Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to legislation I introduced last week, the Advancing Research for Hydrocephalus Act, and urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill. My new legislation--which is supported by the national Hydrocephalus Association--will facilitate better research into this devastating condition by requiring the collection of demographic information on the hydrocephalus community. Hydrocephalus, which is defined as an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within cavities in the brain, can cause brain damage, vision issues, and extreme pain for those affected. One of those affected, Adrienne D'Oria, a 22 year old from my Congressional District, has suffered from hydrocephalus since she was 10 months old. In addition to the excruciating pain, complications from shunt malfunctions, dozens of brain surgeries and hundreds of hospital visits have essentially eliminated any chance of a normal childhood. Hydrocephalus continues to limit her options for the future: All of my friends, everyone I went to school with is graduating and starting the next stage in their life. I can't do that,'' she said recently. ``I had to withdraw from so many classes because of hospital admissions and all the surgeries. Even though I've been out of high school for four years I only have the credits of a freshman. My friends are graduating and I'm stuck in limbo. I can't control it. Unfortunately for Adrienne and thousands like her, the most common treatment for hydrocephalus remains a surgically-inserted shunt. Shunts drain the fluid from the brain through the neck and into other parts of the body. They frequently become blocked, malfunction, or cause infection. In almost half of all cases in children, the shunt fails within the first two years. When they do, patients must immediately locate a medical facility and a neurosurgeon who can correct the problem. This precarious situation is a constant source of fear for those who suffer from hydrocephalus and their families. In fact, hydrocephalus is the most common reason for brain surgery in children. The scientific and medical communities not only have very few resources that can help them in understanding this condition, they are not even aware of the true impact of this disorder. Without better data and research, they cannot develop more effective treatments. Mr. Speaker, there are some estimates that this condition affects roughly one million Americans. Yet given that hydrocephalus can occur either congenitally or be acquired, oftentimes through infection or traumatic brain injury, reporting of hydrocephalus has been inconsistent. Currently no mechanism exists to identify and track persons with hydrocephalus who develop the condition after birth. As a result, we do not have a good grasp on the demographics of hydrocephalus patients. My bill provides a remedy. The Advancing Research for Hydrocephalus Act will establish a National Hydrocephalus Surveillance System (NHSS) to collect information on the incidence and prevalence of hydrocephalus among a range of demographics, including changes in epidemiology over time. This surveillance system would provide a wealth of data for researchers. Better surveillance will facilitate better research and lead to better outcomes, treatment and care for the infants, children, and adults experiencing the agonizing pain of hydrocephalus. So I urge my colleagues to support my legislation to help provide assistance and raise the quality of life for individuals, like Adrienne, who are suffering from this condition.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the east African nation of Rwanda experienced one of the most horrific genocides in modern times. An estimated 800,000 Rwandans--mostly ethnic Tutsis and moderates among the ethnic Hutus were brutally murdered in a state- backed extermination campaign that lasted for months. Hutu-Tutsi tensions date back to colonial times, when the Belgians created a superior class composed of Tutsis, shutting out Hutus from government jobs and higher education despite Hutus comprising about 85% of the population. In 1959 and 1960, tensions among the Hutus exploded in a campaign that left 20,000 Tutsis dead and created 300,000 Tutsi refugees. As with this earlier genocide, the international community watched largely from the sidelines during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda as the death toll rose from April until July of that year until the Rwandan Patriotic Front or RPF defeated the Hutu-led government military. More than two million mostly-Hutu refugees flooded into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, leading to continuing problems in that country. The RPF-led Rwandan government has criticized the United Nations for sheltering Hutu participants in the genocide and for allowing them to arm in refugee camps. Over the years, the RPF has used the guilt of the international community as a shield to prevent criticism of its action. U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power referred to Ambassador Susan Rice and her colleagues in the Clinton administration in the 1990s as Bystanders to Genocide. She quotes Rice in the 2002 book as saying, ``If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?'' Part of Rice's team during those years was Gayle Smith, current nominee to head the U.S. Agency for International Development. As far back as May 1998, I chaired a hearing that included testimony about the willful U.S. neglect in preventing the Rwandan genocide. As recounted in an issue of the New Yorker magazine at the time, a high- ranking Rwandan informant had warned the U.N. leadership, including Kofi Annan, and the United States about preparations for killings 3 months before they began. The recipients apparently did not act on that information. Furthermore, the United States has been accused not merely of inaction, but also of obstructing preemptive multilateral efforts to quell the crisis. Some have alleged that, in the words of Refugees International president Lionel Rosenblatt, ``The ball was not only dropped by the United States, it was blocked by the United States.'' Paul Kagame, now President of Rwanda, was hailed as one of ``Africa's new leaders'' by Rice and her team during the 1990s, and there has been no apparent change in their high opinion of him since then despite what Deputy Assistant Secretary Robert Jackson describes as several public administration statements related to human rights concerns and ongoing dialogue with the Rwandan government. Kagame has been considered a hero on the international stage, and has long been immune to public criticism. However, human rights reports about abuses in Rwanda have grown over the years. The most recent State Department human rights report about Rwanda accuses the government of ``targeting of political opponents and human rights advocates for harassment, arrest and abuse.'' Many observers note the constraints on freedom of expression that criminalizes public criticism of the RPF and its policies, as well as outlawing public discussion of ethnic issues. In that vein, the RPF has used charges of ``genocide ideology'' and ``divisionism'' as well as national security concerns, to justify prosecution of opposition political figures and journalists and prevent human rights organizations from reporting on events in their country. In recent years, there are credible