Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his extraordinary leadership on this bill and on the life issue. Mr. Chairman, on June 8, 1983, 33 years ago, I sponsored the amendment to ban the use of taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Smith amendment passed 226 to 182, and has been in effect almost continuously ever since. Today, more Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions than ever before. A January 2016 Marist poll found a supermajority of Americans-- 68 percent of all respondents and 69 percent of women--oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. Why do Americans continue to trend pro-life? First, the pro-life movement is comprised of millions of selfless, compassionate human rights defenders, women and men, filled with deep faith in God, hope, love, and indomitable spirits. Second, post-abortive women are silent no more, courageously speaking to the extraordinary harm they have endured from abortion. As the NGO Feminists for Life have reminded us, women deserve better than abortion. Third, sonograms, ultrasound imagery, is a game changer. Countless parents have watched with awe and wonder as their child appears on the screen, moving about, even sucking his or her thumb. First baby pictures today are of the child before birth. That first picture is a powerful confirmation that their child exists and that they are parents now and that birth is merely an event in the life of a child. Ultrasounds have also been an effective tool in helping to diagnose and to treat disease and disability for these young patients. Some unborn children indeed are the youngest patients in need of benign interventions. I would note to my colleagues that for the past several years, there has been a global movement called The First Thousand Days of Life, providing for nutrition and supplementation to bolster the health and wellness of children and women from conception until the second birthday. The consequences of caring for children before birth is absolutely revolutionary and breathtaking, boosting their immunity as well as their cognitive abilities throughout their entire lifetime. Abortion, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of life. It is violence against children. Abortion methods dismember, decapitate, or chemically poison innocent babies to death. Later-term abortions inflict excruciating pain and suffering on the child, especially during the dismemberment procedure. The Grayson amendment would reverse over three decades of prudent public policy that ensures that taxpayers do not subsidize abortion. I would note parenthetically that the law governing the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program specifies that the Federal Government contributes at least 72 percent of the average premium cost for all plans, so it is taxpayers who are footing the bill. Vote ``no'' on the Grayson amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Absolutely not. Thank you for the question. Let me point out that every bill we have brought--the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Act, every single piece of legislation that would seek to protect the lives of unborn children--has a specific clause that women are held harmless; that there could be no prosecutions against them.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, it is the gentleman who called it murder. I call it the taking of human life. We need to hold the abortionists liable. We, in the pro-life movement, look at the women as co-victims. I have worked--I say to my friend from Florida--with well over 100 women, many of whom were part of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, all of whom have had abortions, including the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Alvita King, who has had two abortions. She has said very, very strongly that in every abortion there was a co-victim, and that is the mother.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as we close out the month of June, Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month, it is critical to note that the effort to enhance treatment and find a cure for Alzheimer's must be prioritized year round. Yet, there is no better time to reflect upon the progress that has been made in this effort, the long road ahead and opportunities just around the corner. According to the Alzheimer's Association, 5.4 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's or related dementia and as the baby boom population ages, that number is expected to skyrocket. This devastating disease impacts patients and families alike. Over 15 million family members and friends provide over 18 billion hours of unpaid care to their loved ones annually, at tremendous emotional and often financial sacrifice. Alzheimer's is a progressive disease that affects an individual's cognitive abilities. While Alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death for Americans, it is the only disease among the ten leading causes of death in America that cannot be prevented cured or even slowed. Alzheimer's is also the most expensive disease in America and incurs catastrophic costs to Medicare and Medicaid--approximately $236 billion in 2016. On average, Medicare spends three times more on seniors with Alzheimer's than without. To ensure that optimum care is provided to every Alzheimer's patient, we need to find innovative ways to improve quality of care. To this end, I have introduced legislation--the Health Outcomes, Planning, and Education (HOPE) for Alzheimer's Act--which will amend the Social Security Act to add an additional one-time benefit for care planning services for Medicare beneficiaries newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. This one time comprehensive care planning session will arm patients and caregivers with the facts, prognosis, and most efficacious treatment plan. It is our moral imperative to support individuals with Alzheimer's and their caregivers. We have an obligation to care for our citizens as they age and we must support them as they struggle to face the challenges of this disease. HOPE fulfills this obligation by ensuring quality of life for Alzheimer's patients. These patients are often hospitalized because co- morbidities, such as diabetes, become uncontrolled when patients are no longer able to manage their own care. In other instances, medicines prescribed to control the symptoms of Alzheimer's can be rendered ineffective when patients, unequipped with sufficient information, use them in conjunction with other prescriptions. Care planning can ensure this does not happen, ensuring that symptoms are controlled to the extent possible, so patients can have the best quality of life. Not only would HOPE improve health outcomes for Alzheimer's patients, it would also mitigate the huge, unnecessary costs associated with preventable trips to hospitals and emergency rooms. This is especially important, as Alzheimer's is the most expensive disease in America and presents a unique cost to Medicare and Medicaid. A cost estimate commissioned by the Alzheimer's Association and conducted by Healthsperien, a DC based health care consulting firm, indicated that as a result of this legislation, net federal health spending would decrease by $692 million over the 10-year period. The cost estimate is based on a study tracking 1,756 patients newly diagnosed with dementia, depression or mild cognitive impairment, broken into two cohorts, one cohort receiving comprehensive care planning and chronic care management through a collaborative care model and the other cohort not. The study showed a significant savings for those patients enrolled in the collaborative care model as opposed to their peers and based on the study, the HOPE benefit is estimated to have a per person savings of $600 and per person cost $200 for a 3:1 return on investment. Passage of my legislation, which has 291 bipartisan cosponsors, will empower individuals with much-needed information to outline their future treatments and care--giving patients HOPE, and a plan for their future. In closing Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my bill and hope that the momentum brought to this issue during Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month carries forward.