Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call attention today to the great work and humanitarian achievements accomplished by Patricia Apy, who recently received the American Bar Association's 2015 Grassroots Advocacy Award. A partner at Paras, Apy and Reiss, P.C. in Red Bank, New Jersey, Ms. Apy was selected for this extraordinary honor by the Board of Governors of the 400,000 member ABA--for her ``outstanding support of legal protection and assistance to members of the military.'' In announcing the award, the ABA noted that Ms. Apy is ``recognized as one of the nation's leading experts in family law'' who has ``focused her career on the needs of military families, serving as a teacher, advocate, lecturer, consultant and commentator on the complexities of international family law.'' The ABA also cited the countless pro bono hours, Ms. Apy has dedicated on Capitol Hill and at the New Jersey state legislature. They highlighted her equally effective advocacy on behalf of victims of international parental child abduction. I first met Patricia Apy ``Tricia'' when she was serving as the lead American attorney for David Goldman, a New Jersey resident who fought five years for the return of his son Sean who was abducted by David's ex-wife to Brazil. Tricia delivered expert advice and counsel in David's long, arduous, but ultimately successful case. As the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees human rights, I authored legislation to help bring an end to David and Sean's nightmare and I held--and continue to hold--Congressional hearings to ensure that other Americans are spared this pain. Tricia Apy has provided comprehensive, world-class testimony and analysis on the myriad of problems left behind parents face. Her insights were key as we drafted, the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction and Prevention and Return Act (The Goldman Act--PL 113-150), my law to help prevent international parental child abduction and secure the return of those children who have been abducted and remain separated from their left behind parent. At the ABA award ceremony in her honor--hosted at the U.S. Supreme Court--Patricia Apy paid special tribute to the inspiration she draws from her parents, Joseph and Gloria McHale. Having served our Nation valiantly, decorated WW II hero Joseph McHale died at a young age in a VA hospital leaving Gloria to raise three children including Tricia who was only nine at the time. She credits their love and hard work with her success and it is with great pleasure that I share with my colleagues her moving comments and acceptance speech. Patricia Apy, American Bar Association's 2015 Grassroots Advocacy Award Winner: ``Freedom, Justice, Liberty . . . without Lawyers they're just words . . .'' Nearly 20 years ago this was the theme of the American Bar Association annual meeting. At the time, we were accused of hyperbole, I don't believe that anyone would accuse us of hyperbole today. I am a member of an association of 400,000 professional advocates, to be distinguished in that number is a remarkable honor, and I am humbled by this recognition. I wish to express my appreciation to the Governmental Affairs Office and the Board of Governors of the ABA. I believe that real advocacy, is evidence of what inspires you, the experiences you share and the opportunities you have had. I am a person of faith, and my faith informs me that nothing happens to us by accident. Which is why I should not have been surprised to find myself the newest liaison to the Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel for exactly one month on September 11, 2001. On that day, I went (as my brother Michael has coined it) from being a ``mere lawyer'' to a ``protector of heroes''. I like that moniker, understanding that it is one I can only aspire to. I am so proud of the work that has been accomplished by the LAMP committee during my tenure on it, and by my colleagues, many of whom are in this room who have shared that laboring oar. The LAMP committee is chaired by General Officers, they are all spectacular lawyers and American heroes. But the three men with whom I worked most closely, the incomparable Gen Earl Anderson, Brig Gen David Hague and my own ``true north'' Rear Adm. John Jenkins, former T-Jag of the Navy, taught me so much more than how to be a great advocate. They taught me about duty and honor, in doing so. My opportunities for public advocacy, whether on behalf of the United States at the Hague, or consulting with or for our warfighters at the Pentagon, or on behalf of disenfranchised and marginalized women at the UN and the White House, or with my hand in the air testifying before the Congress have in large measure been opportunities afforded me because of my affiliation with the ABA. The people with whom I have worked, whether in the military, diplomacy or governance have typically devoted their personal and professional lives to the service of their country, usually in anonymity. I don't know why anyone would do so in this age of cynicism and partisanship. But they do, and we should all be proud and deeply grateful for the continued commitment to justice that ABA has afforded. On the wall of my home hangs the Silver Star, and two Bronze Stars, the second with Oak leaf cluster in lieu of a third Bronze Star. My father died in a VA hospital when I was nine years old. I was raised and educated by the heroic efforts my mother, Gloria McHale, in extraordinarily modest means. It is not lost on me, how very improbable it is to be standing here in the Supreme Court of the United States, as the child of a deceased war veteran. I thank my husband David Apy, my family, my law partners and longtime paralegal, and many colleagues and friends in accepting this national recognition. My experience, my inspiration and my faith serve as the motivation for my advocacy. I have closed each and every one of the over one thousand hours of continuing legal education that I have conducted with and for our military lawyers exactly the same way, never wanting any of them to go into harm's way without knowing for certain and for sure, that on behalf of my family we know that we sleep in peace at night only, due to their service and sacrifice. For that, and for this honor . . . I remain profoundly grateful.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this week, the world pauses to remember and reflect on the Srebrenica genocide, horrific acts of brutality, wanton cruelty, and mass murder committed in Srebrenica beginning July 11, 20 years ago. This week, we pause to honor those brave Bosniaks who suffered and died, victims of genocide. This week, the people in the United States and men and women of goodwill throughout the world again extend our deepest condolences and respect to the mothers and surviving family members who have endured unspeakable sorrow and loss that time will never abate. And this week, the international community must recommit itself to justice, once and for all, for those who perpetrated these heinous crimes. Today, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are incarcerated, awaiting final disposition of their cases before the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for multiple counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of laws and customs of war. Twenty years ago, Madam Speaker, an estimated 8,000 people were systematically slaughtered by Bosnian Serb soldiers in the United Nations-designated ``safe haven'' area of Srebrenica. They killed Muslim women and children, but especially sought out and murdered adult males in that area. These brutal killings were not committed in battle. They were committed against people who were unarmed and helpless and who had been repeatedly assured by Dutch peacekeepers that they would not be harmed if they surrendered. The evidence is overwhelming that the executions were committed with the specific intention of destroying the Bosnian Muslim population of that area. This intention is the central element in the crime of genocide. The U.N. peacekeeping forces in Srebrenica were charged with enforcing Security Council Resolution 836, which had pledged to defend the safe areas with ``all necessary means, including the use of force.'' But when the moment of truth came, the U.N. forces offered only token resistance to the Serb offensive. Their military and political commanders had redefined their primary mission not as the protection of the people of Srebrenica, but as the safety of the U.N. forces themselves. When Bosnian Serb Commander Ratko Mladic threatened violence against the blue-helmeted soldiers, here is the way one of those soldiers described the reaction. And I quote him: ``Everybody got a fright. You could easily get killed in such an operation. As far as I knew, we had not been sent to Srebrenica to defend the enclave, but, rather, as some kind of spruced-up observers.'' So that is what the peacekeepers became: observers to genocide. Soon they became something more than observers: enablers. On July 13, the Dutch blue-helmet battalion handed Bosnian Muslims who had sought safety within the U.N. compound over to the Serbs. They watched as the men were separated from the women and children, a process which was already well known in Bosnia--it was at the time--as a sign that the men were in imminent danger of being executed. These men were never heard from again. At one congressional hearing I chaired in March of 1998--and I had six of them--Hasan