reports that the RPF government has commissioned assassins to kill dissidents living in exile who criticize the government or attempt to form political associations or parties. Several years ago, our committee Chairman Ed Royce was told by Paul Russessabegina of Hotel Rwanda fame that the Rwandan Government had targeted him and was behind several attempts on his life in Belgium. In early 2014, former Rwandan intelligence chief Patrick Karegeya who had been living in exile in South Africa, was found murdered in his hotel room in Johannesburg. Karegeya was one of two dissidents, one of the witnesses at a hearing I held yesterday--former Rwandan Major Robert Higiro--says he was asked to have killed. The assassination plot he revealed was investigated and substantiated in a series of articles in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, which interviewed Rwandan exiles in South Africa and Belgium. Since 2012, I have chaired a series of hearings on the violence perpetrated by various militias in eastern DRC. Perhaps the best known of them, the so-called M23, was supported by Rwanda. This Congress has enacted restrictions on some military assistance to Rwanda in response to its involvement in militia activity in the DRC and involvement in resource smuggling from that country, as uncovered in several U.N. reports. These charges of serious human rights and other abuses would be troubling in any case, but Rwanda is a country that has enjoyed significant U.S. and international support. By largely avoiding criticism of Rwandan human rights issues, the Bush and Obama administrations raised appropriations to Rwanda from $39 million in FY2003 to $188 million in FY2014. This largely has involved funding of health, food security and other socioeconomic projects, as well as support for Rwandan participation in international peacekeeping. Rwanda is the sixth largest troop and police contributing country in the U.N., with more than 4,000 troops, more than 400 police, and 13 military observers in seven U.N. missions, including: the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID); the U.N. Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS); the U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH); the U.N. Mission in Liberia (UNMIL); the U.N. Interim Security Force in Abyei (UNISFA); the U.N. Operation in Cote d'Ivoire (UNOCI), and the U.N. Integrated Peace-building Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS). Rwanda, due to donor aid, political stability and favorable investor policies, has grown by an average of 8% annually over the past decade. It is considered one of the recipient countries most able to achieve results from aid programs. Yet donors began reducing or redirecting funds in 2012 because of Rwanda's role in supporting M23. The growing reports of human rights abuses also are leading to greater caution among donor nations about directly supporting the Rwandan Government.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently chaired a hearing focusing on the fight against human trafficking--an insidious human rights abuse that thrives in an environment of secrecy, of silence, and of a mindset that says that it is somebody else's problem. The truth of the matter is that combating modern-day slavery is everybody's business. We are all in this together. Cooperation and coordination are key to mitigating--and someday ending--this pervasive cruelty. Significant progress has been made since I authored landmark legislation--the Trafficking Victim's Protection Act of 2000, or TVPA-- to combat sex and labor trafficking in the United States and globally. When I first introduced the TVPA in 1998 however, I was repeatedly told by detractors that it was a ``solution in search of a problem.'' The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and its 2003 and 2005 reauthorizations, which I also authored, launched a bold new strategy that included sheltering, political asylum, and other protections for the victims; long jail sentences and asset confiscation for the traffickers; and tough sanctions for governments that failed to meet minimum standards prescribed in the TVPA. And for the first time ever, the law recognized the exploited as victims--not perpetrators of a crime. Since 2004, the TVPA has resulted in Anti-Human Trafficking Task Forces in 42 cities across the U.S. These task forces identify potential victims of human trafficking, coordinate local and federal law enforcement to rescue victims, assist with referrals for victim care, and train law enforcement. Last week's hearing concentrated on rescue and refuge. In January of 2000, I received actionable information that eight Ukrainian women were being exploited by sex traffickers in two bars in Montenegro. The women had been lured there with promises of legitimate work, then forced into prostitution. One desperate victim, however, called her mother for help using the phone of one of the men exploiting her. When informed, I immediately called the Prime Minister of Montenegro, Filip Vujanovic, who personally ordered an immediate raid on the bar. As a result, seven of the eight women were rescued and returned to their families in Ukraine. Tragically, the eighth woman was trafficked to Albania prior to the raid. We know that organized crime, street gangs, and pimps around the world have expanded into sex trafficking at an alarming rate. It is an extremely lucrative undertaking: a trafficker can make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year off just one victim. Unlike drugs or weapons, a human being can be held captive and sold into sexual slavery over and over again. Pornography and the devaluation of women are helping to drive demand. And while our Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security works with law enforcement abroad in sting operations to catch American pedophile sex tourists and rescue victims where there is a nexus with the United States, they cannot conduct rescue operations or run investigations that fall outside their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, there still are victims--someone's young son or daughter being cruelly exploited. Into this gap steps non-governmental rescue operations. Some of the best are staffed by former Navy SEALs, ex-CIA agents, and even the occasional sitting member of State government. That is who we heard from last week--from witnesses that include a former CIA agent now involved in rescuing the most vulnerable, and a sitting state Attorney General. We also heard from a former member of the Mexican Congress who has fought trafficking her entire career. And we heard from a victim of trafficking, who told us about the importance of refuge and rehabilitation following rescue. Operation Underground Railroad has made it their business, literally and figuratively, to identify children being sex trafficked in other countries, and then to partner with the relevant foreign government entities for the rescue and rehabilitation of these children. Operation Underground Railroad members frequently pose as American sex tourists who enlist traffickers to host sex parties for them--it is such a common occurrence in many Latin American nations that it provides the perfect cover for Operation Underground Railroad to lure the traffickers with the children for sale to a preset location, and then have the local authorities ready to bust the traffickers as well as