Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to submit statements and extraneous materials for the Record on H. Res. 50.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 50) calling for the release of Ukrainian fighter pilot Nadiya Savchenko, who was captured by Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine and has been held illegally in a Russian prison since July 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the preamble at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 50, introduced by Representative Levin, calls for the release of former Ukrainian fighter pilot Nadiya Savchenko, who has been languishing in Russian prisons since she was abducted by pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine in 2014, and illegally transferred across the border in handcuffs and with a bag over her head. Since she was incarcerated on specious and unsubstantiated charges, Nadiya has endured interrogations, involuntary psychiatric evaluations and solitary confinement. She spent four months on a hunger strike as a symbol of protest, ending it last April. Her trial opened today. Nadiya is yet another victim of the Putin regime's brutality. We must recognize that this isn't just about her, but also represents a very visible manifestation of Russia's aggression towards a Ukraine that wishes to remain free, independent, and democratic. Nadiya is a symbol for the struggle of Ukraine. Madam Speaker, Nadiya Savchenko was elected in absentia to the Ukrainian Parliament in October and was named a member of Ukraine's delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As such, she enjoys diplomatic immunity. With its illegal annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine, Russia has made a mockery of its international commitments, including all ten core OSCE principles enshrined in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. Nadiya's illegal detention, along with that of other Ukrainian citizens held hostage by Moscow, represents yet another in a long list of violations of international agreements and the norms of civilized behavior. According to the Minsk agreements between Russia along with its separatist proxies, and Ukraine, hostages are supposed to be released. Moscow needs to immediately release Nadiya and the many other hostages, including Oleg Sentsov and Oleksander Kolchenko, who were recently sentenced in a Russian court on completely baseless charges. Madam Speaker, my amendment calls for the imposition of personal sanctions against individuals responsible for the kidnapping, arrest, and imprisonment of Nadiya Savchenko and other Ukrainian citizens illegally incarcerated in Russia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the text of the resolution at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, undercover videos by The Center for Medical Progress have again brought into sharp focus that some babies actually survive abortion. Dr. Ginde, medical director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, says: ``sometimes we get--if somebody delivers before we see them for a procedure that they are intact . . .'' That is, Madam Speaker, born alive, breathing, crying, gasping for air. One fetal tissue broker describes in the video watching a fetus that just ``fell out'' and was left to die. We have a duty to protect these vulnerable children from violence, exploitation, and death. Humanitarian due diligence requires that born- alive babies be taken to a hospital to obtain care and enhance his or her prospects of survival. Abortion clinics, to the contrary, do not have neonatal intensive care units. They are not equipped to protect those children. They are in the business of killing those children--not saving them. The grand jury in the abortionist Kermit Gosnell case said: ``Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies. He killed them.'' He euphemistically called ``snipping'' the born-alive baby's spinal cord ``ensuring fetal demise.'' Last week, Gianna Jessen, as Bob Goodlatte noted earlier, an abortion survivor, told his Committee on the Judiciary she had survived a Planned Parenthood late-term, multihour abortion because ``the abortionist had not yet begun the work. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die.'' The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, authored by pro- life champion Trent Franks, simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. This legislation builds on the landmark Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, authored by Steve Chabot, by adding important enforcement provisions. Tragically, President Obama, the abortion President, has vowed to veto this pro-child, human rights legislation, a position that is extreme, antichild, inhumane, and indefensible.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I do thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and, again, I want to thank Chairman Bob Goodlatte for doing such an extraordinarily effective job as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a true human rights champion and a man who really understands these issues. Last week's hearing with Gianna Jessen and another abortion survivor underscores the fact that there are abortion survivors. I remember, years ago, there was a Philadelphia Inquirer article, called, ``The Dreaded Complication,'' and it was all about all of the children who survived later-term abortions. And do you know what the response of the abortion lobby was? We need a better death ensuring method of abortion, a more effective and efficacious method, to destroy those babies. That was part of the genesis of the hideous partial-birth abortion method--a method that actually suctions out the brain tissue of a child before birth, thus ensuring there won't be a child born-alive. Let me also say, people on the other side were talking earlier about the relationship between doctor and patient. What about the new patient, that unborn child who is now a newly born child? Where is the doctor-patient relationship to help that child? Abortion clinics are in the business of exterminating children through dismemberment and chemical poisoning. That is what abortionists do. Getting this child to a hospital ensures that lifesaving care will be provided. Healers have a mindset that says we need to save these children, the means to do so, including intensive care capability. Abortionists believe abortion means dead baby--born or newly born.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, undercover videos show and expose Planned Parenthood directors cheerfully talking about dismemberment and crushing babies to death all while altering abortion methods in a way that preserves organs and body parts for sale. Watch the videos. One senior director who talks about preserving a liver says they use ultrasound guidance because that is where they will know where to put the forceps. Of course, forceps are used to literally rip the child to pieces in what is called a dismemberment abortion. One technician, Holly O'Donnell, talks about getting brain tissue. She said her supervisor ``gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can't even describe,'' she says, ``what that feels like.'' Some of our colleagues on the other side have said that there is no evidence. Watch the videos. There is ample evidence. I would suggest and I would ask Congresswoman Castor to join us in a letter that asks the Attorney General of the United States to investigate this. Will you? I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Okay. It is disappointing then that the gentleman is not moved to compassion over the terrible inhumanity displayed on those videos by the Planned Parenthood personnel. Madam Speaker, human dismemberment is a painful and absolutely frightening way for anyone to die, but in Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, such violence against children is commonplace. Subsidized by half-a-billion dollars annually, Planned Parenthood kills a baby every 2 minutes, snuffing out the lives of over 57 million infants since 1973, a staggering loss of life, a staggering loss of children. Madam Speaker, now, because of undercover videos by The Center for Medical Progress, we know Planned Parenthood is also trafficking in baby parts, turning babies into human guinea pigs while making the abortion industry even richer than before. Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned Parenthood's meticulously crafted facade of care and compassion has been shredded. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood's top leadership, not interns or lower-level employees, show callous disregard for children's lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain. This begs the question: Do Americans really know what horrors are done to children in Planned Parenthood clinics? Have congressional colleagues and has President Obama watched the videos yet? In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Medical Services and a late-term abortionist herself says on camera: We have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I am not going to crush that part. I am going to basically crush below, I am going to crush above, and I am going to see if I can get it all intact. . . . I would say a lot of people want liver; and for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they will know where they are putting their forceps. In other words, crush the baby to death, but do it in a way that preserves organs and body parts for sale. Planned Parenthood's medical directors council president, Dr. Mary Gatter, appears on the video nonchalantly talking about utilizing ``less crunchy'' abortion methods, again, to preserve body parts. Regarding the price tag for baby body parts, she says, ``Let me just figure out what others are getting and, if this is in the ballpark, then, it is fine. If it is still low, we can bump it up,'' that is, the price. ``I want a Lamborghini,'' she says. Planned Parenthood's national director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers, Deborah VanDerhei, says, ``We are just trying to figure out as an industry''--abortion is an industry--``how we are going to manage remuneration because the headlines would be a disaster''--concern for making money and avoiding bad press, no concern whatsoever for the child victim. Holly O'Donnell, a tissue procurement technician for StemExpress, a biotech company that partners with Planned Parenthood, says some women undergoing abortions did not give consent for these baby body parts to be trafficked. She says on the video, ``Pregnancy tests are potential pregnancies, therefore, potential specimens.'' They think of the pregnancy test as a way of getting more specimens, so it is just taking advantage of the opportunity. O'Donnell also says how her supervisor told her to cut through the face of a baby in order to get brain tissue. ``She gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can't even describe what that feels like,'' she says on tape. H.R. 3134, made in order under this rule, authored by an extraordinarily caring and compassionate Member of Congress, Diane Black of Tennessee, places a yearlong moratorium on funding for Planned Parenthood and redirects withheld monies to other facilities that provide women's health. Madam Speaker, the videos have also brought into sharp focus the fact that some babies actually survive abortions. Dr. Savita Ginde, vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, confesses: Sometimes we get--if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure then they, the baby, are intact. That means born alive. That means born alive. ``The fetus just fell out,'' she says. It just fell out. It, the baby, fell out. What happens to that baby? Tragically, we know what happens. They are killed, and some of their organs are stolen. The second bill made in order by the rule--the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks-- simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. The new bill builds on the landmark Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, authored by Steve Chabot, by ending important enforcement prohibitions. I would remind my colleagues that it was just 2 years ago that the infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of killing children, as well as women in his clinics, but children who were born alive after an attempted abortion. The grand jury report describes his practice--and I read the entire report; you ought to read it--Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies he delivered. He killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it ``ensuring fetal demise.'' He called it ``snipping.'' Support these two bills, I say to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, human dismemberment is a painful and absolutely frightening way for anyone to die but in Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, such violence against children is commonplace and usual. Subsidized by half a billion taxpayer dollars annually, Planned Parenthood kills a baby every two minutes, snuffing out the lives of over seven million infants since 1973--a staggering loss of children. Now, because of undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress, we know Planned Parenthood is also trafficking in baby body parts-- turning babies into human guinea pigs while making the abortion industry even richer than before. Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned Parenthood's meticulously crafted facade of care and compassion has been shredded. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood's top leadership--not interns or lower level employees--show callous disregard for children's lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain. Which begs the question: do Americans really know what horrors are done to children in Planned Parenthood clinics? Have congressional colleagues--has President Obama--watched the videos yet? In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Medical Services and a late term abortionist herself says on camera: ``We have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, I am not going to crush that part. I am going to basically crush below, I am going to crush above, and I am going to see if I can get it all intact . . . I would say a lot of people want liver; and for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they will know where they are putting their forceps.'' In other words, crush the baby to death, but do it in a way that preserves organs and body parts for sale. Planned Parenthood Medical Directors' Council President Dr. Mary Gatter appears on a video nonchalantly talking about utilizing a ``less crunchy'' abortion method--again to preserve baby body parts. Regarding the pricetag for baby body parts she says: ``let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then its fine, if it's still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.'' Planned Parenthood's National Director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers Deborah VanDerhei says ``we're just trying to figure out as an industry . . . how we're going to manage remuneration because the headlines would be a disaster''. Concern for making money and avoiding bad press--no concern whatsoever for the child victim. Holly O'Donnell, a tissue procurement technician for StemExpress, a biotech company that partners with Planned Parenthood says some women undergoing abortions did not give consent: ``. . .'' there were times when they would just take (the body parts) what they wanted. And these mothers didn't know. On the video, Ms. O'Donnell says: ``Pregnancy tests are potential pregnancies, therefore potential specimens. So it's just taking advantage of the opportunities.'' O'Donnell also tells how her supervisor told her to cut through the face of a baby in order to get brain tissue. ``She gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can't even describe what that feels like'' she says. H.R. 3134 authored by an extraordinarily caring and compassionate Member of Congress Diane Black of Tennessee places a yearlong moratorium on funding to Planned Parenthood and redirects withheld monies to other facilities that provide women's health. At the instruction of Speaker Boehner, several committees of congress have launched probes into this baby body parts trafficking scandal. I suspect that if the President watches at least one of the videos, he'd at least demand real answers concerning Planned Parenthood's inhumane behavior. Or at least I hope he would. Mr. Speaker, the videos have again brought into sharp focus the fact that some babies actually survive abortion. Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains confesses that ``Sometimes, we get--if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure then they (the baby) are in intact . . .'' A fetal tissue broker describes watching a ``fetus . . . just fell out.'' It just fell out. It, the baby, fell out, she says. And then what happened to that baby? Tragically, we know what happens to these victimized babies--they are killed and some have their organs stolen. So the second bill made in order by the rule--The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504)--authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks, simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. The new bill builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important enforcement provisions. I would remind my colleagues that it was just two years ago the infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder for killing children who were born alive after an attempted abortion. The Grand Jury report described his practices, ``Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it ``ensuring fetal demise.'' The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that ``snipping.'' Gosnell's grisly after-birth abortion practices were only exposed when he was investigated for illegal drug charges and, in the words of the Grand Jury ``the search team discovered fetal remains haphazardly stored throughout the clinic--in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers. Some fetal remains were in a refrigerator, others were frozen.'' Last week Gianna Jessen an abortion survivor, told the House Judiciary Committee: ``My biological mother was seven and a half months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood, who advised her to have a late-term saline abortion. ``This method of abortion burns the baby inside and out, blinding and suffocating the child, who is then born dead, usually within 24 hours. ``Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's womb, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April the 6th, 1977. My medical records state: ``Born alive during saline abortion'' at 6 am. ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I was rushed to a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live. ``I did. I was later diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And Cerebral Palsy is a great gift to me. Gianna asked the committee, ``If abortion is about women's rights, then what were mine? You continuously use the argument, `If the baby is disabled, we need to terminate the pregnancy,' as if you can determine the quality of someone's life. Is my life less valuable due to my Cerebral Palsy? ``You have failed, in your arrogance and greed, to see one thing: it is often from the weakest among us that we learn wisdom--something sorely lacking in our nation today. And it is both our folly and our shame that blinds us to the beauty of adversity.'' Gianna Jesson's reminds us that we have a duty to protect the weakest and most vulnerable.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman has?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Virginia Foxx, who is a tremendous leader for life and a great leader in this Congress, for yielding. Mr. McGovern said we are wasting our time. Mr. Kildee talked about pandering, which I think is an insult. I would just like to ask Mr. McGovern: Yes or no, has the gentleman watched the videos?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, what was previously unacceptable, an Iranian nuclear state, is now inevitable under the terms and conditions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Tragically, the deal is riddled with serious flaws, gaps, and huge concessions to Iran. Taken as a whole, the deal poses an existential threat to Israel and other friends in the region--and is a significant risk to the United States. Not only is Iran now permitted to continue enriching uranium--a previous nonnegotiable red line was no enrichment whatsoever--but under this agreement, Iran will be able to assemble an industrial-scale nuclear program once the agreement begins to sunset in as little as a decade. And make no mistake about it, Iran's decades-long rabid hatred of Israel shows no sign of abating anytime soon. Yesterday, the Times of Israel reported that Iran's Supreme Leader said to Israel, ``You will not see the next 25 years,'' adding that the Jewish state will be hounded until it is destroyed. Mr. Speaker, inspections are anything but anytime or anywhere, the Obama administration's previous pledge to the Nation and the world. We have learned that the IAEA has entered into a secret agreement that precludes unfettered, robust inspection. That also violates the Corker law. We have not gotten that information. Mr. Speaker, Iran is the world's leading supporter of terrorism. This agreement provides tens of billions of dollars for weapons and war- making materiel. The Supreme Leader also criticized any call to end its ballistic missile program, another eleventh hour concession. The Supreme Leader called that stupid and idiotic, and that they should mass produce such weapons and means of delivery. Countries build ICBMs, Mr. Speaker, to deliver nukes. The administration was reluctant, but I held two hearings and the chairman held several hearings on the Americans being held hostage. Pastor Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, Jason Rezaian, and Robert Levinson remain in jail--abused, tortured, or missing. Why are they not free? President Obama continues to tell Congress and the American people that the Iran nuclear agreement is the best deal possible and advances peace. Such boasting collapses under scrutiny. What was previously unacceptable--an Iranian nuclear state--is now inevitable under the terms and conditions of what is officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Tragically, the deal is riddled with serious flaws, gaps, and huge concessions to Iran. Taken as a whole, the deal poses an existential threat to Israel, our allies in the region--and even poses significant risks to the United States. Not only is Iran now permitted to continue enriching uranium--a previous nonnegotiable redline was no enrichment whatsoever--under this agreement, Iran will not be required to dismantle its bomb-making technology and will have an internationally recognized, industrial- scale nuclear program once the agreement begins to ``sunset'' in as little as a decade. And make no mistake, Iran's decades-long rabid hatred of Israel shows no sign of abating anytime soon. Yesterday, the Times of Israel reported that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said to Israel: ``You will not see (the) next 25 years,'' adding that the Jewish state will be hounded until it is destroyed. On the inspections front, Supreme Leader Khamenei has stated that he will ``never'' permit inspectors to inspect Iran's military bases. Even after the agreement was signed, the Iranian Minister of Defense reportedly said that ``Tehran will not allow any foreigner to discover Iran's defensive and missile capabilities by inspecting the country's military sites.'' Inspections under this agreement are anything but ``anytime, anywhere''--the Obama Administration's previous pledge to the nation and the world. We have learned that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has entered into a secret side agreement to preclude unfettered, robust inspection, and in another bizarre concession by the Administration and our negotiating partners, even allows Iran to self- monitor in certain circumstances. Yet the agreement itself contains many limits on access by IAEA inspectors to suspected sites, including a 24-day period in which Iran is allowed to continue to refuse the IAEA's request to visit a facility followed by a very long process needed to increase pressure on Iran to permit access if it still blocks access by inspectors. During this period, Iran will have sufficient time to remove, cover up, or destroy any evidence. ``Managed access'' would be better called ``manipulated access'' as inspectors will get access to suspected sites only after consultations between the world powers and Iran, over nearly a month. Given Iran's repeated cover-ups of its clandestine nuclear program, its refusal to give the IAEA access to its Parchin military facility (where Iran is believed to have tested detonators for nuclear warheads), and its stone-walling the IAEA concerning evidence that it had done extensive research and development on a nuclear explosive device, verification is fundamental to ensure that Iran is abiding by the agreement's terms. Secretary of State John Kerry, after an Iranian history of refusal to allow inspections at Parchin, would only assure us of inspections there ``as appropriate,'' whatever that means. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has said that pledges by Obama Administration officials that the agreement would guarantee ``anywhere, anytime'' inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities were only ``rhetorical.'' Mere words without substance? Why would our allies in the region trust us if our word--and negotiating positions--are indeed only rhetorical flourish? The key restriction on Iran's nuclear program--the ability to enrich at high levels--begins to expire in as little as 10 years. Once these restrictions expire, Iran could enrich on an industrial scale and the U.S. and its allies will be left with no effective measures to prevent Iran from initiating an accelerated nuclear program to produce the materials needed for a nuclear weapon. Mr. Speaker, the IAEA has uncovered significant evidence that Iran has engaged in activities related to the development of a nuclear weapon. Despite many agreements with the IAEA in which Iran has pledged to provide satisfactory information, the IAEA has repeatedly said that Iran has given it virtually nothing. Secretary Kerry has said that the U.S. has ``absolute knowledge'' of Iran's past military activities regarding its nuclear program, but Gen. Michael Hayden, the former Director of the CIA, recently testified to Congress that the U.S. did not have that capability. Furthermore, as witnesses testified at a joint hearing in July by three Foreign Affairs subcommittees, there is ample evidence that Iran has a longstanding nuclear collaboration with North Korea. In light of the abundant evidence they will present, what gives the Administration certainty that the Iranians won't at some point during this agreement acquire fissile material beyond what they are allowed to produce for themselves or actual warheads from North Korea? Why was the Iran-North Korea nuclear collaboration not factored into the Iran nuclear agreement? Surely Secretary Kerry is aware of the Iran-North Korea nuclear linkage. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Douglas Frantz, previously a high-ranking Kerry Senate aide, wrote a 2003 article about Iran's ties to the North Korean nuclear program. Are we to believe Frantz and Kerry never discussed this issue? He dodged the question at today's committee hearing. Mr. Speaker, in March 2007, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1747 which, inter alia, established an embargo on the export from Iran of all arms and related materials, thereby banning all states and groups from purchasing or receiving arms from Iran. The resolution also called on all states to ``exercise vigilance and restraint'' in their supply of any items covered by the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms to Iran. However, reports indicate that Russia is eager to sell massive amounts of military hardware to Iran. Major General Qassem Suleimani, Iran's Revolutionary Guard leader, recently visited Russia. How will this shape other regional conflicts in which Iran is currently involved, including Iraq, Syria, and Yemen? After the conventional arms embargo is lifted in just 5 years, what limitations, if any, will there be on Iran's ability to export arms, specifically heavy weapons? Besides Russia, who else will sell weapons to Iran? China? Moreover, the Administration and its supporters of the Iranian nuclear agreement downplay the possibility of Saudi Arabia, for example, producing a nuclear weapon as part of a Middle East arms race. However, the Saudis are building King Abdullah City for Atomic Renewable Energy to train nuclear scientists and already have greater science and mathematics capacity than Pakistan had when it developed nuclear weapons. Why couldn't and why wouldn't the Saudis join the nuclear arms race when faced with a more nuclear and conventionally armed Iran? Secretary Kerry would have us believe that the Saudis and others in the region would prefer the current agreement to an effort to achieve a more effective one and would agree not to pursue nuclear weapons even though Iran is on the path to develop or acquire its own. Mr. Speaker, ballistic missiles are a central component of any country's nuclear weapons program as they allow for the quick, accurate delivery of nuclear weapons over long distances. While the agreement calls for Iran to abide by all U.N. Security Council resolutions-- including the requirement that ``Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons,'' Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's criticized the call for Iran to end its ballistic missile program, characterizing it as ``a stupid, idiotic expectation'' and claiming ``The Revolutionary Guards should definitely carry out their program and not be satisfied with the present level. They should mass produce.'' In an 11th hour concession by the Obama Administration and others, the agreement ``sunsets'' U.N. sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program after 8 years, and also requires that the European Union do the same. U.S. intelligence estimates Iran to have the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Congress has received expert testimony that ``no country that has not aspired to possess nuclear weapons has ever opted to sustain'' a costly, long-range missile program. Simply put, countries build ICBMs to deliver nukes. Under this agreement, the Iranians have stated they are under no obligation to stop developing ballistic missiles. In fact, this agreement would allow them the two things they need to advance their program: money and foreign assistance. Iran dared to insert ballistic missiles and conventional weapons into the nuclear negotiations without fear of disturbing the talks. Meanwhile, the Administration was reluctant to use its leverage during the negotiations to free the four Americans held hostage in Iran today. Pastor Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, Jason Rezaian, and Robert Levinson remain in jail--abused, tortured or missing. Mr. Speaker, the agreement requires ``full implementation'' by October 15 of the commitments in the ``roadmap'' made by Iran to the IAEA in their 2011 agreement, following which the IAEA is to provide its ``final assessment on the resolution of all past and present outstanding issues.'' However, there is no stated penalty if Iran continues to refuse to provide sufficient information to fully answer the IAEA's questions, which Iran cannot do without admitting it had a secret nuclear weapons program. Iran has repeatedly agreed to answer the IAEA's questions regarding extensive evidence that it had a secret research and development program regarding a nuclear device, including fitting it onto a ballistic missile. All that resulted was the Iranians stonewalling the inspectors. Is the failure to resolve the possible military dimensions as required by the IAEA a violation of the agreement? Why would Iran provide any information now when there is nothing in the agreement to compel it to do so? Iran currently is the world's leading supporter of terrorism, and this agreement provides funding that will drastically expand Iran's regional destabilization efforts--from Israel to Iraq to Yemen to Lebanon and elsewhere. The Administration disputes the figure of $150 billion to be released to Iran, but even a portion of that amount would provide significant resources to fund Iran's terrorism in the region-- threatening our allies in the region and global security. Moreover, the Administration underestimates the revenue from both rising oil prices at some point and the tax revenues from increased commercial investment and activity. Congress should oppose in any way possible the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reinstate comprehensive, robust sanctions and direct the executive branch to resume the struggle to craft an enforceable accord to ensure no nuclear weapons capability for Iran--ever.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. H.R. 2820 authorizes $265 million over 5 years and will ensure that thousands of present-day and future patients benefit from this exciting field of regenerative medicine. We have only just begun. This legislation furthers that work. And again, I thank my colleagues for this bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, Maalik was diagnosed with Hurler Syndrome at 15 months old--a rare and life-threatening metabolic disorder. He had a curved spine and could not walk. After receiving an umbilical cord blood transplant facilitated through the Carolina Blood Bank, Maalik is running around and expected to have a normal lifespan. His mother Krystal told the Herald Sun newspaper in North Carolina, ``My son is extremely happy now . . . He's energetic, and more independent. The transplant saved his life.'' In like manner, bone marrow donations provide lifesaving transplants to treat diseases like blood cancer or inherited metabolic or immune system disorders. Clara was only 4 months old when she was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. John had registered with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) Be the Match as a bone marrow donor when Clara was only 17 days old. It turned out he was a perfect match for Clara. John's donation saved Clara's life, she is now a thriving 2 year old. Valentina was 10 months old and only 13 pounds--and diagnosed with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Her doctor treated her with chemotherapy followed by a cord blood transplant. 