Nuhanovic, the indigenous translator working for the U.N. peacekeepers in Srebrenica, testified. He was there in the room. Hasan lost his family in the genocide. He was there when Mladic and the commanders of the Dutch peacekeepers talked about the terms. Here is what he told my panel, in part: ``On July 12, the day before the fall of Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serb Army commander, General Ratko Mladic, requested a meeting with the Dutchbat commander, Lieutenant Colonel Karemans, and local representatives of Srebrenica in the nearby town of Bratunac outside the enclave . . . During the meeting, Mladic assured the Dutch and local delegation that no harm would come to the refugees in Potocari . . . ``Upon returning to the camp, three local representatives are ordered by Dutchbat deputy commander, Major Franken, to prepare a list of all males, all men and boys between the ages of 16 and 65 among the refugees inside and outside the camp. The list of the males among the 6,000 inside the camp was completed the same day . . . ``On July 13, the Dutch ordered 6,000 refugees out of the Potocari camp. The Serbs were waiting at the gate, separating all males from the women and children. Major Franken stated that all the males whose names were on the list would be safe . . . I watched my parents and my brother being handed over to the Serbs at the gate. None of them have been seen since. ``I want to explain here that the people hoped that the Dutch were going to protect them, the U.N. peacekeeping troops and all other members of all other organization who were present in Srebrenica who were inside the camp, the people hoped that they would be protected, but the Dutch soldiers and officer gave no other option to the refugees but to leave. So the refugees inside were told to leave without any other choice. My family was told on the evening of 13 July that they should leave. About 6 p.m., there were no more refugees inside the camp. ``I don't know if this is the topic of the meeting or hearing, but the same night the Dutch soldiers had a party inside the camp because they received two or three trucks full of beer and cigarettes. They played music while I was sitting, not knowing what happened to my family.'' As he went on to say later, they had all been slaughtered. In July of 2007, Madam Speaker, I visited Srebrenica, where, together with my good friends President Haris Silajdzic and the Grand Mufti of Bosnia, Reis Ceric, I spoke at a solemn memorial service and witnessed the internment of hundreds of wooden coffins of newly discovered victims of the genocide. It was a deeply moving experience to see 12 years then after the genocide--now it is 20 years--families still grieving loved ones whose bodies were being identified, often miles from the killing sites, as Serb forces, trying to hide the evidence of their crimes, moved the bodies of their victims. For the record, 10 years ago--in 2005--the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H. Res. 199, which I authored, which clearly and unambiguously condemned the Srebrenica massacre for what it was: genocide. That resolution was a landmark in the recognition of the Srebrenica massacre as a genocide. Two years later the verdict of the International Court of Justice found the same, in confirming the ruling of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Today the international community is nearly unanimous when it proclaims that the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide. The resolution today, of course, supports that as well. Astonishingly, Madam Speaker, there are some genocide deniers. That is why this resolution condemns statements that deny that the massacre at Srebrenica constituted genocide. Just last weekend Milorad Dodik, the president of Republika Srpska, asserted that the Srebrenica genocide is a lie. Madam Speaker, just as it is doing in Ukraine, Russia is utilizing misinformation and historical revisionism in an attempt to destabilize Bosnia and the Balkan region. Today Russia vetoed a British U.N. Security Council resolution that reaffirms that Srebrenica was a genocide. Russia has encouraged Serbia itself to protest the resolution and emboldened genocide denialism in the Republika Srpska, one of Bosnia's two constituent entities. Madam Speaker, this resolution also encourages the administration to fulfill other neglected responsibilities. In particular, it urges the Atrocities Prevention Board to study the lessons of Srebrenica and issue informed guidance on how to prevent similar incidents from recurring in the future. As you may know, the Atrocities Prevention Board is a U.S. interagency committee established by the administration in 2012 to flag potential atrocities. However, since its creation, the board has been marked by inaction and a complete lack of transparency. This is unacceptable, especially as conflicts with disturbing parallels to Bosnia before the genocide continue to fester in Syria, the Central African Republic, Burma, and in Burundi. Africa, in particular, would stand to benefit from a more active board. The conflict in Burundi is currently at a tipping point, and it absolutely needs attention. Madam Speaker, despite the need for much greater atrocities prevention in U.S. policy, there have been many promising developments in the Balkan region, and this needs to be underscored. In particular, I would note that Serbia today is not the Serbia of the Slobodan Milosevic era. That era was marked by nationalist aggression against neighboring countries and peoples, as well as considerable repression at home. One of those who testified at one of my hearings on Serbia, Curuvija, a great young leader, was murdered on the second day after our bombing began by Serbian people. And the persons who did that have now been held to account. So what has happened there--thankfully, there have now been significant changes in Serbia. I want to thank my colleagues. I do hope we will have a strong show of support for this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the distinguished chairman of the full Foreign Affairs Committee and a great leader on human rights.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 310) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding Srebrenica.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to finally say a very special thanks to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for arranging for this bill to come to the floor and of course to the Speaker, to Ed Royce, our distinguished chairman, and the ranking member for their strong support and cosponsorship of this resolution. It is bipartisan, and I think we are sending a clear and unambiguous message to the world, again, that Srebrenica was a genocide. We must hold those to account who committed these atrocities. At least two of the major perpetrators, hopefully, will soon get justice, one at the end of this year and Mladic probably by 2017. The wheels of justice do turn slowly, but they are jailed right now. Above all, I think we need to pray for the victims. Mr. Speaker, we need to pray for the loved ones who continue to suffer unspeakable agony. I do hope the American people and all of us in the House and in this town will--especially as this remembrance comes around beginning on July 11--keep these people who have suffered so much in our prayers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 337, calling for substantive dialogue without preconditions to help secure a negotiated agreement for the Tibetan people. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my friend and colleague, for his leadership in introducing this bipartisan resolution. This week, Madam Speaker, when so many voices around the world are joined in wishing his holiness the Dalai Lama a happy 80th birthday, it is a fitting time to recommit ourselves to Congress' longstanding support for the fundamental rights of the people of Tibet, because the situation in Tibet has never been more bleak. Those basic rights involve fundamental and foundational rights of freedom of religion. The recent State Department Human Rights Report offered a withering criticism of the Chinese Government's oversight of Tibet and Tibetan areas in China. It said: The government engaged in severe repression of Tibet's religious, cultural, and religious heritage by, among other means, strictly curtailing the civil rights of China's Tibetan population, including the rights of the freedom of speech, religion, association, assembly, and movement. Unfortunately, the regime's interference extends even to the most elemental aspects of Tibetan Buddhist practice. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the disappearance of the Panchen Lama, who was detained by Chinese Government officials back in 1995 when he was a young child. Zhu Weiqun, a top Communist official dealing with ethnic and religious affairs, has claimed, ``decisionmaking power over the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and over the end or survival of his lineage resides with the central Government of China.'' Sadly, we know that Tibetans have used self-immolations as a protest against religious and political oversight by the Chinese Government. There have been 134 self-immolations since 2009. The numbers are decreasing because of heavy security and punishments that target family members and entire villages. It is difficult to fathom the despair and the desperation felt by Tibetans who take this last act of defiance. The Chinese Government has blamed the Dalai Lama and ``foreign forces'' for self-immolations instead of looking at how their own despicable policies created such deep grievances. Madam Speaker, the Tibetan people want to be free to practice their unique faith and to live by the dictates of their faith. This freedom is denied to them. The Chinese Government expanded its efforts last year to transform Tibetan Buddhism into a state-managed institution. They sought to undermine the devotion of the Tibetan people to the Dalai Lama and control the process of selecting Buddhist leaders. The Chinese Government wants a Tibetan Buddhism that is attractive to tourists and which allows the Communist Party to manage its affairs. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on religion recently criticized China's efforts to control Tibetan Buddhism and the process of selecting leaders. He said: The Chinese Government is destroying the autonomy of religious communities . . . creating schisms and pitting people against each other in order to exercise control. This is exactly what the Chinese Government has done to other religious groups, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and the Falun Gong. When the faithful don't fall in line, they are jailed. Madam Speaker, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, of which I serve as chairman, has a prisoner database that contains records on 617 Tibetan political and religious prisoners. Forty-four percent of those detained are monks, nuns, and religious teachers. Almost all were imprisoned since 2008. Unfortunately, our ability to get accurate information in real time about this situation in Tibet is complicated by restrictions on access to Tibetan areas by United States officials, journalists, and other U.S. citizens. This has frustrated U.S. consular officers' ability to provide services to American citizens. In October 2013, the Chinese Government delayed access for over 48 hours during an emergency situation involving a bus accident that ultimately resulted in the deaths of three U.S. citizens and injuries to others. As the Chinese Government pushes for new consulates and official facilities in the United States, our government must insist on an official presence in Lhasa, which is called for in section 618 of the Tibetan Policy Act, which became law in the year 2002. The Dalai Lama is recognized internationally for his commitment to peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution. The recipient of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize and a Congressional Gold Medal winner in 2007, he has made clear his willingness to engage in dialogue with Chinese counterparts at any time, at any place, and without any preconditions. Unfortunately, this commitment to peaceful dialogue is not reciprocal, and Chinese officials have not met directly with his representatives in over 5 years. This is the longest break since the dialogue--or so-called dialogue--started in 2002. Indeed, a Chinese Government white paper on Tibet published this April states that China will ``only talk with private representatives of the Dalai Lama'' to discuss ``the future of the Dalai Lama'' and how he can ``gain the forgiveness of the central government and the Chinese people.'' That is outrageous. Instead of asking for the Dalai Lama's forgiveness for the decades of brutal repression, the Chinese Government demands that he ask the government of China for forgiveness. This is unfortunate and highly counterproductive. If China's goal is to build a ``harmonious society'' in Tibet, which they love to tout, it cannot be done without the Dalai Lama. He is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. His views are widely shared throughout Tibetan society, and he can be a constructive partner with China in addressing continuing tensions and deep-seated grievances. In light of this, the resolution before us calls for fuller implementation of existing U.S. law in support of direct dialogue between Chinese officials and the Dalai Lama; it calls for an official U.S. presence in Lhasa and urges our government to ensure that religious rights and religious freedom issues are consistently raised in the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue and other high-level meetings. It has many, many other provisions which I know the prime sponsor will elaborate. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 337) calling for substantive dialogue, without preconditions, in order to address Tibetan grievances and secure a negotiated agreement for the Tibetan people, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to submit statements or extraneous materials for the Record on this measure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to again thank my good friend and colleague Eliot Engel for his excellent resolution. It is a bipartisan resolution. I want to also thank Leader Pelosi for her eloquence on the floor today and for her love and respect that she has conveyed for decades to the Dalai Lama and the people of Tibet. This is a bipartisan resolution. It shows, I think, that we are absolutely united, and I think that is an important message to send at this critical juncture. I also want to point out to my colleagues that China really is a place where much is never as it seems to be. People who take trips there, go on tours there, even Members of Congress who travel there come away with a Potemkin village viewpoint of what is happening, especially when torture and other degrading acts and cruelty is routinely visited upon and imposed upon people that the Chinese Government deems to be of lesser value. We see it with the Falun Gong. We see it with underground Christians. We see it with the Uighurs. And we see it in Tibet, where there has been a systematic effort to eradicate the culture of Tibet. It is genocide. They even used forced abortion as a way of genocide to kill the children of Tibetan mothers. Years ago I held a hearing in the mid-1990s, and it was on torture in the People's Republic of China. And let us not forget, Chinese law proscribes torture. It prohibits torture. It is all a nice paper promise. It doesn't mean anything. They have also signed the convention against torture, the U.N. convention, and they love to ballyhoo that when they are at international fora and when their people travel here to the United States. But let's not forget, as well, that China took out a reservation to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, Article 20, that exempts it from accepting any investigation about abuses. So the only one who will investigate China is the Chinese Government itself. They will not allow the International Committee of the Red Cross. They will not allow U.S. representatives and other bilateral or, I should say, multilateral organizations to come in and investigate allegations of torture. Back in the early 1990s, again, I held this hearing, one of many. I have held 53 hearings on human rights abuses in China over the years. But this one we had six people, all of whom had been tortured with impunity by the Chinese Government. Palden Gyatso, who is a Buddhist monk, came to the Rayburn Building, tried to go through the security there and was stopped. He was stopped because he brought with him some of the implements of torture that are used routinely by the Chinese Government--cattle prods and other hideous instruments that are put under the arms and elsewhere to cause horrific damage and pain to the victim--and he described in detail at the hearing what he personally went through. Regrettably, that continues to this day. The State Department's report on human rights recently released reminds us that electric shocks, exposure to cold, and severe beatings, as well as extreme physical labor, are routinely used against Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists, in particular, just like they were against Palden Gyatso years ago. So it has not changed. It has actually gotten worse. And again, this resolution brings the light and scrutiny that is so necessary to these hideous practices. So again, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently held a hearing that was the second in a series probing the question of whether maintaining access to China's lucrative education market undermines the very values that make American universities great, including academic freedom. The hearing was timely for three reasons: the growing number of satellite or branch campuses started by U.S. universities in China; the record numbers of Chinese students enrolling in U.S. universities and colleges in China each year, bringing with them nearly $10 million a year in tuition and other spending; and the recent efforts by the Communist Party of China to regain ideological control over universities and academic research. Official Chinese government decrees prohibit teaching and research in seven areas-- the so-called ``seven taboos:'' universal values; press freedom; civil society; citizens' rights; criticism of the Party's past; neoliberal economics; and independence of the judiciary. All of the ``seven taboos'' are criticized as ``Western ideals.'' These taboos raise the question: Are U.S. colleges and universities compromising their images as bastions of free inquiry and academic freedom in exchange for China's education dollars? Some may defend any concessions made as the cost of doing business in an authoritarian state such as China. Maybe a university decides