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I rise today to encourage all members to support the Rooney amendment (Number 7) to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2017, H.R. 5293, to reverse DOD's reimbursement rate cuts for Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy for children of service members with autism. Military life presents unique challenges for children with autism and their families, given the frequent changes of residence and schools, and the prolonged absences of a parent. In this context, coverage of ABA therapy is even more necessary to help military children adjust day-to-day, while also improving outcomes over the long term. The Administration's reduction in the reimbursement rates for ABA for military children with autism could jeopardize access to this critical therapy. ABA is proven to bring about positive behavior change and assist in a child's long term development, especially for children with autism, and the program must be protected. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Royce again for bringing this important bill to the floor, and to Eliot Engel for his leadership and Mr. Deutch, and especially to Mr. Trott, the sponsor of H.R. 3694, the Strategy To Oppose Predatory Organ Trafficking Act. This legislation recognizes and seeks to more effectively combat what is a growing manifestation of trafficking in persons for the sole purpose of organ removal, often for great profit for the traffickers. Mr. Trott's legislation requires the Department of State to develop a robust strategy to combat this heinous practice. We have long heard rumors and horror stories of migrants held captive in sub-Saharan Africa and the Sinai Peninsula, their organs taken and their bodies dumped because their families could not afford the ransom. Twenty years ago, I chaired a human rights hearing in my subcommittee with a Chinese security official who testified that he and his other security agents were executing prisoners--with doctors, of course, there and ambulances--in order to steal their organs for transplant. Since then, this horrific practice has skyrocketed. Recent evidence from researchers Ethan Gutmann and David Matas shows that organ transplants in China have increased almost exponentially, not decreased. There is a bizarre availability of organs in Chinese military hospitals and China's transplant apparatus that can often issue a tissue match and find an organ transplant within 2 weeks for any foreign tourist with cash. This initiative by Mr. Trott will require the State Department to do a more thorough analysis of trafficking in persons for the purpose of organ removal in China and elsewhere around the world, informing a strategy to stop this crime against humanity. Any American, Mr. Speaker, traveling to China for an organ transplant in 2016 should now be on notice that they may be participating in human trafficking of a vulnerable person or of a prisoner. Americans must not turn a blind eye to the ambiguous origins of a proffered organ. H.R. 3694 will help ensure that Americans are certain that they are receiving transplants only in countries that prohibit and actively suppress organ harvesting from trafficking victims. I thank the gentleman for his legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for yielding. I want to thank the chairman emeritus of the full Foreign Affairs Committee for the defense of vulnerable persons in China, especially the Falun Gong, men and women who cannot speak for themselves, who have suffered unspeakable torture--some have survived--and to the families who have lost loved ones in Chinese prison camps, the Laogai, and detention centers that are sprinkled throughout all of China. This legislation is an important step in bringing accountability and transparency to what may be one of the great crimes of the 21st century: the 17-year effort to eliminate Falun Gong practice from China. I strongly believe that the campaign to eradicate Falun Gong will be seen as one of the great horrors. The Chinese Government continues to insist that the accounts of religious persecution, forced abortion, arbitrary detention, and organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners are mere rumors. They refuse to even discuss these issues in regular diplomatic dialogue and regularly jail and disbar lawyers who try to defend Falun Gong practitioners who expose the abuses that are committed by government employees. Nevertheless, evidence is quickly mounting of the horrific crimes committed against Falun Gong practitioners, including this terrible practice of organ harvesting. Over the years, Congress has received credible information about this unethical and corrupt organ transplant system that operates in China. The Chinese Government is at least grossly negligent but, more likely, grossly complicit in these crimes because huge amounts of money are made. We have received credible evidence that the actual number of organ transplants by China's hospitals remain underreported and that, despite the Chinese Government's promises to the contrary, the number of prisoners who are killed and have their organs taken continues to rise. Shockingly, researchers David Kilgour, David Matas, and Ethan Gutmann conducted detailed investigations and estimated that between 45,000 and 65,000 Falun Gong practitioners were killed for their organs, which then were sold for profit--45,000 to 65,000 victims who had their organs stolen and their lives snuffed out by the Chinese Government officials. There might be new estimates that are higher. These researchers will unveil their new findings next week at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Let me remind Members that the United States Congress isn't the only one that is bringing this terrible human rights abuse up. The U.N. Committee Against Torture and the Special Rapporteur on torture have expressed concern over these allegations, and they have called for accountability and transparency. The Ileana Ros-Lehtinen resolution condemns this practice; calls on the government to end it; demands an immediate end to the 17-year persecution of the Falun Gong; encourages the United States medical community to help raise awareness of unethical organ transplant practices in China; calls on the People's Republic of China to allow a credible, transparent, and independent investigation into organ transplant abuses; and then calls on the U.S. Department of State to conduct a more detailed analysis on state-sanctioned organ harvesting from nonconsenting prisoners of conscience in its annual human rights report. And it also calls on the government, our government, to bar provision of visas, pursuant to current law, to Chinese and other nationals engaged in coerced organ or bodily tissue transplantation. Again, I want to thank Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Connolly for their leadership on this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be in Washington, DC next week. As the spiritual leader of Tibetans, the Dalai Lama is an energetic and unfailing ambassador for human rights and the rights of the Tibetan people. Sadly, his visit reminds us again about the dire situation of the Tibetan people inside China. The Tibetan people have a right to practice their religion, preserve their culture, and speak their language. They have a right to do so without restriction or interference. The Chinese