rescue the children. Operation Underground Railroad also trains the local governments in how to conduct stings on traffickers, and on the rehabilitative needs of the trafficking victims. Yet the magnitude of the problem remains huge. Worldwide, in the past two years, 80,000 trafficking victims have been identified--a small percentage of the estimated 20.9 million victims in the world, but evidence that with a combination of encouragement, plus some persuasion and sustained pressure via sanctions imposed by the United States, countries are moving in the right direction. Child traffickers cater to child predators--a crime that thrives on secrecy. In 1994, a young girl in my hometown was lured into the home of a convicted pedophile who lived across the street from her. Megan Kanka, seven, was raped and murdered. No one, including Megan Kanka's parents, knew that their neighbor had been convicted of child sexual assault. The outrage over this tragedy led to enactment of Megan's Law--public sex offender registries--in every state in the country. I thought up the idea for International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking (H.R. 515), already passed by the House and now pending in the U.S. Senate, in a conversation with a trafficking in person's delegation from Thailand during a meeting in my office in 2007. I asked what Thai officials would do if we were to notify them of travel by a convicted pedophile. Each of the dozen officials said they would bar entry into their nation of such a predator. A primary way to fight child trafficking is to fight demand created by sex tourists, which is what International Megan's Law does. We know from other official data that registered sex offenders are traveling disproportionately to countries where children are trafficked for sex. A deeply-disturbing 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office entitled ``Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders'' found that at least 4,500 U.S. passports were issued to registered sex offenders in fiscal year 2008 alone. International Megan's Law seeks to protect children from sex tourism by notifying destination countries when convicted pedophiles plan to travel. And to protect American children, the bill encourages the President to use bilateral agreements and assistance to establish reciprocal notification--so that we will know when convicted child-sex offenders are coming here. It is a primary duty of government to protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us from harm, but it also falls to each of us to watch for those who need the help of government, NGOs, and the faith community. Combatting trafficking is everybody's business, and we heard from witnesses involved in the war against trafficking.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, a comprehensive bill authored by Senator Cornyn, with input from many. This extremely important legislation includes numerous bipartisan bills passed by the House earlier this year under the extraordinary leadership of Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and our own good chairman, Bob Goodlatte. When enacted into law, S. 178 will provide powerful new tools in the struggle to abolish modern-day slavery, including a domestic trafficking victims fund designed to provide assistance to victims of human trafficking and grants to States and localities funded by a $5,000 penalty assessed on convicted offenders. The bill seeks to protect runaways from the horror of trafficking, strengthen the child welfare agency response, aid victims of child pornography, and criminalize advertisement for the commercial exploitation of children. Each year, Mr. Speaker, as you know, there are approximately 100,000 American children, mostly runaways, trafficked in the U.S. The average age of initial enslavement is 13. These children, when found, are often charged with prostitution, fined, or put in juvenile detention, where there are, or should be, other options available. These children, mostly young girls, need to be protected and cared for and treated with compassion and respect, not prosecution. The pending bill moves us towards this goal. Indeed, title VI authorizes DOJ to give preferential treatment in awarding public safety and community-oriented police grants to an applicant from a State that treats a minor engaged in commercial sex as a victim. Title VII was inspired by a groundbreaking study conducted by Laura Lederer and funded by several foundations, including the Charlotte Lozier Institute, that found that approximately 88 percent of domestic trafficking victims ``had contact with a health care provider while being trafficked, with the most common being a hospital'' or a hospital emergency room, almost 64 percent. Situation awareness coupled with best practices will, without a doubt, help victims escape from this cruelty to freedom and protection. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 178--the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015--a comprehensive bill authored by Senator Cornyn, with input from many. This extremely important legislation includes numerous bipartisan bills passed by the House earlier this year under the extraordinary leadership of Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Chairman Goodlatte. When enacted into law, S. 178 will provide powerful new tools in the struggle to abolish modern day slavery including a Domestic Trafficking Victims Fund designed to provide assistance to victims of human trafficking and grants to states and localities funded by a $5,000 penalty assessed on convicted offenders. The bill seeks to protect runaways from the horror of human trafficking, strengthen the child welfare agency response, aid victims of child pornography, criminalize advertisement for the commercial exploitation of children, and beefs up the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense and HHS' anti-human trafficking activities. Each year there are approximately 100,000 American children, mostly runaways, trafficked in the U.S. The average age of initial enslavement is 13 years old. These children, when found, are often charged for prostitution, fined or put in juvenile detention, when there are--or should be--other options available. These children, mostly young girls, need to be protected and cared for and treated with compassion and respect--not prosecuted. The pending bill moves us toward this goal. Indeed, Title VI authorizes DOJ to give preferential treatment in awarding public safety and community oriented police grants to an applicant from a state that treats a minor engaged in commercial sex as a victim--because that is what they are and that's already federal law due to the TVPA of 2000. Title VII of S. 178 was inspired by a groundbreaking study conducted by Laura Lederer and funded by several foundations, including the Charlotte Lozier Institute, that found approximately 88 percent of domestic trafficking victims ``had contact with a health care provider while being trafficked with the most common contact being a hospital/ER (63.3%).'' Situation awareness coupled with best practices will without a doubt help victims escape to freedom and protection. So, in response, Title VII requires HRSA to award a competitive grant to an eligible entity to design and implement a pilot program utilizing evidence-based best practices to train health care professionals to recognize trafficking victims and respond effectively. Finally, Mr. Speaker, anti-human trafficking bills are often difficult to pass. When I first introduced the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, in 1998, the legislation was met with a wall of skepticism and opposition. People both inside of government and out thought the bold new legislation that included sheltering, asylum, and significant protections for the victims long jail sentences and asset confiscation for the traffickers, and tough sanctions for governments that failed to meet minimum standards was merely a solution in search of a problem. So as the prime author of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 as well as reauthorizations of that law in 2003 and 2005, I believe the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act will further prevent the horrific crime of human trafficking, protect and assist victims, and aid in the prosecution of those who exploit and abuse.