that it won't offer a class on human rights in China, maybe they won't invite a prominent dissident as a fellow or visiting lecturer, maybe they won't protest when a professor is denied a visa because his or her work is critical of a dictator. Maybe such compromises are rationalized as necessary to not offend a major donor or for the ``greater good'' of maintaining access. If U.S. universities are only offering Chinese students and faculty a different name on their diploma or paycheck, is it worth the costs and compromises? Perry Link, the eminent China scholar, argued during our first hearing, that the slow drip of self-censorship is the most pernicious threat to academic freedom and undermines both the recognized brands of major universities and their credibility. Self-censorship may be the reason NYU terminated the fellowship of world class human rights activist and hero, Chen Guangcheng. As the NYU faculty said in their letter to the Board of Trustees, the circumstances surrounding the launch of NYU satellite campus in Shanghai and the ending of Chen's residence created a ``public perception, accurate or otherwise, that NYU made commitments in order to operate in China.'' Did NYU make any such commitments? Let the record show that we invited NYU's President and faculty sixteen times to testify before this committee, without success. We are very pleased that Jeffery Lehman, the Vice-Chancellor of NYU-Shanghai campus, joined us at our recent hearing. On a personal note, I spent time with Chen when he first came to the United States. Though NYU offered him important sanctuary, he was treated very rudely at times, particularly when it was clear that he would not isolate himself on campus. NYU officials and others worked to cordon off access to Chen and to keep him away from Chinese dissidents and there was a belief, reported by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, that Chen was too involved with anti-abortion activists, Republicans, and others. We may never know if NYU experienced ``persistent and direct pressure from China'' to oust Chen from his NYU fellowship or whether they sought to isolate him in order to keep Chen's story out of the 2012 Presidential elections as Prof. Jerry Cohen has said in an interview at the time. Certainly there is some interest here as Hillary Clinton spent a whole chapter in her book detailing the events of Chen's escape and exile in the United States. Or maybe there wasn't any pressure at all, just self-censorship to keep in Beijing's good graces during the final stages of opening the NYU-Shanghai campus. We are not here to exclusively focus on the sad divorce of Chen Guangcheng and NYU. But his ousting raises the question: Is it possible to accept lucrative subsidies from the Chinese government, or other dictatorships for that matter, operate campuses on their territory and still preserve academic freedom and the other values that make Americans great? The agreements they sign with the host government are often kept secret and real information about them can be hard to obtain. Foreign educational partnerships are important endeavors--for students, collaborative research, cultural understanding, and maybe even for the host country in some sense. The U.S. model of higher education is the world's best. American faculty, fellowships, and exchange programs are effective global ambassadors. We must all seek to maintain that integrity. It is in the interests of the U.S. to do so, particularly when it comes to China. Nevertheless, if U.S. colleges and universities are outsourcing academic control, faculty and student oversight, or curriculum to a foreign government can they really be ``islands of freedom'' in the midst of authoritarian states or dictatorships? Are they places where all students and faculty can enjoy the fundamental freedoms denied them in their own country? The questions we asked are not abstract. The Chinese government and Communist Party are waging a persistent, intense and escalating campaign to suppress dissent, purge rivals from within the Party, and regain ideological control over the arts, media, and the universities. This campaign is broader and more extensive than any other in the past twenty years. Targets include human rights defenders, the press, social media and the Internet, civil rights lawyers, Tibetans and Uyghurs, religious groups, NGOs, intellectuals and their students, and government officials, particularly those allied with former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin. Chinese universities have been targeted as well, the recently issued Communist Party directive ``Document 30,'' reinforces earlier warnings to purge ``Western-inspired notions of media independence, human rights, and criticism of Mao [Zedong]. In a recent speech reported by the New York Times, President Xi urged university leaders to ``keep a tight grip on . . . ideological work in higher education . . . never allow singing to a tune contrary to the party center, never allowing eating the Communist Party's food and then smashing the Communist Party's cooking pots. Will anyone at NYU or Ft. Hays St or Johns Hopkins or Duke for that matter--be allowed to smash any cooking pots? It's a serious question, because if your campuses are subsidized by the Chinese government, if your joint-educational partnerships are ``majority-owned'' by the Chinese government, aren't you eating the Communist Party's food and then subject to its rules, just like any Chinese university? There are nine U.S. educational partnerships operating in China. New York University-Shanghai opened its doors to students in September 2013. Three other similar ventures have started since 2013: a Duke University campus in Kunshan, Jiangsu Province; a University of California-Berkeley School of Engineering research facility in the Pudong District of Shanghai; and a Kean University campus in Wenzhou in Zhejiang Province. In addition, since 2006, Fort Hays State University in Kansas, has partnered with Zhengzhou University/SIAS International School, a U.S.-based educational non-governmental organization, to provide degrees for thousands of Chinese students. China's National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development (2010-2020), issued in July 2010, provided Chinese partners with a strong incentive to enter into such ventures. The plan exhorted Chinese universities to become ``world-class,'' in part by establishing ``international academic cooperation organizations'' and setting up research and development bases with ``high quality educational and scientific research institutions from overseas.'' Among the attractions for U.S. universities entering into such ventures are generous funding from the Chinese government, typically covering all campus construction costs and some or all operating costs; revenue from full fee-paying Chinese students on China-based campuses, who may later become wealthy alumni donors; the potential for a higher profile in China translating into the recruitment of more full fee-paying Chinese students to home campuses in the United States; opportunities for new global research collaborations with Chinese scholars and universities; and, opportunities for American students to study abroad. I have also initiated a GAO study to review the agreements of both satellite campuses in China and of Confucius Institutes in the U.S. I know some agreements are public, others are not. In fact, some schools made their agreements public after our last hearing. We are looking for complete transparency and will be asking all universities and colleges to make their agreements with the Chinese government public. We need to know if universities and colleges who are starting satellite programs in China--can be islands of freedom in China or in other parts of the world. We need to know what pressures are being placed on them to compromise fundamental freedoms, and what compromises, if any, were made to gain a small slice of the China educational market. These are important questions. Can they be handled by the universities, their faculties, and trustees themselves or if there is something the U.S. Congress and or State Department can do to ensure academic freedom, and other fundamental freedoms are protected.