government does not agree. To them, the Tibetans are a people to be pacified. Their faith and culture are problems to be solved, not a heritage to be preserved, honored, and protected. To them, the Dalai Lama is an agitator and revolutionary, not a world-renowned and respected voice for peace and harmony. The recent State Department Human Rights Report offered a withering criticism of the Chinese government's oversight of Tibetan and Tibetan areas of China. It said the ``government engaged in severe repression of Tibet's religious, cultural and religious heritage by, among other means, strictly curtailing the civil rights of China's ethnic Tibetan population, including the rights to the freedom of speech, religion, association, assembly, and movement.'' I am the Chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Our reporting on Tibet draws similar conclusions about China's rough oversight of Tibetans. Over the past several years, the Chinese government has constructed more obstacles to efforts by Tibetans to preserve their culture and religion. Sadly, we know that Tibetans have used self-immolations as a protest against the religious and political oversight of the Chinese government. It is difficult to fathom the despair and desperation felt by Tibetans who take this last act of defiance. The Chinese government has blamed the Dalai Lama and ``foreign forces'' for self-immolations instead of looking at how their own policies created such deep grievances. The Chinese government also expanded its efforts last year to transform Tibetan Buddhism into a state-managed institution. They sought to undermine the devotion of the Tibetan people to the Dalai Lama and control the process of selecting Buddhist leaders. One Chinese government official admitted that control over the selection of Tibetan Buddhist leaders, including the next Dalai Lama, was ``an important political matter'' and a critical part of the Chinese government's ``sovereignty over Tibet.'' The Chinese government wants a Tibetan Buddhism that is attractive to tourists, but which allows the Communist Party to completely manage its affairs. The UN Special Rapporteur on Religion said recently criticized China's efforts to control Tibetan Buddhism and the process of selecting leaders. He said ``the Chinese government is destroying the autonomy of religious communities . . . creating schisms, and pitting people against each other in order to exercise control.'' This is exactly what the Chinese government has done to other religious groups, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Falun Gong. When the faithful don't fall in line, they are jailed, harassed and bribed until they do. Religious freedom is an essential part of dealing with the grievances of the Tibetan people, but China's answer is always the same--control, manage, and repress. It is counterproductive and it violates China's international obligations. The China Commission has a prisoner database that contains records on 643 known Tibetan political and religious prisoners. 43 percent of those detained are monks, nuns, and religious teachers. Almost all were imprisoned since 2008. Substantive dialogue between the Dalai Lama's representatives and the Chinese government and Communist Party have not occurred in the past five years. This is the longest break since the dialogue started in 2002. A government ``White Paper'' on Tibet, published this April, states that China will ``only talk with private representatives of the Dalai Lama'' to discuss ``the future of the Dalai Lama'' and how he can ``gain the forgiveness of the central government and the Chinese people.'' Instead of asking for the Dalai Lama's forgiveness for the decades of brutal repression, the Chinese government asks for his. This is the state of affairs in Xi Jinping's China. This is unfortunate and counterproductive. If China's goal is to build a ``harmonious society'' in Tibet, it cannot be done without the Dalai Lama. He is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. His views are widely shared by those in Tibetan society, he can be a constructive partner for China in addressing continuing tensions, and deep-seated grievance, in Tibetan areas. In our dealings with Chinese government and officials, Members of Congress and the Administration should affirm the peaceful desires of the Tibetan people for greater autonomy and freedoms within China. We should stress that China's policies are counterproductive, they are brutal, and they hurt China's international prestige. We also need to speak with a unified voice to end the repression of the Tibetan people. U.S. leadership on this issue is critical, because our allies in Europe and Asia can be bullied by Chinese threats of economic boycotts. U.S. officials must demonstrate that Tibet matters, human rights matter, and religious freedom matters to U.S.-China relations and China's future stability and prosperity.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 129, urging the Federal Republic of Germany to further fulfill its commitment to support the welfare of Holocaust survivors by ensuring that they receive the medical, mental health, and long-term care they require. In 1952, the West German government concluded an agreement with representatives from major Jewish national and international organizations and the State of Israel to provide indemnification and restitution directly to survivors of the Holocaust. This agreement reflected an overdue but basic recognition at the time by many, including then-German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer who saw such restitution as, quote, ``easing the way to the spiritual settlement of infinite suffering.'' Mr. Speaker, that infinite suffering inflicted by the genocidal Nazi regime continues to this day. It is a daily reality for the aging survivors of that infamous crime who live with the mental and sometimes physical consequences of being tortured and abused. There are over 500,000 Holocaust survivors living around the world today, and over 100,000 live here in the United States--witnesses to both the stunning evil and miraculous resilience of which humanity is capable. Their quiet presence in our midst is a treasure seldom sufficiently cherished. Today, as they age, they are increasingly in need of support and assistance that will allow them to live their remaining days with access to quality care and the peace that comes with it. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Con. Res 129 because I think it is right that the Federal Republic of Germany deliver direct support to Holocaust survivors to guarantee that they live the rest of their lives with the dignity, comfort, and security that was deprived them decades ago. The resolution calls on the German government to make every effort-- whether through direct assistance or negotiated arrangements--to support the medical, mental health, and long-term care needs of Holocaust victims. This support would be fully consistent with the German government's longstanding commitment to Holocaust survivors and it cannot wait. It is important, Mr. Speaker, to also note the important steps already taken by the Federal Republic of Germany and the tremendous efforts and achievements it has made in making amends for the genocide committed under the Nazi dictatorship. H. Con. Res. 129 urges Germany to continue on this path and as such deserves our support in the House. Finally, I would like to thank my friend and colleague Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for introducing this laudable resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring to my colleagues' attention an illuminating report on corruption and corporate dispossession in Russia. Written by Dr. Louise Shelley and Judy Deane of George Mason University's Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center, ``Reiderstvo: Implications for Russia and the West,'' concisely lays out the systematic tactics, fraud and corruption of business raiding and asset grabbing in Russia. The most well-known case is that of the Yukos Oil Company, which not only saw its Russian founder Mikhail Khodorovsky imprisoned for ten years in a Siberian gulag while his $22 billion company was dismantled under the guise of $22 billion in unpaid tax claims. A corporate entity, Yukos shares were confiscated and assets sold off at rigged auctions, without any regard for even its international--including U.S.