5 months after the transplant Valentina weighed 21 pounds and doctors credited her strengthened immune system from the stem cells in cord blood. Jennifer, 45, was suffering from acute myeloid leukemia but unable to find a matched bone-marrow transplant. Because of the high rate of tissue type diversity among racial and ethnic minorities it can be difficult to find a matched bone marrow transplant, but umbilical cord blood can be successfully used for treatment with a less perfect match of tissue type. After undergoing chemotherapy and radiation she received a cord blood transplant, and is now living cancer free. Not only has God in His wisdom and goodness created a placenta and umbilical cord to nurture and protect the precious life of an unborn child, but now we know that another gift awaits us immediately after birth. Something very special is left behind--cord blood that is teeming with lifesaving stem cells. Breathtaking scientific breakthroughs have turned medical waste--post birth placentas and umbilical cord blood--into medical miracles treating more than 80 diseases including leukemia, lymphoma and sickle cell anemia. As a matter of fact, Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg of Duke University and President of the Cord Blood Association told Chairman Pitts' Health Subcommittee on June 25 that sickle cell anemia can be ``cured'' with cord blood transplantation and that ``it has become one of the optimal donor sources for patients with sickle cell disease'' because it doesn't have to be perfectly matched. H.R. 2820 under consideration by the House today reauthorizes through 2020 the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 a law that I sponsored a decade ago joined by Artur Davis of Alabama; legislation that cleared the Senate with the incomparable help of Senator Orrin Hatch. That law built upon the excellent work of our distinguished late colleague Bill Young of Florida to facilitate bone marrow transplants and created a brand new national umbilical cord blood donation and transplantation program. Special thanks to both Chairmen Upton and Pitts for their outstanding leadership and help on this bill, as well as the strong support by Ranking Members Pallone and Green. I am deeply grateful to original cosponsors Ms. Matsui, Mr. Jolly and Mr. Fattah for their important contributions. And special thanks to Katie Novaria, Adrianna Simonelli, and Megan McCrum. Today, Mr. Speaker, under the National Cord Blood Inventory Program (NCBI), contracts are awarded to cord blood banks to collect cord blood units donated after mothers give birth. These units are then made available through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program also called the Be the Match Registry. The Program provides a single point of access, enabling those in need of lifesaving transplants to search for a match via an integrated nationwide network of bone marrow donors and cord blood stem cells. The Program's Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Coordinating Centers makes information about bone marrow and cord blood transplant available to donors and patients, and the Office of Patient Advocacy helps support patients and families dealing with a life- threatening diagnosis. And the Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database tracks results. Americans willing to volunteer are the heart of the success of this program. In reauthorizing it we are grateful for the adult donors willing to donate bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells, as well as mothers who donate their babies' cord blood through public cord blood banks. There are 13 public banks contracted through NCBI, including the New Jersey Cord Blood Bank in my home state, which collects cord blood from 5 participating hospitals. According to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), every year 18,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with illnesses for which blood stem cell transplantation from a matched donor is their best treatment option. Of this number, only about 30% have a sibling who can be the ideal matched donor, so about 12,600 people annually depend on the programs made available by this law to find an unrelated adult marrow donor or cord blood unit for treatment. Cord blood transplants have accounted for about one half of the growth in stem cell transplants since NCBI was established in 2005. More NCBI units have been released for transplantation with each successive year since the program's inception. In addition to currently treating more than 80 diseases, cord blood units from NCBI banks are also made available for research on future therapies. In groundbreaking research, Dr. Kurtzberg of Duke University also testified last June that ``in addition to use in patients with malignant and genetic diseases, cord blood is showing enormous potential for use in cellular therapies and regenerative medicine. Cord blood derived vaccines against viruses and certain types of cancers are currently under development and in early phase clinical trials. Cells manufactured from cord blood units are being developed to boost recovery of the immune system. Cells regulating autoimmunity (Regulatory T cells) are also in clinical trials. These approaches, which often utilize cord blood banked in family banks, may help patients with Type 1 Diabetes, as well as other diseases.'' Dr. Kurtzberg further testified that she and others are developing uses for cord blood to treat acquired brain disorders. ``Over the past six years'' she said ``we have initiated trials of autologous (the patient's own) cord blood in babies with birth asphyxia, cerebral palsy, hearing loss and autism . . .'' Dr. Kurtzberg has also said ``We've learned that when donor cells are infused into one's body, they go to the brain and help heal the brain. When a child has a brain injury around birth, we can use their own cord blood cells to correct the damage that's occurred.'' Dr. Jeffrey W. Chell, CEO of NMDP/Be the Match noted that for many diseases including blood cancers and sickle cell disease, cellular therapy is the best hope for a cure. He told Chairman Pitts' subcommittee that the patient population ``rising the most quickly is the elderly population . . . growing by double digits every year, and the reason for that is the medical conditions for which transplant is often the only cure tend to occur in older populations for diseases like acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, myelofibrosis and others.'' Last year, Mr. Speaker, I visited Celgene Corporation of Summit, New Jersey to learn of their extraordinary efforts to use cord blood to heal diabetic foot ulcers and how they've turned amniotic membrane--an old placenta--into wound management that has now advanced past stage 3 clinical trials to the approval and regulatory filings stage. H.R. 2820 authorizes $265 million over five years and will ensure that thousands of present-day and future patients benefit from the exciting field of regenerative medicine.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend Mr. Guthrie for yielding and for his support on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, Maalik was diagnosed with Hurler syndrome at 15 months old, a rare and life-threatening metabolic disorder. He had a curved spine, and he could not walk. After receiving an umbilical cord blood transplant facilitated through the Carolinas Cord Blood Bank, Maalik is running around and is expected to have a normal lifespan. His mother, Krystal, said: ``My son is extremely happy now. He is energetic and more independent. The transplant saved his life.'' In like manner, bone marrow donations provide lifesaving transplants for a myriad of diseases. Clara was only 4 months old when she was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. John had registered with the National Marrow Donor Program Be The Match as a bone marrow donor when Clara was only 17 days old. It turned out it was a perfect match for Clara. John's donation saved Clara's life. She is now thriving at 2 years of age. Mr. Speaker, not only has God in His wisdom and goodness created a placenta and an umbilical cord to nurture and protect the precious life of an unborn child, but now, we find He has left a great gift behind. Immediately after birth, something very special is left behind, cord blood that is teeming with lifesaving stem cells. Breathtaking scientific breakthroughs have turned medical waste-- postbirth placentas and umbilical cord blood--into medical miracles, treating more than 80 diseases, including leukemia, lymphoma, and sickle cell anemia. As a matter of fact, Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg of Duke University and president of the Cord Blood Association told Chairman Pitts' subcommittee on June 25 that sickle cell anemia can be cured with cord blood transplantation and that it has become one of the most optimal donor sources for patients with sickle cell disease. H.R. 2820, under consideration by the House today, reauthorizes through 2020 the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, a law I sponsored a decade ago, joined by Artur Davis of Alabama, legislation that cleared the Senate with the incomparable help of Senator Orrin Hatch. That law built upon the excellent work of our distinguished late colleague Bill Young of Florida to facilitate bone marrow transplants and created a brand-new national umbilical cord blood donation and transplantation program. Special thanks, Mr. Speaker, to both Chairmen Upton and Pitts for their outstanding leadership and help on this bill, as well as the strong support by Ranking Members Pallone and my good friend and colleague Mr. Green. I am deeply grateful to our original sponsors, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Jolly, and Mr. Fattah, for their contributions and special thanks to Adrianna Simonelli, Katie Novaria, and Megan McCrum. Today, Mr. Speaker, under the National Cord Blood Inventory program, contracts are awarded to cord blood banks to collect cord blood units donated after their mothers give birth. These units are then made available through the C. W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program, also called the Be The Match Registry. The program provides a single point of access, enabling those in need of lifesaving transplants to search for a match via an integrated nationwide network of bone marrow and cord blood stem cells. Americans willing to volunteer are at the heart of the success of this program. In reauthorizing it, we are grateful for the adult donors willing to donate bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells, as well as mothers who donate their baby's cord blood to public cord blood banks. There are 13 public banks contracted through the NCBI, including the New Jersey Cord Blood Bank in my home State, which collects cord blood from five participating hospitals. Mr. Speaker, it ought to be noted as well that, in addition to treating more than 80 diseases, cord blood units from the NCBI banks are also available for research on future therapies. Indeed, Dr. Kurtzberg pointed out that, ``in addition to use in patients with malignant and genetic diseases, cord blood is showing enormous potential for use in cellular therapies and other regenerative medicine. Cord blood derived vaccines against viruses and certain types of cancers are currently under development and in early phase clinical trials. Cells, manufactured from cord blood units are being developed to boost recovery of the immune system. Cells regulating autoimmunity are also in clinical trials. These approaches, which often utilize cord blood banked in family banks, may help patients with type 1 diabetes, as well as other diseases,'' she testified just a few months ago. She also pointed out that ``over the past 6 years, we have initiated trials of the patient's own cord blood in babies with birth asphyxia, cerebral palsy, hearing loss''; and she is doing some incredible work on an issue that I have worked on for over 20 years, and that is the issue and the disability known as autism. Dr. Kurtzberg finally said, ``We've learned that when a donor cells are infused into one's body, they go to the brain and help heal the brain. When a child has a brain injury around birth, we can use their own cord blood cells to correct the damage that's occurred.'' Dr. Jeffrey Chell, of Be the Match--he is the CEO for it--noted that for many diseases, including blood cancers and sickle cell disease, cellular therapy is the best hope for a cure. Last year, Mr. Speaker, I visited Celgene Corporation of Summit, New Jersey, to learn of their extraordinary efforts to use cord blood to heal diabetic foot ulcers, and they now have turned amniotic membrane, an old placenta, into wound management that has now advanced--it is on the market--past stage 3 clinical trials.