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the deadline is bearing down on us for the President's nuclear agreement with Iran. So, at this moment, Congress must send the administration a strong message: In order to be acceptable, any agreement must bar every Iranian path to nuclear weapons. This means the deal must last for decades. There has been a lot of reporting of stopgap deals that would try to restrict Iran in the short term while giving it a blank check after just some 10 years. Such an agreement would be absurd, Mr. Speaker. Given Iran's longstanding nefarious quest for nuclear weapons and its government's genocidal anti-Semitism, I and the vast majority of my colleagues in Congress would never accept such a bad deal. Iran will also have to dismantle its current nuclear infrastructure and turn over nearly all of its stockpile of uranium. Iran prefers to merely ``disconnect'' its 19,000 centrifuges. That is totally unacceptable --coming from the Iranian Government with its murderous threats to annihilate the State of Israel and its obsessive hatred of Jews worldwide. It is estimated that centrifuges could be reconnected in a matter of mere months--and so they must be dismantled, and the core should be removed from the Arak heavy water reactor. It also means there can be no lifting or a reduction of sanctions until the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, certifies that Iran has complied with its commitments under the agreement; and IAEA inspectors must be granted access to any and all suspected sites. This access must be unimpeded, Mr. Speaker, meaning that the IAEA must be able to conduct inspections at military sites as well. The rule must be full access--anytime, anywhere. Iran must also fully account for its past efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Unless it does so, there is no way to establish a baseline from which to measure its current capacities and potential future violations and responsibly gauge a ``breakout time.'' Mr. Speaker, these are minimum criteria. In order to get congressional approval, any deal the President presents to Congress will have to have met them. The Nuclear Agreement Review Act gives Congress the authority to review any agreement with Iran and to pass a joint resolution barring any statutory sanctions relief. The administration and the Iranian Government need to know that the vast majority of my colleagues will be as firm as I am in insisting on them. I am certainly prepared to vote against any agreement that does not meet these criteria. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has shown itself far too weak in dealing with Iran. For example, last week, Secretary Kerry said that the United States is ``not fixated'' on Iran's explaining its past behavior--a significant backtracking on his earlier insistence on this crucial point. In fact, throughout June, we have been reading disturbing reports of administration weakness in the negotiations on a whole range of issues--from demanding access to potential nuclear sites to signaling a willingness to repeal non-nuclear-related sanctions. Just yesterday, five of the President's top former Iran advisers wrote an open letter, warning that the agreement ``may fall short of meeting the administration's own standard of a `good' agreement.'' The letter outlined concerns about concessions at the same time that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to back away from other preliminary understandings. There are many other signs of the administration's weakness, Mr. Speaker, in its dealings with Iran. Fundamentally, it refuses to speak truths that are obvious to everyone: that the Iranian Government has made itself the enemy of the United States and the genocidal enemy of the State of Israel, and that our goal must always be to prevent it from acquiring or manufacturing nuclear weapons now and long into the future. A nuclear Iran would be a grave threat to our country and an existential threat to Israel, our closest ally. That is intolerable. The administration seems to no longer recall that Iran is the leading sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas. Mr. Speaker, the case of Pastor Saeed Abedini is another sad sign of administration weakness toward Iran. Saeed Abedini is an American citizen. He was in Iran in 2012, visiting family and building an orphanage, when he was taken prisoner. As a matter of fact, he had been given permission by the Iranians to do just that. 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 in 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 children, has also suffered. I have chaired two hearings when we have heard from Naghmeh, who told the compelling story of her husband, of her love for her husband, of the gross injustice that he has been forced to suffer. It is time the administration made this a priority and a very, very important matter in the nuclear negotiations. The administration is not doing enough to secure his release. There is no doubt about it. The administration does little more than raise his case and those of other American prisoners on the sidelines of the nuclear negotiations because it sees the prisoners as sideline issues. This is an American citizen, unjustly imprisoned now for over 1,000 days--and tortured--in Iran, and the administration has a few marginal conversations with Iranian officials and considers that good enough. It is deeply disturbing. It ought to be a central priority. Mr. Speaker, it is also a very alarming sign of what we might expect the administration to present us with when we return to session in early July. That is why Congress' responsibility is to be prepared to maintain a much firmer line on the outcome of these negotiations--when we review the agreement--than the administration seems to be taking. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a couple of excerpts from today--they were released today-- from the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014, which reads in pertinent part: ``The most significant human rights problems were severe restrictions on civil liberties, including the freedoms of assembly, speech, religion, and press; limitations on the citizens' ability to change the government peacefully through free and fair elections; and disregard for the physical integrity of persons whom authorities arbitrarily and unlawfully detained, tortured, or killed. ``Other reported human rights problems included: disappearances; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including judicially sanctioned amputation and flogging; politically motivated violence and repression; harsh and life-threatening conditions in detention and prison facilities, with instances of deaths in custody; arbitrary arrest and lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes incommunicado; continued impunity of the security forces; denial of fair public trial, sometimes resulting in executions without due process; the lack of an independent judiciary; political prisoners and detainees; ineffective implementation of civil judicial procedures and remedies; arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, and correspondence; severe restrictions on freedoms of speech, including via the Internet, and press; harassment and arrest of journalists; censorship and media content restrictions; severe restrictions on academic freedom; severe restrictions on the freedoms of assembly and association.'' That is just a few of the catalog of horrors being imposed upon Iranians and people like our own American citizens being held in custody, like Pastor Saeed Abedini. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, 114th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Vietnamese-American community is celebrating its 40th year in the U.S. We often think of 1975 as a time of tragedy and loss, as the Vietnam War ended with helicopters flying off the U.S. Embassy. But from tragedy has come hope and prosperity. The Vietnamese-American community has added so much to the American fabric. They are a shining example of an immigrant community, many who came here penniless refugees, who has made important contributions to the United States. The subcommittee I chair has held numerous hearings on human rights in Vietnam and we have discussed a range of concerns, from restrictions on religious freedom to the jailing and torture of dissidents. From sex and labor trafficking to the censorship of the press and Internet, the Vietnamese Government and Communist Party continues to be one of the world's worst abusers of human rights. We may want to sweep that reality under the table, paper it over by promises of security cooperation and trade deals. But that reality stares us in the face and requires us to ask whether U.S. policy really serves the people of Vietnam, people who want our liberties and freedoms as much as our trade. The U.S. Government must continue to press the Vietnamese government on truly fundamental human rights issues, not only in human rights dialogue, but in all meetings with Vietnamese officials, at the highest levels from the U.S. President on down. Sixty-six percent of the Vietnamese population is under 35, they don't remember the war, they want their lives to look like those of their Vietnamese cousins in the U.S., in Australia, and Canada. Our policies cannot only be directed at the Vietnamese elite in the Communist Party, but must focus on the people of Vietnam. They are looking for U.S. leadership; they are hungry for a U.S. policy that advances the rights and freedoms of the Vietnamese people. They understand that if the U.S. sides with the Vietnamese Government, they will only receive crumbs from the Communist Party's table. Our economic, security, and freedom interests must be linked. The Vietnamese Government needs U.S. security cooperation and economic benefits more than the U.S. needs Vietnam. We have leverage to bring about concrete changes in Vietnam. We must not give up or ignore this leverage. If human rights issues are not explicitly linked to our economic and security interests, we risk having discussions on trade and defense moving forward, while human rights conditions go backward. Trade between the U.S. and Vietnam has exponentially expanded since Vietnam was granted normal trade relations in 2000. If this expansion is to continue under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP for short, then the American people should at least be assured that Vietnam, currently our 15th largest source of imports, is protecting basic freedoms. If the past is any indicator, Vietnam will regress from political liberalization as soon as it gains preferential trade status. In 2007, after the United States lifted