--shareholders. As some of you may recall, I held a hearing last fall on the Russian government's violations of the rule of law, which examined the challenges these investors faced in enforcing the Permanent Court of Arbitration's $50 billion finding of unlawful appropriation against the Russian government. It turns out Yukos is only the tip of the iceberg. The reiderstvo report neatly encapsulates a Russian phenomenon that both contributes to, and is accelerating as a result of, Russia's economic decline. According to the authors, Russian corporate raiding practices, facilitated and even directed by the Kremlin, are ``contributing to Russia's current unfriendly business climate and to declining investor confidence in the country.'' Russia's uniquely destructive practice of corporate raiding not only has dire ramifications for the Russian people and any remaining foreign investors, it has long term implications for Russian stability. Reiderstvo (literally ``raiding''), an ominous and violent practice in Russia since the early 1990s, is vastly different from U.S. corporate ``raiding''--that is, hostile takeovers by outside shareholders. Reiderstvo represents both private acquisition of business assets and public expropriation through a series of illegal bullying tactics that allow raiders to sell off a company's assets, often to a state controlled entity, and rapidly launder the proceeds, making massive profits and destroying businesses in the process. This particular report is noteworthy for its documentation of two aspects of reiderstvo. First, reiderstvo and asset grabbing is far more widespread and imbedded in Russian business culture than most people outside of Russia have thought. Astonishingly, Russian President Putin himself said that the number of current arrests for economic crimes suggests that tens of thousands of companies of all sizes in Russia continue to be harassed, intimidated, robbed, and outright stolen. Second, the study analyzes major cases of corporate raiding, and identifies the most common raiding tactics. These tactics include malicious prosecutions (false charges), malicious tax inspections, regulatory harassment, misuse of shares and shareholder protections, misuse of the banking system, abuse of international law enforcement, ``Dark PR'' campaigns, and even violence. In any given raid against a business, it is likely that several of these tactics will be used simultaneously. From their case studies the authors extract four stages of the reiderstvo process: preparation, negotiation, execution, and legalization. In the case of OGAT, Ltd., one of the largest and most successful transportation companies in Russia, raiders used fraudulent documents to sell off company assets. In the case of TogliattiAzot, Russia's largest ammonia company, the company underwent 120 tax inspections in 18 months and was assessed $150 million in alleged unpaid taxes in order to try to force the company into bankruptcy, making it easier and cheaper to acquire. Yevroset, a highly successful mobile phone operator, was the victim of three raids in which $1.4 million worth of cell phone handsets were taken, tax charges levied against one of its suppliers, and searches made of the homes of top managers, all to force owners to sell the company to a raider. It is easy to draw parallels from these cases to the more famous cases of Hermitage Capital and the Yukos Oil Company and demonstrate the state's own growing role in corporate raiding. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Human Rights subcommittee and of the Helsinki Commission, I have focused much of my congressional work on fighting for human rights--for all human rights, throughout the world. And countless times I have seen the connection between human rights violations and governments that engage such grotesque forms of corruption. One connection, of course, is that rampantly corrupt governments commit human rights violations in order to cover up their crimes, or those of the mafias that dominate them. Such was the famous case of the heroic Sergei Magnitsky. The kind of government corruption we see in Russia today, manifesting itself in the ruthlessness of reiderstvo, is that which imperils the human rights of the Russian people. Mr. Speaker, this report is a much needed and critical assessment of Russian corruption at the highest levels of authority and has important implications for U.S. foreign policy in the dimensions of human rights and rule of law and commercial relations. The report may be found at www.reiderstvo.org. I strongly urge my colleagues to read it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor the passing of a deeply committed human rights activist and friend, Mr. Harry Wu. Harry is survived by his son, Harrison, and his former wife, Ching Lee. I offer my sincerest condolences to his family. Harry is also mourned today by the many friends and colleagues who will remember him as a tireless and determined advocate for freedom and justice. Harry was born into a comfortable life in Shanghai, but this life was turned upside down when the Communist Party came to power in 1949. His father lost his job and his family's possessions were taken away. In college, Harry made the mistake of criticizing the Soviet Union, and for this mistake he suffered for 19 years in the Laogai--the system of forced labor prison camps used by the Communist Party to control the Chinese people. Harry worked to expose the horrors of the Laogai. Unfortunately, a system of arbitrary detention remains in place in China today, under different names. During his 19 year detention, Harry endured unimaginable hardship and horror. Surviving such an ordeal is itself a testament to Harry's toughness and tenacity. Harry was driven by this hardship to spend the remainder of his life fighting for the victims of Chinese Communism, exposing its abuses to the world. After emigrating to the United States, Harry risked his freedom on multiple trips back to China to document forced labor in China's prison camps. In 1995, Harry was caught. I remember that time well, as Ching Lee worked with me and other Members of Congress to call publicly for Harry's release. The Chinese government gave Harry a show trial and then sentenced him to exile. He was never able to go home to China again. Harry remained undaunted by his exile. He poured his time and energy into his organization, the Laogai Research Foundation, continuing to raise awareness of forced prison labor in China. He published several books about his own ordeal. He published the Black Series, the riveting memoirs of other survivors of the Laogai labor camps. In 2008 he opened the Laogai Museum, documenting human rights abuses in China, both past and present. Harry was also a passionate voice against China's heinous population control policy--the ``One-Child Policy'' and helped this Congress expose the abuses of forced abortions and sterilizations. Harry saw clearly that the violence used to control the vital instinct of parenthood was a great crime, and a lasting black mark on Chinese history. Until his death, Harry continued to be the conscience of this Congress. He constantly reminded Members of Congress about the abuses heaped on the Chinese people by China's leaders and predicted that U.S. trade with China would not bring political reform--sadly history has proven him correct. As a Catholic, he was a staunch advocate for freedom of religion, and spoke out against the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists and Uyghur Muslims in China. Harry's work lives on today even if he is no longer here with us. Because of his work, the brutal truth about the Laogai saw the light of day. Because of Harry's commitment to the truth, the stories of survivors were not silenced, but were published for the world to see. When China eventually becomes a free nation, Harry Wu will be lauded as a hero, because he worked so hard, and so long, for freedom and for justice.