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel and Senators Corker, Cardin, and Menendez for doing their level best in the face of an administration which, throughout this process, has ignored and sought to exclude the legislature from its constitutional role in ratifying what is, in essence, a treaty--it is called an executive agreement, but it is a treaty--with the vicious, rights-abusing regime in Tehran, to salvage what we all can from an egregiously flawed framework and process. It is clear, from the trajectory of negotiations to date, that the administration has squandered the leverage gained through sanctions, and there has been slippage--or, rather, retreat--from the strong position staked out in a number of U.N. Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1929 agreed to in 2010. Resolution 1929 demanded that Iran: one, suspend all uranium enrichment; two, cooperate fully with the IAEA ensuring unfettered on-site inspection; and, three, refrain from any activity related to ballistic missiles. Iran is now closer to achieving access to nuclear weapons and to the missiles to carry them to targets, including cities in the United States, while being relieved of sanctions. From what we know now of the proposed framework, over 5,000 centrifuges will be allowed. Furthermore, it is Iran's understanding that military sites will be off limits--what?--off limits to inspection and that ballistic missiles, the delivery systems for nuclear bombs, are not part of the framework. As a prerequisite to sitting down with the regime in Tehran, I and others have argued that the administration should have insisted that all Americans held or missing in Iran, including Christian pastor Saeed Abedini be released. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that an agreement under these terms-- terms which, underscore that, we have backtracked in these negotiations--will give new meaning to the phrase ``Pyrrhic victory.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and for her extraordinary leadership. Thank you to Trent Franks, Speaker Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, and the gentlewoman presiding in the Chair--so many. This has been a team effort, and it will yield considerable protection when it is finally enacted into law. Madam Speaker, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is landmark human rights law. It recognizes the compelling body of medical evidence that unborn children feel pain and seeks to safeguard and protect vulnerable children from the violence of abortion. Dr. Anand, a leading expert in the area of fetal pain, has said: ``It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.'' Dr. Malloy testified before the Judiciary Committee and said: When we speak of infants at 20 weeks we no longer have to rely on ultrasound imagery because premature patients are kicking, moving, and reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit. Today, Madam Speaker, surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children--society's littlest patients--to treat diseases and anomalies and to perform benign corrective surgeries. Today, there are Kermit Gosnells--you remember him, the infamous abortionist who was convicted 2 years ago today in Philadelphia. They are all over America inflicting not only violence and death on very young children, but excruciating pain as well. And, you know, when it comes to pain, I don't know about you, but I feel this way, I dread it, we all seek to avoid it, we even fear it, and we go to great and extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and duration. This legislation protects an entire age-specific class of kids from preventable pain and death. Madam Speaker, this is human rights legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, two years ago today, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. Even though the news of Gosnell's child slaughter was largely suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically destroyed often by having their spinal cords snipped--all gruesome procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim. Today, the House considers landmark legislation authored by Trent Franks to protect unborn children beginning at the age of 20 weeks post fertilization from pain-filled abortions. The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is needed now more than ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and decapitating pain-capable babies for profit: Men like Steven Brigham of New Jersey, an interstate abortion operator--35 aborted babies were found in his freezer. Men like Leroy Carhart, caught on video tape joking about his abortion toolkit--complete with a ``pickaxe'' and ``drill bit''--while describing a three day long late term abortion procedure and the infant victim as ``putting meat in a crock pot.'' Or like Deborah Edge who wrote in an op-ed that she ``saw the abortionist puncture the soft spot in the baby's head or snip his neck if it was delivered alive.'' Some euphemistically call this choice, but, a growing number of Americans rightly regard it as violence against children. And huge majorities--60% according to November 2014 Quinnipiac poll--want it stopped! Fresh impetus for the bill came from a huge study of nearly 5,000 babies--preemies--published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine. The next day, a New York Times article titled: ``Premature Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated'' touted the Journal's extraordinary findings of survival and hope. (Let me note that these 22 week old children referred to in the Times articles are the same age as the 20 week children that will be protected by this bill. The only difference is the method used to calculate age.) Just imagine, Madam Speaker, preemies at 20 weeks are surviving as technology and medical science advance. And some like Alexis Hutchinson, featured in the New York Times story is today a healthy 5 year old who originally weighed in at a mere 1.1 pounds. Thus the babies we seek to protect from harm today may survive if treated humanely, with expertise and compassion--not the cruelty of the abortion. That is why, H.R. 36 requires that a late abortion permitted under limited circumstances provide the ``best opportunity for the unborn child to survive'' and that ``a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation'' be ``present and prepared to provide care to a child'' consistent with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recognizes the medical evidence that unborn children feel pain. One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee stated in his expert report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice: ``It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.'' Surgeons today entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. Surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb. We now know that the child ought to be treated as a patient, and there are many anomalies, many sicknesses that can be treated while the child is still in utero. When those interventions are done, anesthesia is given. Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at the Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee said: ``When we speak of infants at 20 weeks post- fertilization we no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving and reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit.'' Dr. Malloy went on to say, ``in today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.'' She says ``I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection.'' Other provisions in H.R. 36 include: An Informed Consent Form including the age of the child; a description of the law; an explanation that if the baby is born-alive, he or she will be given medical assistance and transported to a hospital; and information about the woman's right to sue if these protections are not followed. Women deserve this information. The woman is empowered with a Civil Right of Action, so she may sue abortion providers who fail to comply with the law. Parents are also given a civil right of action if the law is not followed with regard to their minor daughter. In the case of a minor who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest and is having an abortion at 20 weeks or later, the abortion provider must notify either social services, or law enforcement to ensure the safety of the child and stop any ongoing abuse. In the case of an adult who is pregnant as a result of a sexual assault and is having an abortion at 20 weeks or later, the provider must ensure that she has received medical treatment or counseling at least 48 hours prior to the abortion. Compliance with State Laws including parental involvement requirements, and state reporting requirements is required. The National Center for Health Statistics will issue an Annual Statistical Report (without personally identifying information) providing statistical information about abortions carried out after 20 weeks post-fertilization age. Finally, pain, we all dread it. We avoid it. We even fear it. And we all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration. Today, there are Kermit Gosnells all over America inflicting not only violence, cruelty, and death on very young children, but excruciating pain as well. This legislation protects an entire age specific class of kids from preventable pain--and death. [From Americans United for Life] Backgrounder: Maternal Health and Late-Term Abortion abortion poses significant risks to maternal health by 20 weeks gestation A well-respected peer-reviewed journal--one which is also frequently cited by abortion advocates--notes that, ``Abortion has a higher medical risk to women when the procedure is performed later in pregnancy. Compared to abortion at eight weeks of an unborn child's gestation or earlier, the relative risk increases exponentially at higher gestations.'' (L.A. Bartlett et al., Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States, Obstetrics & Gynecology 103(4):729-37 (2004)). From the Bartlett study: ``The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks gestation to one per 29,000 abortions at sixteen to twenty weeks and one per 11,000 abortions at twenty-one or more weeks.'' As noted in the Bartlett study, gestational age is the strongest risk factor for abortion-related mortality. Compared to abortion at eight weeks gestation, the relative risk of mortality increases significantly (by 38 percent for each additional week) at higher gestations. In other words, a woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks is 35 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the first trimester. At 21 weeks or more, she is 91 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the first trimester. Moreover, the researchers in the Bartlett study concluded that it may not be possible to reduce the risk of death in later-term abortions because of the ``inherently greater technical complexity of later abortions.'' This is because later-term abortions require a greater degree of cervical dilation, with an increased blood flow in a later-term abortion which predisposes the woman to hemorrhage, and because the myometrium is relaxed and more subject to perforation. The same exact study is relied upon by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute in its Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States. In fact, Guttmacher emphasizes the increased risk by setting it apart in the text: The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16-20 weeks--and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks. At least two studies have now concluded that second- trimester abortions (13-24 weeks) and third-trimester abortions (25-26 weeks) pose more serious risks to women's physical health than first-trimester abortions. Other researchers confirm a substantially increased risk of death from abortions performed later in gestation, equaling or surpassing the risk of death from live birth. Researchers have also found that women who undergo abortions at 13 weeks or beyond report ``more disturbing dreams, more frequent reliving of the abortion, and more trouble falling asleep.'' Further, even Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States, agrees that abortion becomes riskier later in pregnancy. Planned Parenthood states on its national website, ``The risks [of surgical abortion] increase the longer you are pregnant. They also increase if you have sedation or general anesthesia [which would be necessary at or after 20 weeks gestation].'' When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, there was no evidence in the record related to medical data showing the health risks to women from abortion. The ``abortion is safer than childbirth'' mantra of 1973 has been refuted by the plethora of peer-reviewed studies published in the last 40 years. Specifically, recent studies demonstrate that childbirth is safer than abortion especially at later gestations. Moreover, studies reveal that abortion carries serious long-term risks other than the risk of death. These studies reveal significant long-term physical and psychological risks inherent in abortion--risks that, as agreed by both pro-life and pro-abortion advocates, increase with advancing gestational age. In sum, it is undisputed that the later in pregnancy an abortion occurs, the riskier it is and the greater the chance for significant complications.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago today Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill, and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. Even though the news of Gosnell's child slaughter was largely suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically destroyed, often by having their spinal cord snipped, all gruesome procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim. Today, the House considers landmark legislation authored by Congressman Trent Franks to protect unborn children beginning at the age of 20 weeks postfertilization from these pain-filled abortions. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is needed now more than ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and decapitating pain-capable babies for profit: men like Steven Brigham of New Jersey, an interstate abortion operator--some 35 aborted babies were found in his freezer; men like Leroy Carhart, caught on videotape joking about his abortion toolkit, complete with, as he said, a pickaxe and drill bit, while describing a 3-day-long late-term abortion procedure and the infant victim as ``putting meat in a Crock-Pot.'' Some euphemistically call this choice, but a growing number of Americans rightly regard it as violence against children, and huge majorities--60 percent, according to the November Quinnipiac poll--want it stopped. Fresh impetus for this bill came from a huge study of nearly 5,000 babies, preemies, published last week in The New England Journal of Medicine. The next day The New York Times article titled ``Premature Babies May Survive At 22 Weeks If Treated'' touted the Journal's extraordinary findings of survival and hope. Just imagine, Madam Speaker, preemies at 20 weeks are surviving, as technology and medical science advances. Alexis Hutchinson, featured in The New York Times story, is today a healthy 5-year-old who originally weighed in at a mere 1.1 pounds. Thus, the babies we seek to protect from harm today may indeed survive if treated humanely, with expertise and with an abundance of compassion. I urge support for the legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently hosted a briefing entitled Catholic Engagement on Nuclear Disarmament: What are the moral questions? and one of the speakers, Dr. Stephen M. Colecchi, presented the following statement: At the time of Senate ratification of the New START Treaty in 2010, Cardinal Francis George, OMI, then President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose death we recently mourned, declared: ``The horribly destructive capacity of nuclear arms makes them disproportionate and indiscriminate weapons that endanger human life and dignity like no other armaments. Their use as a weapon of war is rejected in Church teaching based on just war norms.'' The Cardinal was standing on a firm foundation of longstanding teaching when he made that assertion. The 1983 pastoral letter, ``The Challenge of Peace,'' established the U.S. Catholic bishops as a moral voice on nuclear disarmament. The bishops argued that ``each proposed addition to our strategic system or change in strategic doctrine must be assessed precisely in light of whether it will render steps toward `progressive disarmament' more or less likely.'' Ten years later in the ``Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace,'' the bishops declared: ``The eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is more than a moral ideal; it should be a policy goal.'' This vision continues to shape their public engagement. At the time of the drafting of the 1983 pastoral, I worked as a religious educator and was active in efforts to engage Catholics in discussions of the various drafts of the peace pastoral. The process of producing this document was significant. The bishops actively solicited feedback from both experts and people in the pew on each of three drafts. The bishops remained the teachers, but they acknowledged that prudential judgments were also involved and this required dialogue. Consultations were held at the national and local levels, and in many settings, at universities, parishes and think tanks. These dialogues helped shape the final pastoral letter, but perhaps more importantly they also raised awareness of the fundamental issues related to nuclear weapons among many Americans. Today the Conference of Bishops is working with others to revitalize Catholic thinking and engagement on issues involving nuclear weapons today as decades have passed since they first became involved with this issue in a major way. Over the years, in light of Church moral teaching, the bishops have also exercised leadership regarding specific elements of U.S. nuclear policy. In the late 80s they raised moral questions regarding missile defense initiatives. The bishops supported the Strategic Arms Reduction treaties (Start I and II) in the early 1990s. And in the late 90s they supported the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, lamenting its defeat in the Senate. The bishops welcomed the 2002 Moscow Treaty as a positive step, but called on the United States, and by implication other nations, to do much more. During the past decade, the Conference of Bishops has opposed federal funding for research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the Reliable Replacement Warhead and new nuclear weapons. They weighed in on the Nuclear Posture Review, asking President Obama to narrow the purpose of the nuclear arsenal solely to deterring nuclear attack. They made a major effort to offer vigorous support for Senate ratification of the New START Treaty in 2010, and have supported and welcomed the P5+1 dialogue with Iran over their nuclear program, as has the Holy Father and the Holy See. At its Deterrence Symposium in July 2009, the U.S. Strategic Command turned to the Conference of Bishops to offer moral reflections. Cardinal Edwin O'Brien, then an Archbishop and a member of the bishops' International Committee, gave a major address on ``Nuclear Weapons and Moral Questions: The Path to Zero.'' He urged the nuclear powers to ``move beyond'' deterrence. Subsequently, he joined Global Zero and addressed their February 2010 summit in Paris. In his speech at the 2009 Deterrence Symposium, Cardinal O'Brien reiterated the longstanding position of the U.S. bishops: ``The moral end is clear: a world free of the threat of nuclear weapons. This goal should guide our efforts. Every nuclear weapons system and every nuclear weapons policy should be judged by the ultimate goal of protecting human life and dignity and the related goal of ridding the world of these weapons in mutually verifiable ways.'' U.S. Church leaders are not naive about the challenges that lie along the path to a world without nuclear weapons. Cardinal Francis George wrote a letter to President Obama in 2010 in which he ``. . . acknowledged that the path to a world free of nuclear weapons will be long and difficult. It will involve many steps: Verifiably reducing nuclear arsenals as the new START Treaty continues to do; Ratifying and bringing into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; Reducing our nation's reliance on nuclear weapons for security as the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review began to do; Securing nuclear materials from terrorists; Adopting a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty to prohibit production of weapons-grade material; Strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor nonproliferation efforts and ensure access to peaceful uses of nuclear power; and Other actions that take humanity in the direction of a nuclear-weapons-free world.'' The Cardinal went on to say, ``We are pastors and teachers, not technical experts. We cannot map out the precise route to the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, but