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity today to mark the 50th anniversary of Medicare and to express my strong support for the programs that provide health coverage for older Americans. Fifty years ago, our country made a commitment to our seniors. A commitment that said if you worked hard and paid into the system you would have access to quality healthcare in retirement. To this day, Medicare continues to provide health insurance coverage for millions of Americans age 65 and older, and adults with permanent disabilities. Medicare, along with Social Security, is a sacred trust that I have consistently fought to preserve and one that we must continue to protect for the 54 million Americans enrolled in Medicare today--and those who will enroll throughout our nation's tomorrows. Amended and improved throughout the years, Medicare has come to play a key role in providing health coverage to millions of Americans. The Social Security Amendments of 1965, established Medicaid to ensure low- income families have access to healthcare; Social Security Amendments of 1972, extended Medicare eligibility to individuals under age 65 with long-term disabilities; then later the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2006, established the Medicare Advantage program and a new landmark prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D. In addition to large scale changes to the program, I have supported and worked on policies that address specific aspects of Medicare to both raise the quality of life for beneficiaries while also saving the program money in the long run. For example, I authored legislation that was signed into law (PL 100-203) to provide Medicare coverage for therapeutic shoes for seniors with severe diabetic foot disease. At the time, Medicare covered costly amputations--which an estimated 25,600 seniors received annually--but not the therapeutic shoes what would prevent the need for those amputations. The American Diabetes Association estimated that my bill would save Medicare over $100 million in one year alone, while the affordable and available foot care would spare seniors the trauma of an amputation. And my work to sustain and protect the program continues. Earlier this year I was pleased to lend my support to the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (PL: 114-10) which finally repealed the flawed SGR--the statutory method for determining the annual update to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Previous temporary patches to the SGR were unsustainable and unproductive, leaving seniors questioning if they could visit their own doctors if the so-called patches were not extended. A final repeal of the SGR modernizes the formula for determining Medicare reimbursements and will help the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid transition to a new system intended to incentivize quality of care and overall health improvements. This law allows seniors to retain access to quality healthcare, establishes predictability for the doctors who treat Medicare beneficiaries, and continues to give seniors the security and confidence they need when making healthcare decisions. With that work successfully accomplished, we can and must do even more to strengthen Medicare and ensure the healthcare needs of all seniors are met, now and into the future. Accordingly, yesterday, I introduced the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) Innovation Act. My new bill, introduced with a group of bipartisan co-sponsors--including the lead Democratic cosponsor Rep. Earl Blumenauer, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health Chairman Kevin Brady and Ranking Member Jim McDermott--will allow CMS to test models that bring PACE's effective care plans to more seniors as well as individuals with disabilities. By way of background, PACE is an effective, integrated and community-based program that works to raise quality of life of senior citizens, while keeping them in their homes and supporting their independence. It delivers the entire range of medical and long-term services including: medical care and prescription drug services; physical or occupational therapy; day or respite care; and medical specialties, such as dentistry, optometry, and podiatry. Currently, participating in a PACE program is limited to those aged 55 and older who meet state-specified criteria for needing a nursing home level of care (LOC). However, many populations--including younger individuals, people with multiple chronic conditions and disabilities, seniors who need comprehensive care but do not yet meet the nursing home LOC standard--could benefit from the all-inclusive nature of the PACE model. Having worked to bring the first PACE program to New Jersey, St. Francis Medical Center's Living Independently for the Elderly (LIFE) in Trenton, I've personally visited seniors who are enrolled in PACE and witnessed how this important program works to raise the quality of life of its enrollees. Today over 100 PACE programs are serving seniors throughout the country including four, soon to be five, centers in my home state of New Jersey. This bill is important to build on the success of the program and make it better, offering better comprehensive care and preserving the dignity of those most deserving of our care and attention. To further strengthen the Medicare system and aid those individuals and families who are facing the reality of Alzheimer's disease, I also recently introduced the HOPE for Alzheimer's Act (HR 1559). My HOPE Act would provide for Medicare coverage of a care-planning session for newly diagnosed patients and their family caregivers or legal representatives. Mr. Speaker, my Alzheimer's legislation will fill an important gap in current Medicare services. Take for example an experience of one of my constituents, Mary Gerard of Ocean New Jersey. Mary was one of the 15 million family members and friends who act as unpaid caregivers to Alzheimer's and dementia patients across the country every year. When her mother Helen was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, Mary took charge and was there with her mother day in and day out--faithfully and lovingly--until she passed. She is a trained critical care nurse. She was equipped with knowledge and resources that many first time caregivers do not have. Yet even with a medical services background, she still struggled with the challenges of her new life as a caregiver. Alzheimer's caregivers provide an estimated 17 billion hours of unpaid care every year. The emotional and financial toll can be immense. Many are untrained and offered little guidance to function in their new role. Navigating the long-term care system is a daunting task and can appear overwhelming, particularly for those who have only recently received the news that a loved one has Alzheimer's disease. Upon receiving this diagnosis, patients and their families--like Mary's--are frequently at a loss for how to effectively plan for the next stage of their lives. Passage of my legislation will empower individuals with much-needed information to outline their future treatments and care--giving patients HOPE, and a plan for their future. As our population ages, it is imperative that we preserve and expand access to the 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. Strengthening and preserving Medicare is a promise that every preceding generation has made and kept. It is our duty to continue to honor the senior citizens in New Jersey and around the country who have worked hard to provide for their families and help build our communities and deliver on promises made, for--at a minimum--another 50 years to come.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, President Obama continues to tell Congress and the American people that the Iran nuclear agreement is the best deal possible and advances peace. Such boasting collapses under scrutiny. What was previously unacceptable--an Iranian nuclear state--is now inevitable under the terms and conditions of what is officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Tragically, the deal is riddled with serious flaws, gaps, and huge concessions to Iran. Taken as a whole, the deal poses an existential threat to Israel, our allies in the region--and even poses significant risks to the United States, despite assurances from Secretary of State John Kerry in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee today. Not only is Iran now permitted to continue enriching uranium--a previous nonnegotiable redline was no enrichment whatsoever--but inspections are anything but ``anytime, anywhere''--the Obama Administration's previous pledge to the nation and the world. And the key restriction on Iran's nuclear program--the ability to enrich at high levels--begins to expire in as little as 10 years. Once these restrictions expire, Iran could enrich on an industrial scale and the U.S. and its allies will be left with no effective measures to prevent Iran from initiating an accelerated nuclear program to produce the materials needed for a nuclear weapon. On the inspections front, Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has stated that he will ``never'' permit inspectors to inspect Iran's military bases. Even after the agreement was signed, the Iranian Minister of Defense reportedly said that ``Tehran will not allow any foreigner to discover Iran's defensive and missile capabilities by inspecting the country's military sites.'' Given Iran's repeated cover-ups of its clandestine nuclear program, its refusal to give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to its Parchin military facility where Iran is believed to have tested detonators for nuclear warheads, and its stone-walling the IAEA concerning evidence that it had done extensive research and development on a nuclear explosive device, verification is fundamental to ensure that Iran is abiding by the agreement's terms. Secretary Kerry, after an Iranian history of refusal to allow inspections at Parchin, would only assure us of inspections there ``as appropriate,'' whatever that means. Yet the agreement contains many limits on access by IAEA inspectors to suspected sites, including a 24-day period in which Iran is allowed to continue to refuse the IAEA's request to visit a facility followed by a very long process needed to increase pressure on Iran to permit access if it still blocks access by inspectors. During this period, Iran will have sufficient time to remove, cover up, or destroy any evidence. ``Managed access'' would be better called ``manipulated access'' as inspectors will get access to suspected sites only after consultations between the world powers and Iran, over as long as 24 days--or more. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has said that pledges by Obama Administration officials that the agreement would guarantee ``anywhere, anytime'' inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities were only ``rhetorical.'' Mere words without substance? Why would our allies in the region trust us if our word--and negotiating positions-are indeed only rhetorical flourish? Congress recently discovered that the United States and other P5+1 members have left the IAEA and Iran to work out inspection details in secret, which could allow Iran to simply submit samples and make its own certification of compliance in lieu of actual inspection of facilities such as Parchin. Mr. Speaker, the IAEA has uncovered significant evidence that Iran has engaged in activities related to the development of a nuclear weapon. Despite many agreements with the IAEA in which Iran has pledged to provide satisfactory information, the IAEA has repeatedly said that Iran has given it virtually nothing. Secretary of State Kerry has said that the U.S. has ``absolute knowledge'' of Iran's past military activities regarding its nuclear program, but Gen. Michael Hayden, the former Director of the CIA, recently testified to Congress that the U.S. did not have that capability. Furthermore, as witnesses testified at a joint hearing this afternoon by three Foreign Affairs subcommittees, there is ample evidence that Iran has a longstanding nuclear collaboration with North Korea. In light of the abundant evidence they will present, what gives the Administration certainty that the Iranians won't at some point during this agreement acquire fissile material beyond what they are allowed to produce for themselves or actual warheads from North Korea? Why was the Iran-North Korea nuclear collaboration not factored into the Iran nuclear agreement? Surely Secretary Kerry is aware of the Iran-North Korea nuclear linkage. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Douglas Frantz, previously a high-ranking Kerry Senate aide, wrote a 2003 article about Iran's ties to the North Korean nuclear program. Are we to believe Frantz and Kerry never discussed this issue? He dodged the question at today's committee hearing. Mr. Speaker, in March 2007, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1747 which, inter alia, established an embargo on the export from Iran of all arms and related materials, thereby banning all states and groups from purchasing or receiving arms from Iran. The resolution also called on all states to ``exercise vigilance and restraint'' in their supply of any items covered by the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms to Iran. However, reports indicate that Russia is eager to sell massive amounts of military hardware to Iran. How will this shape other regional conflicts in which Iran is currently involved, including Iraq, Syria, and Yemen? After the conventional arms embargo is lifted in just 5 years, what limitations, if any, will there be on Iran's ability to export arms, specifically heavy weapons? Besides Russia, who else will sell weapons to Iran? China? Moreover, the Administration and its supporters of the Iranian nuclear agreement downplay the possibility of Saudi Arabia, for example, producing a nuclear weapon as part of a Middle East arms race. However, the Saudis are building King Abdullah City for Atomic Renewable Energy to train nuclear scientists and already have greater science and mathematics capacity than Pakistan had when it developed nuclear weapons. Why couldn't and why wouldn't the Saudis join the nuclear arms race when faced with a more nuclear and conventionally armed Iran? Secretary Kerry would have us believe that the Saudis and others in the region would prefer the current agreement to an effort to achieve a more effective one and would agree not to pursue nuclear weapons even though Iran is on the path to develop or acquire its own. Mr. Speaker, ballistic missiles are a central component of any country's nuclear weapons program as they allow for the quick, accurate delivery of nuclear weapons over long distances. While the agreement calls for Iran to abide by all U.N. Security Council resolutions-- including the requirement that ``Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons,'' Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's criticized the call for Iran to end its ballistic missile program, characterizing it as ``a stupid, idiotic expectation'' and claiming ``The Revolutionary Guards should definitely carry out their program and not be satisfied with the present level. They should mass produce.'' In an 11th hour concession by the Obama Administration and others, the agreement ``sunsets'' U.N. sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program after 8 years, and also requires that the European Union do the same. U.S. intelligence estimates Iran to have the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Congress has heard testimony that ``no country that has not aspired to possess nuclear weapons has ever opted to sustain'' a costly, long-range missile program. Simply put, countries build ICBMs to deliver nukes. Under this agreement, the Iranians have stated they are under no obligation to stop developing ballistic missiles. In fact, this agreement would allow them the two things they need to advance their program: money and foreign assistance. Mr. Speaker, the agreement requires ``full implementation'' by October 15 of the commitments in the ``roadmap'' made by Iran to the IAEA in their 2011 agreement, following which the IAEA is to provide its ``final assessment on the resolution of all past and present outstanding issues.'' However, there is no stated penalty if Iran continues to refuse to provide sufficient information to fully answer the IAEA's questions, which Iran cannot do without admitting it had a secret nuclear weapons program. Iran has repeatedly agreed to answer the IAEA's questions regarding extensive evidence that it had a secret research and development program regarding a nuclear device, including fitting it onto a ballistic missile. All that resulted was the Iranians stonewalling the inspectors. Is the failure to resolve the possible military dimensions as required by the IAEA a violation of the agreement? Why would Iran provide any information now when there is nothing in the agreement to compel it to do so? Finally, Mr. Speaker, Saeed Abedini is an American citizen. He was in Iran in 2012, visiting family and building an orphanage, when he was taken prisoner. Twelve years before, he had converted to Christianity and later was involved in the home church movement in Iran. Knowing about his conversion and earlier engagement with home churches, Iranian authorities approved his 2012 trip, approved his orphanage-building, and then imprisoned him. He has been in prison ever since then, and has suffered immensely, from beatings that have caused internal bleeding, death threats, solitary confinement, and more. His wife, Naghmeh, who is also an American and has been a heroic champion for her husband, and their two young children, have also suffered. I and many other Members of Congress have been advocating on behalf of Pastor Abedini and the other Americans unjustly held in Iran: Amir Hekmati, Jason Rezaian, and Robert Levinson. After our constant appeals for action to secure their release, Secretary Kerry said today that the Administration is now focusing on their release. We shall see what happens. Congress should vote down the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reinstate comprehensive, robust sanctions and direct the executive branch to resume the struggle to craft an enforceable accord to ensure no nuclear weapons capability for Iran--ever. Congress did this with the SALT 1, SALT II and the Chemical Weapons Convention and ended up with stronger accords. Why not do so once again?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a hearing that I convened yesterday was extremely timely, as events are unfolding in real time in Burundi--a small nation that is often overlooked by the international community, including those of us here in Congress. Many are familiar with the horrific genocidal violence that gripped Rwanda in the 1990s, as Hutu and Tutsi butchered each other in paroxysms of ethnic hatred. Few know, however, that Burundi also went through a protracted Tutsi versus Hutu ethnic struggle that also amounted to genocide in the 1990s. Few know that Burundi, without much fanfare and without the largess that the international community showered upon Rwanda, overcame its divisive civil war and, following a peace brokered by Nelson Mandela solemnized in the Arusha Accords of 2000, has sought to heal the wounds of the past and rebuild a nation. Today, however, this peace is under the threat of unraveling. The sitting President of Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza, in apparent defiance of the term limits set forth in the Arusha Accords and memorialized in the Constitution, is seeking a third term. While the constitutional issue is complex and unsettled, the rising political violence and tension--not to mention the roughly 160,000 people displaced and seeking refuge in neighboring countries--is easy to understand, and serves as a canary in the coal mine. Now there is a window of opportunity for action, where immediate and sustained attention can prevent the situation from escalating out of control. As in the case of the Central African Republic, over which we held two critical hearings in the last Congress, timely attention and targeted intervention can stop an incipient conflict from metastasizing. Burundi is now approaching a tipping point, though it has yet to topple over. There is still time, and we in Congress have a role to play in sounding the alarm and prodding the administration to take action, followed by oversight. We also need to avoid the temptation to be penny wise and pound foolish. As several of our witnesses explain, by spending a small amount to further democracy and governance efforts in fragile states such as Burundi, we can avoid much greater cost down the road--and I mean not simply the dollar-and-cents expense of humanitarian interventions, but more importantly, in terms of blood lost and lives shattered. In Burundi, the administration must do more. While often-lonely voices such as that of Samantha Power have called attention to the need for atrocity prevention, too often the administration policy has been one of, if not malign neglect, then certainly non-benign neglect. We saw this, for example, in the foot-dragging that accompanied the appointment of a Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region. In January of this year, then-Special Envoy Russ Feingold announced that he was stepping down. I called on the administration to find a replacement as soon as possible, as the circle of violence was beginning to widen in Burundi. In May, for example, I stated that a failure to do so signaled a ``disengagement when lives are at stake.'' I was afraid that we would see a repeat of the administration's inaction with respect to the Middle East, where to date it has yet to appoint a Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, despite Congress having created that position last August--almost one year ago. At the beginning of this month, however, the administration finally appointed a Special Envoy. In 2012, the administration, to much fanfare, created an Atrocities Prevention Board, following a Presidential Study directive which stated that ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.'' The APB is supposed to provide early warning of mass atrocities, and mobilize interagency resources to stop such atrocities. In Burundi, we can still make a difference.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of everyone--especially all of the left-behind parents I saw in the audience--for joining me at a hearing I held last week to discuss how the U.S. Department of State's first annual report under the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act can better correspond with the mandate set by Congress and achieve the return of abducted American children, which is the ultimate objective of the Goldman Act. Every year, an estimated 1,000 American children are unlawfully removed from their homes by one of their parents and taken across international borders. International parental child abduction rips children from their homes and families 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. But we know that less than half of these children ever come home--even from countries that have signed the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In a hearing I held on this issue back in 2009, former 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. Last year, Congress unanimously passed the Goldman Act to give teeth to requests for return and access. The actions required by the law escalate in severity, and range from official protests through diplomatic channels, to extradition, to the suspension of development, security, or other foreign assistance. The Goldman Act is a law calculated to get results, as we did in the return of Sean Goldman from Brazil in late December, 2009. But the new law is only as good as its implementation. The State Department's first annual report that we reviewed last week is the first step in moving past ``quiet diplomacy'' to results. The State Department must get this report right in order to trigger the actions above and for the law to be an effective tool. Countries should be listed as worst offenders if they have high numbers of cases--30 percent or more--that have been pending over a year: or if their judicial or administrative branch, or central authority for abduction fail in their duties under the Hague Convention or other controlling agreement, or; if their law enforcement rarely fails to enforce return orders or access rights. 