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Association of Private Special Education Centers (NAPSEC) for their 45 years of excellent service and academic dedication to our country's individuals with disabilities. NAPSEC's educational therapeutic services, combined with over four decades of experience, are invaluable to the education community across the United States and to the many partners in my home state of New Jersey. Established in 1971, NAPSEC represents private specialized education programs including early intervention services, school programs, residential therapeutic centers, and college experience and adult living programs for individuals with disabilities and their families. The majority of NAPSEC's member programs provide services to publicly placed students with disabilities through the Continuum of Alternative Placements and Services required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Originally enacted into law in 1975, IDEA is the primary federal statute governing special education for children from birth through age 21 and guaranteeing the rights of children with disabilities to a free public education that suits their needs. Nationwide, 6.6 million students with disabilities are ensured of and receive an education because of IDEA. While many of these children are successfully integrated into public schools and typical classrooms, IDEA requires that a variety of options are available to meet the individual needs of disabled students. Of these students, 3.4 percent are served in private specialized day and/or residential programs. NAPSEC member programs meet a vital need for individuals who are not able to thrive in a typical classroom environment, acknowledging each individual's unique experience, because every child has the right to an education that empowers them to succeed. NAPSEC's hundreds of affiliates bridge the gap and offer much needed services to publically and privately placed individuals. In addition to K-12 education, these services also include early intervention services for infants and toddlers. As co-chair of the Coalition on Autism Research and Education (CARE), I've seen firsthand the impact that early intervention makes in successful outcomes for children and applaud this attention to early intervention. Additionally, NAPSEC programs provide postsecondary college experience and adult living programs that serve individuals who have aged out of their school based supports and are no longer eligible for services under IDEA. As 50,000 individuals with autism, and many more with other disabilities, age out of their education based supports every year, supports and services for these individuals are critically necessary in ensuring that young adults with disabilities can successfully transition into the next phase of their lives. Their services needs do not end when they turn 21. NAPSEC programs improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities and empower them to achieve their full potential and make meaningful contributions to society. When individuals with disabilities are empowered to achieve, we all benefit. I remain impressed by the quality of care and expertise NAPSEC's partners provide to America's students with disabilities, including those with autism. Again, I offer NAPSEC my sincerest congratulations and gratitude for their 45 years of service to the disabilities community and look forward to NAPSEC's continued progress in the future.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Chairman Royce, for his leadership on this bill, the markup, and for the very timely recommendations he and staff made to improve it. I would like to thank Eliot Engel again for working hand in glove in a good, bipartisan effort to protect international religious freedom. As my good friend, Chairman Royce, noted a moment ago, 18 years ago Congress had the foresight to pass the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. That landmark bill, authored by Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, made advancing the right to religious freedom a significant and profoundly serious U.S. foreign policy priority. Passage of the International Religious Freedom Act was not easy. There were determined opponents in Congress and in the Clinton administration. I know. I chaired the congressional hearings and the subcommittee markup. It was no cakewalk. But our opposition was overcome by the courage, tenacity, and vision of Frank Wolf, bolstered by a diverse, bipartisan, and ecumenical coalition of Members of Congress, ethnic minority and religions groups, and human rights organizations. That coalition has reassembled to support this bill today, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act. I want to especially thank Anna Eshoo, who is the principal Democratic sponsor of this legislation, for her leadership and for working particularly in the Middle East to combat the savagery that is being imposed upon people of minority faiths, including Christians. I thank her for her leadership and, again, for being the principal Democrat on this bill. Let me just note that naming this bill after Frank Wolf, who I consider to be, and many of us consider to be the William Wilberforce of modern times, is an attempt to recognize his extraordinary life's work promoting human rights, 34 years as a Member of Congress, including, and especially, religious freedom. He now serves as the Wilson Chair at Baylor, again, continuing his lifesaving work for religious believers all over the world. He just returned from Nigeria and testified at our hearing last week. He was in the embattled states in northern Nigeria, where Boko Haram runs free, massacring people. He was there on a fact-finding mission to promote religious freedom. Mr. Speaker, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act that is before us is a series of upgrades to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We know that the world is experiencing an unprecedented crisis of international religious freedom; a crisis that continues to create millions--no, tens of millions of victims; a crisis that undermines liberty, prosperity, and peace; a crisis that poses a direct challenge to the U.S. interests in the Middle East, Russia, China, Sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere in the world. The Pew Research Center notes that over 75 percent of the world's population today lives in countries where severe religious freedom abuses occur annually. According to Pew, 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 in the United States. Mr. Speaker, 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 Islamic State. Several weeks ago, this Congress passed a resolution, sponsored by Jeff Fortenberry, that was followed by a declaration by Secretary of State John Kerry, that said that ISIS has committed, and continues to commit genocide, mass atrocities and war crimes against Christians, Yazidis, and other minority faiths. We are on record. We know it is happening. We are speaking out. In a couple of weeks, I am chairing a hearing on what is next; what should we be doing next to combat this terrible, terrible crisis. In Nigeria, the Islamist terror group, Boko Haram, is believed to have killed over 6,600 people last year alone, mostly Christian, but there are Muslims as well who are being targeted. According to the testimony we received last week, since 2009, the number is about 15,000 year to date since 2009. Mr. Speaker, at one of those hearings a few years ago, I had a man named Habila. Habila, I met him at an IDP camp in Jos, Nigeria, where a lot of churches have been firebombed. He told me this story. He was credible, and it checked out. And he came to Congress and testified. Boko Haram put an AK-47--a terrorist--to his jaw and said: Renounce Christ or I will kill you. You must become a Muslim on the spot. Habila said: I am ready to meet my Lord. And this terrorist pulled the trigger and blew most of his face away. What courage, what faith for a man. And when he told the story, you could have heard a pin drop. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom just released its 2016 annual report. And let me note, parenthetically, USCIRF, or that Commission, was also created by Chairman Wolf as part of IRFA, the original bill. They have found that the abuses committed by governments and non- state actors has ``deteriorated.'' ``The incarceration of prisoners of conscience''--they point out--``remains astonishingly widespread . . .'' They point out that ``Over the past year, the Chinese government''-- as just one of many examples--``has stepped up its persecution of religious groups''--across the board: Tibetans, Uighurs, Muslim Uighurs, Christians, and, of course, the Falun Gong. I spoke in mid-February at NYU, I gave a keynote there in Shanghai, and talked about how Xi Jinping, the President of China, is in a race to the bottom with North Korea to make religion absolutely subservient to the Communist Party. He calls it the sinification of religion; and what was already a bad situation has now become demonstrably worse. The Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act will upgrade the tools so that this administration, and subsequent ones, can do an even better job to try to mitigate and, hopefully, end religious persecution. It does this by, one, requiring that international religious freedom policies be integrated into national security, immigration, rule of law, and other relevant U.S. foreign policies. It creates a Designated Persons List of individuals sanctioned for participating in or directing religious freedom abuses. It expands diplomatic training on international religious freedoms for all State Department diplomats; creates a tier system for IRFA, for the reports, not just countries of particular concern, of which there are currently 10, but also those that are on a watch list, those that are bad and, perhaps, getting worse. It gives the President authority to designate non-state actors in addition to countries; and it also requires the Ambassador at Large to report directly to the Secretary of State. It also is increasingly clear that religious freedom diplomacy is really needed to advance U.S. interests around the world. This will do it. The legislation is backed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the International Religious Freedom Roundtable, a diverse and ecumenical group of individuals from the faith community. Finally, just let me thank Scott Flipse, who worked for Frank Wolf previously, then he worked for the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department, and now is working at the China Commission; our General Counsel, Piero Tozzi; Janice Kaguyutan, I thank her for her work on this; and Sajit Gandhi. This is a true, bipartisan piece of legislation and, hopefully, the Senate will favorably receive it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Promoting Resilience and Efficiency in Preparing for Attacks and Responding to Emergencies Act (PREPARE Act/H.R. 3583). In addition to enhancing accountability at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Office of Emergency Communications, and the Office of Health Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), this legislation makes critical reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) claims process. Nearly three and a half years have passed since Superstorm Sandy devastated New Jersey, New York, and other parts of the Northeast, yet thousands of victims are still fighting for fair and equitable treatment from the NFIP. Following Sandy, these homeowners were further victimized by the unconscionable misconduct of certain insurance companies and engineering firms who defrauded them, all of which was enabled by FEMA's inadequate control and oversight. The Sandy Claims Review Process was launched after my colleagues and I pushed FEMA to reopen a robust and thorough claims process to review all potential Sandy-related underpayments. To date, over 19,000 NFIP policyholders have entered the review process. More than 7,000 policyholders have been offered additional claims payments, with over $46 million in actual payments made and over $89 million in proposed payments. Homeowners who pursued litigation outside of the claims process have received nearly $160 million in settlements. Those who dutifully paid their premiums with the expectation that the NFIP would be there following a disaster deserve every penny owed to them. The tens of millions of dollars paid out thus far should have been in the hands of policyholders years ago. These homeowners were betrayed following Sandy, and reforms are necessary to restore consumer trust and taxpayer confidence in the NFIP. In a report released last month, the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that FEMA does not provide adequate oversight of its NFIP Write Your Own (WYO) Program. As a result, FEMA ``is unable to ensure that WYO companies are properly implementing the NFIP and is unable to identify systemic problems in the program. Furthermore, without adequate internal controls in place, FEMA's NFIP funds may be at risk for fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement.'' Of particular concern are altered or falsified engineering reports that resulted in dramatically lower claim payments for Sandy victims. Last year, 60 Minutes' ``The Storm after the Storm'' reported on allegations of engineering reports receiving drastic alterations after being submitted to the insurer by the on-site engineer inspector. FEMA's then-Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance told 60 Minutes that he was not going to ``conceal that fact that it happened. Because in the last three weeks, I've seen evidence of it.'' This was subsequently confirmed in delegation briefings I hosted with FEMA. Title V of the PREPARE Act will require any final engineering reports and/or claims adjustment reports--certified and free of alterations--to be provided to the policyholder first, before any employer or agency. It also amends the claims appeal process to provide policyholders with more time to consider legal remedies. Together these provisions will help reform a fundamentally broken system and provide policyholders with the transparency and fairness they are entitled to throughout the NFIP claims process. FEMA must deliver on its promises. That begins with the completion of the ongoing Sandy Claims Review Process and a resolution to Sandy- related litigation. Every suspected instance of fraud must be investigated and bad actors must be expelled. FEMA must closely monitor the performance of specific inspectors and adjustors that may not be illegal, but simply shoddy and incompetent. The NFIP Transformation Task Force must continue its implementation of OIG's seven recommendations to improve its oversight. Together with the PREPARE Act, these actions can restore accountability and ensure lasting reform.