunted due to lack of adequate nutrition. Indeed, we are fortunate that President Bush, beginning in 2002, had the initial foresight to elevate the important role of food security in U.S. foreign policy, especially in Africa, via the Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA), which was funded through development assistance and implemented through USAID. The objective was to elevate self-sufficiency over dependency. At the same time, the Millennium Challenge Corporation began making substantial investments in agriculture-led economic growth programs, particularly in Africa. The food price crisis of 2007 through 2008 accelerated and underscored the need for a robust food security policy. This too is the course that President Obama continued and built upon, also focusing on agriculture-led economic development. In fact, in the last Congress, and again this year, the House passed Global Food Security legislation introduced by Rep. Betty McCollum and I to provide congressional authorization of the program and help ensure a continuity and commitment to food security--beginning with the last Administration, through the present and into the next. That we are here today for final passage is a testament to the dedication of numerous committed groups outside Congress that have made food security and nutrition their priority, from advocates to implementers--especially and including faith-based organizations who perhaps work the closest to the small-holder farmers and women who benefit in particular from our food security efforts. I also want to compliment the leadership of USAID, that of former Administrator Shah and, in particular Beth Dunford, who now heads up USAID's Feed the Future initiative. As a career foreign service professional, Ms. Dunford has served on the frontlines of the battle against global food insecurity. She brings a wealth of field experience, from Ethiopia to Nepal, with her to Washington. Finally, I would like to thank especially the lead Democratic cosponsor of the House version of the Global Food Security Act, Rep. Betty McCollum, for her work and that of her team.