its long-standing objection to Vietnam's membership in the World Trade Organization, Hanoi responded by launching the first of three waves of arrests that jailed over one hundred dissidents and introduced sweeping new laws restricting freedom of association, assembly, and the Internet. In short, Vietnam's WTO accession allowed the Communist government free license to jail, torture, and abuse. Further, when the State Department removed Vietnam from the list of Countries of Particular Concern as a gesture of goodwill in 2006, we once again saw backsliding. Despite the State Department's decision in 2006 to remove Vietnam from the list of Countries of Particular Concern as designated pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, Vietnam, in fact, continues to be among the worst violators of religious freedom in the world. According to the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom's 2015 Annual Report, ``The Vietnamese Government continues to control all religious activities through law and administrative oversight, restrict severely independent religious practice, and repress individuals and religious groups it views as challenging its authority . . .'' I agree with USCIRF's conclusion that Vietnam should be designated a CPC country. I met courageous religious leaders during my trips to Vietnam who were struggling for fundamental human rights in their country. Unfortunately, many of them, including Father Ly and the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, remain wrongly detained today. There are disturbing reports that Father Ly is suffering poor health. There are over 150 prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. We should not forget them. Some have made the case that Vietnam has made progress in recent years with respect to human rights, especially in regard to joining international agreements like the United Nations Convention Against Torture. In order for there to be real progress, the Vietnamese Government needs to back up its words with actions. The Vietnamese Government can show that it is serious about respecting and protecting human rights by crafting a new religion law that rolls back some of the many constraints on religious activities, but early indications the new law will actually be more restrictive. Vietnam can lift its draconian Internet restrictions and allow for independent labor organizations. Labor protections and Internet freedom are critical economic as well as human rights issues. Despite the dismal status for human rights in Vietnam, we can exert pressure on the Vietnamese Government to cease these abuses. I have reintroduced the Vietnam Human Rights Act. The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2015 seeks to promote the development of freedom and democracy in Vietnam by stipulating that the United States can increase its non- humanitarian assistance to Vietnam above FY2012 levels only when the President is able to certify that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress in establishing human rights protections. The United States should not be rewarding the Vietnamese regime with taxpayer dollars when it continues to violently repress its own people. Swift Congressional action on this bill will send a strong message that U.S. will not tolerate continuing human rights abuses in Vietnam. Its enactment will send an unmistakable message to the Government of Vietnam that human rights improvements are fundamental to better relations, critically linked to our mutual economic and security interests, and cannot be ignored or bargained away. Those intent on passing TPP should also be concerned with maximizing leverage over Vietnam, with the Vietnamese Government making true and lasting concessions on human rights, before we agree to provide them with the benefits of trade. In fact, we heard from a witness at a recent hearing I held, the Reverend Nguyen Manh Hung of the Mennonite Church of Vietnam, how a religious leader has been threatened by security forces who told him that once TPP is passed, his house of worship will be torn down. This is a message that Congress, and the American people need to hear, before we continue to debate TPP in the abstract: There should be no trade deal with Vietnam without milestones being met on human rights on a permanent and sustainable basis.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Medicare and Social Security are our nation's sacred trusts with seniors and disabled Americans. Senior citizens in New Jersey and across the county have worked hard throughout their lives to provide for their families and help build our communities, all while making their fair and full contributions of taxes into the programs. It is our duty to respect these sacrifices and ensure that programs continue to deliver on promises made. To that end, I was proud to cosponsor and support today's House passage of H.R. 1190, the Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act of 2015. This bipartisan legislation would completely repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), an unelected and unaccountable board of fifteen bureaucrats who would possess the power to determine what to pay doctors who provide critical treatments and services under Medicare. Created under the fundamentally flawed and wildly unpopular Affordable Care Act (ACA)--or Obamacare--IPAB's recommendations would be considered under fast track procedures that would limit critical Congressional input and oversight. Whether or not it is called rationing, IPAB's mandated focus on short-term savings could result in deep cuts to physician payments and ultimately lead doctors to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries--seriously undermining seniors' healthcare decision making process and jeopardizing their access to lifesaving and quality care. The repeal of IPAB will allow Congress to continue focusing on policies to ensure that Medicare is sustainable for both current and future generations. Last week I was pleased to support four bills--H.R. 2505, H.R. 2507, H.R. 2570, and H.R. 2582--that strengthen and improve Medicare Advantage (MA). These bills will ensure increased transparency and accessibility to the popular MA program which provides millions of Medicare beneficiaries with affordable, comprehensive, and innovative care plans. Medicare is an absolutely critical component for the delivery of affordable, quality healthcare services for American seniors--and I will continue to advocate for legislation that properly supports Medicare. Seniors and disabled individuals deserve better than an unelected board of bureaucrats that will only serve to cut payments, ultimately resulting in the denial of certain treatments and services and reduced access to care. Congress must remain focused on solutions that ensure Medicare is sustainable for current and future generations, and the repeal of IPAB is critical first step.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman and thank both he and Eliot Engel for the leadership that they have both shown. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for keeping that focus on all issues related to Iran and for doing it so effectively, including and especially the human rights abuses that are occurring there each and every day. Mr. Speaker, the most important duty of the President of the United States is to keep Americans safe from harm, whether they are at home or abroad. Three innocent Americans continue to be brutalized in Iran prisons and trapped in a system of sham trials. A fourth American, another innocent man, has been missing from Iran for more than 8 years and presumed to also be imprisoned in that country. When Americans have been hostages in foreign lands or on foreign seas, Presidents from both parties have prioritized their rescue, sometimes even asking the finest from our fighting forces to risk their lives to save them. It is an important question why the President has failed to make the release of our fellow Americans his top priority with the Iranian regime. How often have we heard the administration speak out, pressure being put to bear on the Iranian regime, even as the talks continue on the nuclear issue? It seems to me I will never forget when Nagameh Abedini came and testified at one of Frank Wolf's hearings. She said they told her there was nothing they could do for her husband at the U.S. Department of State. Thankfully, a call to John Kerry by Mr. Wolf, chairman of the Lantos committee at the time, did yield fruit; and they did begin to raise his name and his calls. The President seems to think, however, that the Iranian regime can be trusted to keep a nuclear deal and no longer seek to develop and make nuclear weapons. I would suggest that a regime that continues to imprison our fellow citizens cannot be trusted. A regime that so regularly and violently violates human rights and basic freedoms of its own people cannot be trusted. A regime that sponsors terrorism against other countries as a tool of foreign policy cannot be trusted. H. Res. 233 makes very clear that Iran should release all detained U.S. citizens immediately and provide any information it possesses regarding any United States citizens that have disappeared within its borders. Mr. Speaker, we must remember the husbands and fathers, sons and daughters, the families, in addition to those who are being exploited and cruelly mistreated. I want to thank Chairman Royce for the hearing that he just convened a few days ago. We heard from the family members. Their plea was impassioned. It was heartbreaking, and it was very, very motivating. Imprisoned since 2012, Pastor Abedini, 35 years old, husband of Nagameh Abedini--who testified several times before my subcommittee and has been an extraordinary champion for his release--father of two children, he had returned to Iran to build an orphanage. He had gotten prior clearance, told that he could do it. Once he was there, they arrested him, and they have mistreated him ever since then. Imprisoned since 2012, Amir Hekmati, 31 years old, a former sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps. He had returned to Iran to visit his grandmother and other relatives. They scooped him up, and he has been mistreated ever since. Imprisoned since 2011, Jason Rezaian, 39 years old, Tehran's bureau chief for The Washington Post, a reporter who publishes what is going on in that regime, he now is facing a trial, a show trial, a sham trial. Imprisoned since 2014, Robert Levinson, 67 years old, husband, father, grandfather, he has been missing in Iran since the year 2007. Mr. Speaker, Pastor Abedini, Mr. Hekmati, Mr. Rezaian, and Mr. Levinson are all Americans, and they are being, right today, subjected to abuse and cruelty. They are all prisoners or missing in Iran. We call on the administration to retriple its efforts to secure their release.