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1567) to authorize a comprehensive, strategic approach for United States foreign assistance to developing countries to reduce global poverty and hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, promote inclusive, sustainable agricultural-led economic growth, improve nutritional outcomes, especially for women and children, build resilience among vulnerable populations, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Global Food Security Act, H.R. 1567, authorizes a comprehensive, strategic approach for U.S. foreign assistance to developing countries to reduce poverty and hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, promote inclusive, sustainable, agricultural-led economic growth, improve nutritional outcomes, especially for women and children, and build resilience among vulnerable populations. At its core, H.R. 1567 establishes a comprehensive global food security strategy that includes eight mutually reinforcing policy objectives and 15 specific goals and actions designed to develop and implement a whole-of-government strategy. Essential elements of the strategy include: benchmarks, timetables, performance metrics, and monitoring and evaluation plans; clear and transparent selection criteria for target countries; support of inclusive value-chain development with small-scale producers, especially women; leverage of resources and expertise through partnerships with the private sector, farm organizations, cooperatives, civil society, faith-based organizations, and agricultural research and academic institutions; harnessing science, technology, and innovation from a myriad of sources, including the 24 Feed the Future innovation labs; and support for improved nutrition for women and children, particularly during the critical first thousand-day window until a child reaches 2 years of age, and with a focus on reducing child stunting through nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive programs, including related water, sanitation, and hygiene programs. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps no wiser and radically transformative 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 thousand days of life, a thousand days that begins with conception, continues throughout pregnancy, includes that milestone event called birth, and then finishes at roughly the second birthday of the child. Children who do not receive adequate nutrition in utero are far more likely to experience immune system deficiencies, making opportunistic infections more debilitating, even fatal, and a large number of lifelong cognitive and physical deficiencies, such as stunting. UNICEF estimates that one in four children worldwide is stunted due to lack of adequate nutrition. By maximizing nutrition during the first thousand days of life, we help ensure that the next 25,000 days or more in a person's life are far more likely to be healthier and disease free. One objective of H.R. 1567 is to graduate individuals and families and communities and nations from food aid dependency to self- sufficiency, leading to a likely reduction in emergency food assistance over time. That is both humane and a responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds. By statutorily authorizing this program, which had its roots in the Bush administration and was formalized by the Obama administration, we are also statutorily enhancing congressional oversight by requiring the administration to report to Congress. Thus, the bill requires rigorous monitoring, evaluation, and congressional oversight of the global food security strategy, and it mandates a comprehensive report to ensure accountability and effectiveness. The approach we have taken in the Global Food Security Act is fiscally disciplined. There is no additional cost to the U.S. taxpayer. This would authorize a straight-lining from 2015 and 2016. USAID will be authorized, however, to do more by more effectively leveraging our aid with that of other countries, the private sector, NGOs, and faith- based organizations, whose great work on the ground in so many different countries impacts so many lives. As the prime sponsor of H.R. 1567, let me convey my very special thanks to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the prime Democratic cosponsor, for her leadership, for her friendship, and for her support. I am deeply grateful to the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and his extraordinary floor director, Kelly Dixon, for their pivotal support in the last Congress and this one for the Global Food Security Act. I would note parenthetically, if it passes today, this will be the second time in 2 years. The clock ran out on the bill in the Senate during the last Congress. I am grateful as well for the strong and abiding support of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ed Royce, and ranking member, Eliot Engel. They have been tremendous. The Committee on Agriculture chairman, Mike Conaway, made several important policy revisions and has been personally involved in the drafting of this bill, so I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), my good friend and very distinguished colleague, for his work on this bill and his work on Agriculture in general. I thank him for that leadership. And, of course, a heartfelt thanks to all the other original cosponsors: Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Bass, Mr. Crenshaw, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Smith of Washington, and Mr. Paulsen. Finally, a great big thanks to our professional staff members, who worked hard to bring this bill to the floor: Joan Condon and Doug Anderson at the Committee on Foreign Affairs; Scott Graves, Bart Fischer, and Jackie Barber at the Committee on Agriculture; legislative counsel Mark Synnes; Jenn Holcomb in Betty McCollum's office; Piero Tozzi from my subcommittee; and my chief of staff, Mary Noonan. This is truly a team effort. This will save lives and enhance everyone's life around the world who benefits from the program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, who worked very closely with our committee and with me and with my staff on the bill and helped to ensure that it did not have any unintended negative consequences for the domestic programs within his committee's jurisdiction. I want to thank him again for his great leadership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Mr. Engel for his very kind remarks and for his strong support for this legislation. This has been a great partnership with Betty McCollum, and I know it will continue. Both of us--and others, of course--are totally committed to ending chronic hunger and providing self-sufficiency in countries where it is a matter of just conveying best practices and increasing the capabilities of people and their roads and bridges. It's all very much integrated. So I want to thank her for her leadership on this very important piece of legislation. Again, it bears saying over and over again that half of all deaths in children under 5 are attributable to undernutrition. Of course, for the others who die, very often, malnutrition is a complicating factor and it allows, as I said earlier, opportunistic diseases to take hold and to cause havoc, if not death, to that child. There are 161 million children stunted worldwide. I was actually in the Central American country of Guatemala when they signed up for the First Thousand Days of Life. The new President has indicated when he was here that it is a very, very important part of his program. We see it all over Africa and Asia. If nutrition is provided, it does mitigate disease. It does, for many, mean that they have a chance at life and that their immune systems are bolstered to the point where they can resist multiple attacks of various diseases and then get into adolescence and, of course, into adulthood. This is transformative. It