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 abduction and access cases. While the State Department has choice of which tools to apply, and can waive actions for up to 180 days, the State Department does not have discretion over whether to report accurately to Congress on the country's record, or on whether the country is objectively non- compliant. As we have seen in the human trafficking context--I authored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 as well as the Goldman Act-- accurate accounting of a country's record, especially in comparison with other countries, can do wonders to prod much needed reform. Accurate reporting is also 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. The stakes are high: misleading or incomplete information could mean the loss of another American child to abduction. For example, a judge might look at the report table filled with zeros in the unresolved cases category--such as in the case of Japan-- and erroneously conclude that a country is not of concern, giving permission to an estranged spouse to travel with the child for a vacation. The estranged spouse then abducts the child and the left- behind parent spends his or her life savings and many years trying to get the child returned to the U.S. All of which could have been avoided with accurate reporting on the danger. I am very concerned that the first annual report contains major gaps and even misleading information, especially when it comes to countries with which we have the most intractable abduction cases. For instance, the report indicates that India, which has consistently been in the top five destinations for abducted American children, had 19 new cases in 2014, 22 resolved cases, and no unresolved cases. However, we know from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or NCMEC, that India has 53 open abduction cases--and that 51 have been pending for more than 1 year. While the State Department has shown willingness to work constructively on making the report better--for example, meeting last week with staff--our June 11 hearing left many questions unanswered as to why this report failed to hold countries accountable for unresolved cases. We wrote the law with the belief that the State Department was formally raising these cases by name with the foreign ministries of destination countries, and asked that cases still pending one year after being raised would be counted as ``unresolved.'' But these cases were not included in the report. A few parents who reported their cases to the State Department years ago and who have been consistently begging the Department for help were told by their case officers recently that the cases were formally communicated to India in May of 2015. May of 2015--delay is denial. The Goldman Act also requires the State Department to take actions against countries such as India and Japan if they refuse to resolve abduction and access cases. The Goldman Act also requires the State Department to begin negotiations with countries like India and Japan for a bilateral agreement to secure the resolution of the more than 100 open cases we have pending with those two countries--cases that are not listed as ``unresolved'' in the report. The Goldman Act requires an end to the status quo--but the first step toward change is telling the truth in the report. Which is why I am so concerned that Japan was not listed as showing a persistent failure to work with the U.S. on abduction cases. Japan has never issued and enforced a return order for a single one of the hundreds of American children abducted there. It holds the world record on the abduction of American children never returned. And yet it got a pass on more than 50 open cases, most of which have been pending for 5 years or more. Among such cases is that of Sgt. Michael Elias, who has not seen his children, Jade and Michael Jr., since 2008. Michael served as a Marine who saw combat in Iraq. His wife, who worked in the Japanese consulate, used documents fraudulently obtained with the apparent complicity of Japanese consulate personnel to kidnap their children, then aged 4 and 2, in defiance of a court order, telling Michael on a phone call that there was nothing that he could do, as ``my country will protect me.'' Her country, very worried about its designation in the new report, sent a high-level delegation in March to meet with Ambassador Jacobs and explain why Japan should be excused from being listed as ``non- compliant,'' despite the fact that more than one year after signing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Japan has ordered zero returns to the U.S. Just before the report was released in May--two weeks late--Takashi Okada, Deputy Director General in the Secretariat of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the Japanese Diet that he had been in consultation with the State Department and ``because we strived to make an explanation to the U.S. side, I hope that the report contents will be based on our country's efforts.'' In other words, Japan understood it would get a pass from the State Department and escape the list of countries facing action by the U.S. for their failure to resolve abduction cases based on what Mr. Okada euphemistically refers to as ``efforts,'' not results. Sgt. Michael Elias's country has utterly failed to protect him. He has seen zero progress in his case over the last year--the 7th year of his heart-wrenching ordeal--and yet the State Department cannot even bring itself to hold Japan accountable by naming Japan a worst offender in the annual report. The Goldman Act is clear: All requests for return that the State Department submitted to the foreign ministry and that remained unresolved 12 months later are to be counted against Japan--and followed up with action. The Goldman Act has given the State Department new and powerful tools to bring Japan, and other countries, to the resolution table. The goal is not to disrupt relations but to heal the painful rifts caused by international child abduction. The question still remains, will the State Department use the Goldman Act as required by law?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 41st anniversary of the Turkish government's illegal invasion of Cyprus in 1974. This tragedy of that aggression continues to this day. Northern Cyprus continues to be occupied by Turkish troops. More than 216,000 Cypriots continue to be displaced or their descendants denied their rightful property claims in ancestral homelands--and this includes 5,000 Americans of Cypriot descent. Sadly, the occupation authorities continue their direct attacks on the religious freedom of Orthodox Christians and the island's rich Orthodox Christian cultural heritage. Cyprus's ancient Christian heritage goes back to the mission of St. Paul and St. Barnabas in 45 A.D.--Barnabas is remembered as the founder and patron saint of the Church in Cyprus. Even in recent years, Turkish security forces have continued to disrupt the religious services of Orthodox believers in northern Cyprus, and, sadly, the desecration and destruction of religious sites continues. Forty-one years after the Turkish government's invasion, Christian believers still cannot freely visit all religious sites on the island, nor use Christian religious sites for their rightful purpose. Sites looted of revered icons remain vacant, and sacred objects of Cypriot Orthodoxy regularly turn up on the international art market or are held in museums against the wishes of the Orthodox community. The services for the faithful that do take place remain tightly restricted by Turkish authorities through special permitting or other challenges to registering congregations. These violations of basic rights are a legacy of intolerance wrought by the 1974 invasion. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in urging the administration to vigorously promote meaningful settlement negotiations that affirm the fundamental freedoms and human rights of those Greek Cypriots who are displaced or enduring in northern enclaves.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Thank you for yielding to me and for your leadership on this extremely important human rights issue. Mr. Speaker, in 2011, an undercover videotape sting operation by Live Action exposed several Planned Parenthood affiliates who are eager, ready, and willing to facilitate secret abortions for child sex trafficking victims--some as young or younger than 14--to get them on the streets again. As the prime author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, the landmark law that seeks to protect victims, mostly women and children, I found the on-the-record willingness of Planned Parenthood personnel to exploit young girls and partner with sex traffickers to be absolutely appalling. Watch the video yourself on liveaction.org. In 2012, Live Action released another sting operation video, part of a series called ``Gendercide: Sex Selection in America,'' showing Planned Parenthood staff advising undercover female investigators how to procure sex selection abortions. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood tells the investigator to wait until the baby is 5 months along to get an ultrasound that will reveal the sex of the child, then, if it is a girl, kill it. Planned Parenthood is okay with terminating the girl child in its huge network of clinics simply because she is a girl. What a dangerous place for little girls. Now we have learned that Planned Parenthood is trafficking in baby body parts and intact organs like livers and hearts, charging up to $100 or more per body part. Not only has Planned Parenthood killed over 7 million innocent babies in their chain of abortion mills, about 330,000 children per year, but now shocking new undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress show high-ranking Planned Parenthood officials explaining how they market and profit from the sale of the organs of their victims and how doctors maneuver deadly abortion tools to ensure--they call them graspers--intact organs. In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America's medical services and a late-term abortionist herself, explained: We have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I am not going to crush that part. I am going to basically crush below, I am going to crush above, and I am going to see if I can get it all intact. Dr. Nucatola says on camera: I would say a lot of people want liver; and for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they will know where they are putting their forceps. In other words, crush the baby to death, but do it in a way that preserves certain organs and body parts for sale. Dr. Nucatola even suggests and is caught on tape talking about creating a menu. Today, another new devastating video by the same organization shows a Planned Parenthood Federation top doctor, Dr. Mary Gatter, offering to use a ``less crunchy technique'' to get more intact organs and baby body parts. Less crunchy? Like Dr. Nucatola, Dr. Gatter is nonchalantly talking about crunching--that is, crushing--babies to death in ways that are more likely to preserve body parts and intact organs. This is unconscionable, it is inhumane, and it must stop. I am glad that the House Republican leadership has called for full investigations into this dehumanizing practice.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, over two years ago the House came together in the wake of Superstorm Sandy and overwhelmingly supported and passed the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act. Because the Senate failed to take action before the close of the 113th Congress, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has continued to deny houses of worship access to otherwise generally available disaster relief funds. Today, along with my colleagues Grace Meng and Pete King, I am reintroducing this important legislation to achieve fairness and nondiscrimination in the manner by which FEMA distributes federal disaster assistance. Houses of worship are foundational pillars of our communities. In the aftermath of disasters, they help feed, comfort, clothe, and shelter thousands of victims--yet when it comes to federal relief, they continue to be left out and left behind. While FEMA has a policy in place to aid nonprofit facilities damaged in disasters, it has excluded houses of worship from such support. This policy is patently unfair, unjustified, and discriminatory and may even suggest hostility to religion. Plain and simple, it is wrong--and it is time that Congress ensures fundamental fairness for these essential private nonprofits. The bipartisan Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2015 will ensure that houses of worship are eligible for federal disaster aid administered by FEMA. It is important to note that FEMA's discriminatory policy of exclusion is not prescribed by any law. There is nothing in the Stafford Act that precludes funds to repair, replace, or restore houses of worship. Further, congressional precedent favors enactment of this legislation, as there are several pertinent examples of public funding being allocated to houses of worship. In 1995, federal grants were explicitly authorized and provided to churches damaged by the Oklahoma City terrorist attack. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) provides funding to houses of worship for security upgrades. The Department of the Interior (DOI) proves funding to grants for historically significant properties, including active churches and active synagogues. The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides low-interest loans to houses of worship. A controlling Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum explains in detail the legal principles that make the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act constitutional. In a 2002 written opinion, the OLC concluded it was constitutional for Congress to provide disaster relief and reconstruction funds to a religious Jewish school, along with all sorts of other organizations, following a devastating earthquake. The same principles apply to protect religious organizations following other natural disasters, such as devastating hurricanes or tornadoes. As the OLC memo concluded, ``we believe that provision of disaster assistance to the religious school cannot be materially distinguished from aid programs that are constitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent establishing that religious institutions are fully entitled to receive generally available government benefits and services, such as fire and police protection.'' This bipartisan legislation exhibits no government preference for or against religion, or any particular religion, as it merely permits houses of worship to receive the same type of generally available assistance. It not only passes the test of constitutionality, but the test of basic decency--permitting houses of worship to receive the same type of generally available assistance as many other similarly situated nonprofits in picking up the pieces after devastation. As Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School concluded in his 2013 analysis of the bill, ``once FEMA has the policy in place to aid various nonprofit organizations with their building repairs, houses of worship should not be excluded from receiving this aid on the same terms. This is all the more appropriate given the neutral role we have witnessed houses of worship play, without regard to the religion of those affected, in the wake of Sandy and countless previous disasters. Federal disaster relief aid is a form of social insurance and a means of helping battered communities get back on their feet. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship are an essential part of the recovery process.'' Similarly, Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law concluded that ``charitable contributions to places of worship are tax deductible, without significant controversy, even though the tax benefits to the donor are like a matching grant from the government. These deductions have been uncontroversial because they are included without discrimination in the much broader category of all not-for-profit organizations devoted to charitable, educational, religious, or scientific purposes. The neutral category here is equally broad. To include houses of worship in disaster relief is neutral; to exclude them would be affirmatively hostile. There is no constitutional obstacle to including them.'' This legislation is supported by a broad coalition of organizations who believe that the recovery of houses of worship is essential to the recovery of neighborhoods, towns, and States. Houses of worship are critical public institutions within our communities, and they must not be denied the equal treatment they deserve. I urge my colleagues to move swiftly and pass this much needed legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was pleased to support the Superstorm Sandy Relief and Disaster Loan Program Improvement Act (H.R. 208). This legislation will provide assistance to both homeowners and businesses that were utterly failed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) in the aftermath of the Superstorm Sandy, opening up assistance eligibility for an additional year and making necessary changes to the Disaster Loan Program. Last week, I had the privilege of testifying before the House Small Business Committee regarding the hardships now faced by homeowners who applied for SBA disaster assistance due to a complete lack of information and disclosure in the loan process. This bill will help those who did not even have the opportunity to obtain or file a loan application due to SBA's serious incompetence and disorganization. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported, SBA missed its timeliness goals by a longshot and is likely still unprepared for another large-scale disaster. SBA was plagued by missed deadlines, decision backlogs, computer systems failures, and insufficient personnel training--problems that should not have come as a surprise in the aftermath of SBA's abysmal response to Hurricane Katrina. Further, GAO found SBA could once again ``be unprepared for a large volume of applications to be submitted quickly following future disasters, which may result in delays in loan funds for disaster victims.'' These failures cannot continue. Here we are more than two and a half years following Sandy, still correcting failures that have slowed the recovery process. In May, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reopened all Sandy-related flood insurance claims due to widespread fraud and a complete lack of oversight of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These issues were completely foreseeable but were not addressed, and Sandy victims continue to suffer as a result. In addition to reopening the loan application process, H.R. 208 will reduce delays in closing and disbursement on loans, allow the construction of safe rooms, modify collateral requirements, increase transparency, establish new performance measures, and require disaster plan improvements, among other commonsense changes. I commend Ms. Velazquez and Chairman Chabot for their leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with them to further address necessary reforms to the SBA Disaster Loan Program.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last year, nearly 60 million people were displaced worldwide. In fact, one out of every 122 people on Earth today is either a refugee, internally displaced in their home country or seeking asylum in another country. In sub-Saharan Africa, there are more than 15 million displaced people. Of that total, 3.7 million are refugees and 11.4 million are internally displaced. These disruptions of normal life in Africa are caused by conflicts such as in Somalia, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Burundi, Western Sahara and elsewhere. These disruptions not only affect those who are displaced, but also the people in whose communities these displaced people are relocated. African refugees and internally displaced people face numerous issues--from security in the places in which they seek refuge, to death and mayhem trying to reach places of refuge, to conflict with surrounding populations to warehousing that consigns generations to be born and live in foreign countries. A hearing I held yesterday examined the various issues displaced people face and the U.S. response to these conditions in order to determine the effectiveness of our government's efforts to help and to determine whether course corrections are necessary. The terrible plight of African refugees has been much in the news in recent months because of the death of thousands trying to reach Europe across the Mediterranean Sea and attacks on refugees in South Africa reportedly caused by xenophobia. On the South African case, I sent two members of my staff to southern Africa last month to look into the incidents of violence against refugees in South Africa. What they found was appalling. Despite a very generous set of laws and programs to enable immigration into South Africa, refugees were often refused medical service at hospitals that supposedly offer free medical care to all people. Apparently, no matter what the law in South Africa says, staff who screen patients often simply refuse to allow people they consider foreigners to receive medical care. According to refugees who spoke with my staff, this has meant that refugee women have had to give birth on the floor of hospitals while hospital staff refused to provide services. As for those refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean to seek sanctuary in Europe, more than 1,800 people have died making that trip this year as of early June. On the cover of the April 25th issue of The Economist magazine, the failure of the nations of Europe to devise a workable, humane policy toward those fleeing to their continent was described as ``a moral and political disgrace.'' Many of the refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean are Eritreans, who also have fled persecution and repression at home through the Gulf of Aden and also through the Sinai Peninsula, where they are often at the mercy of ruthless Bedouin groups, who traffic them or hold them for ransom. Eritrea is a closed society, so our knowledge of conditions there comes mostly from refugees, but one has to ask how bad must conditions there be if so many Eritreans are willing to risk their lives and well-being to find refuge almost anywhere else? Unresolved conflicts have forced many refugees to experience protracted stays in foreign countries. For example, refugees have not only had children but also grandchildren in camps in Kenya and Algeria. After more than two decades, the situation in Somalia remains unresolved, and Somali refugees are unable to resume their lives in their homeland. Yet they face an increasingly hostile Kenyan environment in which the government is unwilling to allow Somalis to establish financial independence outside refugee camps. In Algeria, Sahrawis, refugees from the Western Sahara territory under the control of Morocco, have lived in camps in western Algeria since being chased out of the territory by the advance of hundreds of thousands of Moroccans in 1975. The Government of Algeria not only provides a home for the Sahrawis, but also supplies access to free education and health care. Still, income-generating activities by Sahrawis are discouraged to prevent competition with local Algerians. Internally displaced persons also face serious challenges. In Nigeria, for example, more than 1.5 million people from northeastern Nigeria have fled attacks by Boko Haram and resulting Nigerian military activities. However, Nigeria is a patchwork of 36 states whose creation over the years has inflamed ethnic and religious tensions as state majorities became minorities suddenly. The Nigerian IDPs are generally living in communities rather than camps. The longer they remain in their current areas, the greater the chance their presence will inflame new unrest as the ethnic and religious balance in their new areas is again changed abruptly. The United States and the rest of the international community face serious challenges in addressing the displacement of so many people. According to U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres, the ``international response capacities are overstretched by the unprecedented rise in global forced displacement.'' We must carefully consider the U.S. role in meeting the increasing challenge of Africa's displaced people, taking into consideration our moral imperative to help those in need, as well as strategic interests in preventing the kind of neglect that makes terrorist recruitment among displaced people easier than it should be.