we can offer moral direction and encouragement. Although we cannot anticipate every step on the path humanity must walk, we can point with moral clarity to a destination that moves beyond deterrence to a world free of the nuclear threat.'' Given these longstanding concerns of the U.S. Bishops to reduce nuclear weapons and secure nuclear materials, in April 2015, Bishop Oscar Cantuu, Chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, spoke on a panel on ``Nuclear Weapons and the Moral Compass'' sponsored by The Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See and The Global Security Institute at the UN Headquarters in New York, and in November 2014, Bishop Richard Pates, a member of the Committee, spoke at a seminar on ``Less Nuclear Stockpiles and More Development'' sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. The bishops of the United States are deeply engaged in the moral enterprise of working for a world without nuclear weapons. As Bishop Cantuu said in his April UN talk: ``To achieve this goal, we must, in the words of Pope Francis, acknowledge that `now is the time to counter the logic of fear with the ethic of responsibility, and so foster a climate of trust and sincere dialogue.' ''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently hosted a briefing entitled Catholic Engagement on Nuclear Disarmament: What are the moral questions? and one of the speakers, His Excellency Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Permanent Representative of the Holy See to the United Nations, presented the following statement: The Holy See has always been morally against nuclear weapons and has always called for their abolition. It has worked and continues to work for a world without nuclear weapons. In February 1943, two years and a half before the Trinity test, Pope Pius XII had already voiced deep concern regarding the violent use of atomic energy. In an address to a meeting of Western military scientists in 1953, Pope Pius XII said that the possession of ``ABC'' (Atomic-Biological-Chemical) weapons made legitimate self-defense against an aggressor a less likely prospect, because ``if the damage resulting from war is not comparable with that of the `injustice tolerated,' one may be obliged `to submit to the injustice.' '' Devoting his entire 1954 Easter Message to the question of nuclear weapons, he spoke of the effects of a nuclear war by evoking ``the vision of vast territories rendered uninhabitable and useless to mankind . . . transmissible diseases . . . and monstrous deformities.'' Given such totally uncontrollable and indiscriminate consequences, the Pope demanded ``the effective proscription and banishment of atomic warfare,'' calling the arms race a ``costly relationship of mutual terror.'' This was the first clear papal condemnation of the nuclear arms race, sixteen years before the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Already well within the Cold War era and right after the Cuban missile crisis, Pope Saint John XXIII, in his 1963 Encyclical Pacem in Terris, called for the abolition of nuclear weapons and for the establishment of an adequate disarmament program to achieve that end. He spoke very clearly about the theory or doctrine of deterrence as the principal cause of the arms race and of arms proliferation and about the tremendous economic burdens the arms race provoked. He argued quite extensively that ``justice, right reason, and the recognition of man's dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stockpiles of armaments that have been built up in various countries must be reduced reciprocally and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control. Unless this process of disarmament be thoroughgoing and complete, and reaches men's very souls, it is impossible to stop the arms race, or to reduce armaments, or--and this is the main thing--ultimately to abolish them entirely. Everyone must sincerely co-operate in the effort to banish fear and the anxious expectation of war from men's minds. But this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today's world be replaced by an altogether different one, namely, the realization that true and lasting peace among nations cannot consist in the possession of an equal supply of armaments but only in mutual trust. And we are confident that this can be achieved, for it is a thing that not only is dictated by common sense, but is in itself most desirable and most fruitful of good.'' In his address to the UN General Assembly on 4 October 1965, Pope Paul VI characterized nuclear weapons as ``nightmares'' and ``dark designs.'' He also stressed that the weapons themselves ``lead astray the mentality of peoples.'' His plea of ``jamais plus la guerre,'' of ``war never again,'' reverberated in the General Assembly Hall. But his appeal to let weapons fall from our hands, ``especially the terrible weapons that modern science has given us,'' in clear reference to nuclear arms, still remains unheeded. Pope Paul's call to end the nuclear arms race reached its culmination in his 1977 World Day of Peace message, in which he demonstrated that nuclear arms offered a false sense of security. He reiterated this in his message to the U.N. General Assembly on Disarmament in 1978, calling the peace of nuclear deterrence ``a tragic illusion.'' He also reiterated an assertion made earlier in his papacy, that the nuclear arms race retarded the development of peoples, citing the ``crying disproportion between the resources in money and intelligence devoted to the service of death and the resources devoted to the service of life.'' In 1982, Pope Saint John Paul II addressed a message to the United Nations General Assembly on its second conference devoted to Disarmament. The Pope said that in the ``current conditions of the Cold War, `deterrence,' considered not as an end in itself but as a step toward a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless, in order to ensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum, which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion.'' The Holy Father, therefore, did not countenance deterrence as a permanent measure. As time progressed and the central promise of the NPT remained unfulfilled, the Holy See stepped up its efforts to argue for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In his 2006 World Day of Peace Message, Pope Benedict XVI criticized the argument of nuclear arms for security as ``completely fallacious'' and affirmed that ``peace requires that all strive for progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament.'' Since the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT, there has been an increased attention to the humanitarian dimension of and the risks associated with nuclear weapons. This heightened interest was manifested by cross-regional humanitarian statements in the UN and other regional and international fora and, in particular, by the organization of three Conferences on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo (March 2013), Nayarit (February 2014), and Vienna (December 2014). These Conferences have seen increased participation of States, of non-governmental organizations and of the greater civil society. During the Vienna Conference, the Holy See presented three documents: first, the official Statement delivered by the Delegation of the Holy See; second, the message that Pope Francis sent to His