is bipartisan. I also think it bears repeating for my colleagues that this bill has been a long time in the making. As Betty McCollum said earlier, we passed it last Congress. And I guess, as I said earlier, the clock did run out. We did not get it up for a vote in the Senate. God willing, this time it will be different. We have had a dozen committee hearings. I have held many of them myself in my Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights. It has been a multi-year effort and a great deal of due diligence and vetting has gone into the language. We worked, as I said earlier, very closely with Chairman Mike Conaway, and he had very, very important contributions to make. So this has been a great collaborative effort of our staff and members of the Foreign Affairs, Appropriations, and the Agriculture Committees. I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House Amendment to S. 192, the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2015. It has been nearly ten years since Congress last reauthorized the Older Americans Act (OAA), making today's amendment and the reforms in the underlying bill long overdue. Last year marked the 50th Anniversary of the OAA and its many social services and programs that continue to provide a critical safety net for seniors around the country. This includes supportive services, nutrition services--whether at group sites or home-delivered programs such as ``meals on wheels''--family caregiver support, community service employment, and services to protect seniors from and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation. In New Jersey, the Department of Human Services Division of Aging Services uses OAA funds to serve more than 500,000 individuals. From 2000 to 2010, New Jersey saw a 15 percent increase in individuals age 60 and older, representing 19 percent of the state population. By 2030, it is projected that those 60 and older will represent over 25 percent of the state population, making OAA services and programs more critical than ever. Among many reforms, S. 192 contains provisions to reduce elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in long term facilities, improve federal collaboration with state and local agencies and service providers on the modernization of senior centers, and improve care coordination for those with multiple chronic conditions with services through health care entities such as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). It reforms funding allocations to ensure that money follows the person, helping maximize the number of seniors reached by the OAA's services and programs. It permits state grant programs to begin providing support services for chronic condition self-care management and falls prevention. It also requires states to utilize a dietician in its nutrition projects and encourage the use of locally grown foods--as well as partnerships and contracts with local producers and providers-- in meal programs. The ad-hoc means of funding these programs over the last several years has made them less secure and efficient. As our population ages, it is imperative that we preserve access to these and other services that enable senior citizens to live healthy and productive lives, and give seniors the security and confidence they need when planning for their future medical care and financial security. Today's vote will protect and improve OAA's vital programs to assist and protect older Americans, allowing them to maintain their independence and quality of life during retirement.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Keith Rothfus, for his tremendous leadership on protecting the weakest and the most vulnerable among us, including the unborn and their mothers who are at risk of violence perpetrated by abortion, and for his dedication to protecting conscience rights, again, the subject of today's Special Order. Next week, the Court will hear oral argument on a landmark case for religious liberty. The impact of the Court's ruling in this case cannot be overstated, but the question before the Court is really quite simple: Can the government coerce the Little Sisters of the Poor and other people of faith to violate their conscience? The Obama administration is telling these religious sisters, women who have given their life in service to God by taking care of the elderly poor, that their conscience is irrelevant and that they must follow the Federal Government's conscience rather than their own. This abuse of government power is absolutely antithetical to the American principle of freedom of religion and the First Amendment. Unless reversed, Obama's attack on conscience rights means that government can impose discrimination against Americans who seek to live according to their faith. The Little Sisters have 30 homes for the elderly across the United States. Each Little Sister takes a vow of obedience to God and of hospitality ``to care for the aged as if they were Christ Himself,'' and they wear religious habits as a sign to others of God's presence in the world. Yet the Obama administration is dictating to the Little Sisters and others about how they should interpret their own religious beliefs. That, in a word, is outrageous. The Sisters object to having their healthcare plans used to funnel drugs and devices that they have a moral objection to, including drugs that could even destroy a young human life. The sisters say that facilitating the provision of these items is a violation of their religious beliefs, and the government is saying: No, it isn't. We know better than you. Under the Obama administration's coercive mandate, the Little Sisters and other religious organizations, like Priests for Life and Geneva College, are put in the impossible situation of being forced to violate their religious beliefs or face Obama-imposed crippling fines of $100 per day per employee. In the case of the Little Sisters, that would mean about $70 million per year. This obscene penalty is completely unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable. The Obama administration is saying: We will punish you; we will hurt you; we will stop you from serving, unless you provide health care according to the government's conscience, not your own. President Obama has no business imposing his morality on people of faith, but that is exactly what this oppressive mandate does. Let's make no mistake about it, this mandate is very much Obama's willful intention. The imposition of this attack on religious freedom is no accident. It comes straight from the pages of ObamaCare. In December of 2009, in the run-up to passage of ObamaCare, Senator Mikulski offered an amendment which provided the authorizing language for this oppressive mandate; and some, including Senator Casey, rigorously supported Senator Mikulski's amendment. Mr. Speaker, when President Obama spoke in 2009 at Notre Dame University--which, I would say parenthetically, has also filed suit over the mandate--he spoke about drafting a sensible conscience clause. Yet today, protection of conscience is another highly visible broken promise of ObamaCare. The Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, has a duty to protect the right of the Little Sisters of the Poor and others to live according to their conscience, to ensure that they serve the elderly poor according to their conscience. Again, I thank Mr. Rothfus for his leadership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 121) expressing the sense of the Congress condemning the gross violations of international law amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Government of Syria, its allies, and other parties to the conflict in Syria, and asking the President to direct his Ambassador at the United Nations to promote the establishment of a war crimes tribunal where these crimes could be addressed, as amended.