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Zimbabwe is a country the size of the state of Montana, with a population of nearly 14 million people. However, its mineral wealth gives it an outsized importance. The southern African nation is the world's third largest source of platinum group metals and has significant reserves of nickel, gold, chromium and dozens of other metals and minerals. Significant diamond reserves were discovered in 2006. Currently, about 40 percent of the country's foreign exchange is earned from the export of these metals and minerals. It was the abundance of such mineral resources, and their exploitation, which has driven the relationship between the West and Zimbabwe. Since its colonization by Cecil Rhodes' British South Africa Company in 1889 on behalf of Great Britain, the area once known as Southern Rhodesia has experienced a tumultuous history. The white minority gained self-governance in 1922, and a 1930 Land Apportionment Act restricted black access to land, making many Africans laborers and not land owners. In 1964, the white minority government unsuccessfully sought independence from Great Britain, and then unilaterally declared independence a year later under white rule. This move sparked international outrage and economic sanctions, and that regime was never widely recognized by the international community, though the support of white-ruled South Africa enabled the government to limp along. Meanwhile, black opposition to minority rule, which began in the 1930s, erupted into a guerilla war in 1972. Attempts to end the conflict diplomatically failed until the 1979 talks brokered by Great Britain resulted in British-supervised independence elections. The winner of those elections was Robert Mugabe, leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union, or ZANU, who at age 91 continues to rule this country, in large part through intimidation and manipulation of elections. As a hero of the independence and majority rule movements, Mugabe has enjoyed the support of many other African leaders, who have considered him an honored elder and have generally declined to join in international efforts to sanction his government. This has placed the United States in an awkward position, with limited African support for political and economic reforms in Zimbabwe. Although many observers have credited the Mugabe government with productive management until fairly recent years, there were political problems from the beginning of his rule. For example, Mugabe fired fellow independence leader Joshua Nkomo in 1982 and then launched a campaign to suppress what his government called a rebellion by pro-Nkomo forces. The Mugabe regime has been accused of killing thousands of ethnic Ndebele citizens over the next few years to end the supposed rebellion, assisted by military advisors from East Germany and North Korea. Once one of the leading industrial nations in Africa, Zimbabwe began a long economic downward spiral in the late 1990s. Squatters, with the support of the Zimbabwe government, seized white farms they claimed had been stolen by white settlers in the past. Despite government assurances, these farms were not transferred to black farm workers, but rather to cronies of the Mugabe government who lacked agricultural experience. Both whites and blacks in Zimbabwe acknowledged that the land policies had been unfair, but the manner of addressing this problem led to serious economic problems for the country. Agricultural production fell, and the manufacturing sector, heavily tied to agriculture, also diminished. Efforts to squeeze currency for shrinking national reserves from businesses, coupled with the disastrous requirement that businesses use the fictitious exchange rate, caused retailers to lose money with each sale. The effort to close the many vendors who supplied tourists with souvenirs and citizens with necessary household items was yet another milestone in Zimbabwe's economic collapse. By 2006, year-on-year inflation exceeded 1,000 percent. Devaluation of the currency and the subsequent use of foreign currency are credited with eventually preventing a complete economic collapse. Zimbabwe and the United States have had a tempestuous relationship since that southern African country emerged from white minority rule. Part of the problem has been resentment by Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and his closest advisers against the United States for not supporting their liberation movement, the backdrop to which was the geopolitical conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States. Another part of the problem has been the justifiable public criticism of repressive political policies by the Mugabe government by successive U.S. administrations. Consequently, the minimal communications between our two governments has contributed to suspicions and an inability for U.S. officials to reach out to cooperative Zimbabwe officials. Successive elections have been the subject of opposition and international criticism for the lack of political space allowed to those who would challenge the ruling ZANU party. Arrests, incarcerations, torture in custody, beatings at public rallies and demonstrations and disappearances of government opponents have denied legitimacy to the Zimbabwe election processes. The country's commitment to democratic governance has been further placed in question due to a series of repressive laws preventing freedoms of speech, association and movement. As if the government's repressive tactics are not troubling enough, political jockeying in Zimbabwe, including the recent dismissal of Vice President Joice Mujuru, places the succession to President Mugabe in doubt, which puts U.S. policy in question. Last week's hearing examined current U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe and the prospects for an enhanced relationship depending on events that have not yet taken place. Of course, in foreign policy, one cannot wait until a crisis materializes in order to create a planned response. A leader nearing the century mark, presiding over a fractious political scene in a country that has experienced political and economic turmoil creates a situation in which planning for a positive outcome to regime change must be devised. Zimbabwe is a country rich in both natural and human potential. Once the resentments of the current old guard have passed and democratic governance can be established, U.S.-Zimbabwe relations can become what they have never been: harmonious and mutually beneficial.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, 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. Every year, an estimated 1,000 American children are unlawfully removed from their homes by one of their parents and taken across international borders. Less than half of these children ever come home. The problem is so consequential and the State Department's previous approach of ``quiet diplomacy'' so inadequate, that Congress unanimously passed the Goldman Act last year to give teeth to requests for return and access. These actions increase 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 2008. But a law is only as good as its implementation. Broken-hearted parents across America waited four years for the Goldman Act to become law and still await full U.S. government implementation of the law. The State Department's first annual report that we are reviewing today should be a roadmap for action. The State Department must get this report right in order for the law to be an effective tool. If the report fails to accurately identify problem countries, the actions I mentioned above are not triggered. Countries should be listed if they have high numbers of cases--30 percent or more--that have been pending over a year or if they regularly fail to enforce return orders, or if they have failed to take appropriates steps in even a single abduction case pending more than a year. Once these countries are properly identified, 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 actions 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 a non- compliant. As we have seen in the human trafficking context, (I authored both 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 reforms. 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, erroneously conclude that a particular country is not of concern, and give permission to an estranged spouse to return to their country with the child for a vacation. The taking parent then abducts the child and the left behind parent then spends her life savings and many years trying to get her 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 (NCMEC) that India has 53 open abduction cases--and that 51 have been pending for more than 1 year. The report shows zero new cases in Tunisia for last year, 3 resolved cases, and zero unresolved cases. And yet Ms. Edeanna Barbirou testified to her more than 3-year battle to bring her children home from Tunisia. NCMEC's numbers show 6 ongoing abductions in Tunisia, all of which have been pending for more than a year. Nowhere is the report's disconnect with reality more clear than in its handling of Japan, a country that has never issued and enforced a return order for a single one of the hundreds of American children abducted there, and was not listed as a country showing failing to cooperate in returns. In March, nearly two months before the annual report was released, I chaired a hearing in the subcommittee which I chair featuring Ambassador Susan Jacobs in which it was made perfectly clear that, ``Congress expects that Japan will be evaluated not just on its handling of new abduction cases after it joined the Hague Convention last year, but on its work to resolve ALL open abduction cases,'' including the more than 50 cases I and others have been raising with the State Department for the last 5 years. 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 got a pass from the State Department and escaped 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 an offender in the annual report. It is disappointing, discouraging, and disgraceful. The report whitewashes Japan's egregious record on parental child abduction. Adding insult to injury, the report table that was to show the unresolved abduction cases in Japan failed to include a single one of the more than 50 cases, 36 of which have been dragging on for more than 5 years, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Instead, the table listed Japan has having a 43% resolution rate. Japan has never issued and enforced a return order for an American child. These young victims, like their left-behind parents, are American citizens who need the help of their government. 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. Nearly 100% of the abduction cases to Japan remain open; and the report's conclusion of 43% resolution is indefensible. Moreover, not a single left behind parent pursuing access was allowed in-person contact with their child over the last year. 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? I appreciate the Department's presence at yesterday's hearing to discuss ways that we can improve the report and ensure that it fulfills the purposes for which it was intended--namely, the prevention of abduction and the reunification of the thousands of American families that have been suffering forced separation for too long.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding, and I rise to raise an issue of particular importance to my constituents in New Jersey. Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst was created by the 2005 BRAC round. And while joint basing has been successfully implemented at MDL, there remains an outstanding issue of gross unfairness for some employees. The overwhelming majority of employees at the joint base are included in the New York pay locality area; yet, the wage grade employees on the former McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix remain in the Philadelphia locality area. These employees work on the same installation, but they are paid 7 percent less than their counterparts for the same work. Joint Base MDL made a formal request for realignment of the Philadelphia to New York wage survey area to OPM's Advisory Committee, FPRAC, in 2010, and the base leadership continues to believe pay parity should be a priority. Mr. Chairman, the joint base is a critical asset to DOD and our National security. Their missions could not be carried out effectively without the skills of the men and women stationed there and those working in civilian support roles across the base. Joint Base MDL is one installation, and the men and women who work there are part of the same workforce. It is timed to fix this outdated policy. Accordingly, I am hopeful that you will work with me to bring about fairness to the roughly 20 percent of the workforce that does not receive equally earned pay.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, the chairman, for your commitment to the men and women who support our warfighters. I look forward to working with you to move the pay parity for all joint base employees forward.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my good friend and colleague Congressman Steve Chabot for his leadership and hard work in shepherding the Girls Count Act as it makes its way to the President's desk. It is important legislation that will make an impact in the lives of so many girls and young women around the world. Like last year, I am an original co-sponsor of the House version of the Girls Count Act, and I think that the version introduced in both Houses this Congress is even better than the one that the House passed last year, as it explicitly recognizes the great work that so many faith-based organizations do around the globe. There is a need for the legislation, because in too many parts of the world, girls are discriminated against simply for being a girl. Indeed, this disregard for the value of the girl child often begins in the womb, in countries such as India and China, where we see the horrific practice of sex-selective abortion. This cruel practice in turn has led to a gender imbalance which has fed other crimes against women, such as sex trafficking, bride selling and prostitution. I chaired a hearing two years ago on the problem of ``India's Missing Girls,'' which addressed the problem of violence against the girl child in India. Sex-selective abortion and female infanticide have led to lopsided sex ratios: in parts of India, for example, 126 boys are born for every 100 girls. Perhaps the best figures we have concerning the magnitude of the problem come from India's 2011 census figures, which find that there are approximately 37 million more men than women in India. In China, too, we see the brutal effects of a one-child policy that causes baby girls to be killed before birth; where only one child per couple is permitted in a society that has a traditional preference for sons, the predictable result is that a disproportionate number of girls will be killed in the womb. As Mara Hvistendahl recounted in a book I recommend to all of my colleagues, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, in Asia alone, there are 160 million missing girls, roughly the same amount of women and girls as there are in the United States. The result of this sex-imbalance is a world where there is greater political instability, with violence inside the womb begetting violence outside as well. Today's legislation, which seeks to have every girl counted and registered, marks a small but important step toward a world where every child, boy or girl, is equally valued and cherished for her or his inherent, God-given dignity from the moment of conception.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Eliot Engel, the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for his bill, the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act, H.R. 1493. I am privileged to be the lead co-sponsor of this bill, just as I was last year. This bill could not be more timely, given the depredations of ISIS that we see played out on our TV screens when we turn on the nightly news--the horrific beheadings and killing of Christians and other religious minorities such as Yezidis by Islamist fanatics. These murderers help finance their terror in part by looting cultural antiquities and coins from areas of Syria and Iraq that they control. Congress has already acted with respect to banning importation of ``blood antiquities'' from Iraq, which this bill would now extend to Syria. As such, this bill is part of the war on terror, helping to dry up sources of terror financing. We also see that these fanatics will destroy what they cannot loot. This bill increases the inter-agency cooperation, including involvement of ``Monuments Men'' units of our armed forces, in striving to protect a cultural heritage which is part of our world's patrimony. Finally, I want to highlight a provision of this bill that was not in the version we passed in the last Congress, but one which is an important addition, namely, a safe-harbor provision for those who seek to bring into the country important cultural artifacts that are being threatened with destruction, This safe harbor provision allows them to be placed in the temporary protective custody of the United States government or a museum. I want to close by thanking Ranking Member Engel for introducing this important piece of legislation, and would like to thank him and all staff members who worked so hard on bringing this important legislation to the floor tonight.