Excellency Mr. Sebastian Kurz, President of the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in December 2014; and, third, a paper entitled ``Nuclear Disarmament: Time for Abolition.'' On April 9, 2015, the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations in New York organized a conference entitled ``Nuclear Weapons and the Moral Compass.'' The Speakers were neither nuclear scientists nor political authorities, but rather religious leaders: an Anglican Bishop, a Rabbi, an Evangelical Minister, an Imam, and a Catholic Bishop in the person of Bishop Oscar Cantuu, Bishop of Las Cruces and Chairman of the USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace. The objective of the Conference was to insist on and strengthen the moral argument against not only the use but also the possession of nuclear weapons. Arguing against the policy of deterrence, the Conference served to echo and further disseminate the Paper that the Holy See presented in Vienna and Pope Francis's strong stand for the abolition of nuclear weapons The timing of the Conference was in anticipation of the then imminent Ninth Review Conference on the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which opened yesterday at the UN in New York and will continue until May 22. The NPT is one of the best known and most adhered to Treaties, with Palestine being the 191st Party to it. The Holy See has been a Party to the NPT since the very beginning, not because it has nuclear weapons or has to be constrained from developing nuclear weapons capabilities, but to encourage nuclear possessing States to abolish their nuclear weapons, to dissuade non-nuclear possessing States from acquiring or developing nuclear capabilities, and to encourage international cooperation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The documents that the Holy See presented in Vienna advanced anew the moral argument against both the possession and the use of nuclear weapons, and aimed to sustain and advance the discussion along this line. The Holy See considers it a moral and humanitarian imperative to advance the efforts towards the final objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It argues that disarmament treaties are not just legal obligations; they are also moral commitments based on trust between States, rooted in the trust that citizens place in their governments. If commitments to nuclear disarmament are not made in good faith and consequently result in breaches of trust, the proliferation of such weapons would be the logical corollary. Despite some progress and much effort on the part of many, nuclear disarmament is currently in crisis. The institutions that are supposed to move this process forward have been blocked for years. The central promise of the NPT has remained a dream. In fact, while the pre-NPT nuclear power countries not only have not disarmed but are also modernizing their nuclear arsenals, some pre-NPT non-nuclear countries have acquired or are in the process of acquiring nuclear arms capabilities. What is even more terrifying is the possibility that non- state actors, like terrorist and extremist organizations, could acquire nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons and the reliance on nuclear deterrence have had a very negative impact on relations between and among States. National security often comes up in discussions on nuclear weapons. All States have the right to national security, but this principle must not be applied in a partial and discriminatory manner, for example, when one State affirms that it needs nuclear weapons for its national security, while at the same time affirming that another State cannot have them. It is urgent to revisit in a transparent and honest manner the definition made by States, especially the nuclear weapons states, of their national security. Nuclear weapons cannot create for us a stable and secure world. Peace and international stability cannot be founded on mutually-assured destruction or on the threat of total destruction. The Holy See believes that peace cannot be reduced solely to maintaining a balance of power between enemies. On the contrary, as Pope Francis affirms in his letter to the President of the Vienna Conference, ``Peace must be built on justice, socio-economic development, freedom, respect for human rights, the participation of all in public affairs and the building of trust between peoples.'' In its argument against the possession and use of nuclear weapons, the Holy See also focuses attention on (1) the costs of the nuclear stalemate to the global common good; (2) the ``illusions of security'' inherent in the possession of nuclear arms; (3) the inequality at the root of the non- proliferation regime according to the NPT; and (4) the enormous toll that current nuclear policies take on the poor and on the world's priorities. The United Nations will soon adopt the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. The Sustainable Development Goals contained therein are daunting and require enormous means to implement. It would be naiive and myopic if we seek to assure world peace and security through nuclear weapons rather than through the eradication of extreme poverty, making healthcare and education accessible to all, and promoting peaceful institutions and societies through dialogue and solidarity. For our own good and that of future generations, we have no reasonable and moral option other than the abolition of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a global problem and they impact all countries and all peoples, including future generations. Moreover, ever-growing interdependence and globalization demand that whatever response we may have against the threat of nuclear weapons must be collective and concerted, based on reciprocal trust. Arguing for nuclear abolition from the moral perspective, the Holy See appeals to human consciences. As Paul VI affirmed in his 1965 Address to the United Nations General Assembly, ``Today, as never before, in an era marked by such human progress, there is need for an appeal to the moral conscience of man. For the danger comes, not from progress, nor from science. The real danger comes from man himself, who has at his disposal ever more powerful instruments, which can be used for destruction as for the loftiest conquests.'' No one could ever say that a world without nuclear weapons is easily achievable. It is not; it is extremely arduous; it is even a utopia for some. But there is no alternative than to work unceasingly towards its achievement. As President John F. Kennedy said in his Commencement Address at the American University on 10 June 1963, ``The pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.'' Let me conclude by reaffirming the conviction that Pope Francis expressed in his December 2014 message to the President of the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons: ``I am convinced that the desire for peace and fraternity planted deep in the human heart will bear fruit in concrete ways to ensure that nuclear weapons are banned once and for all, to the benefit of our common home.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently chaired a hearing on the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 directed the President to publish and update a list of each person the President had reason to conclude was responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, a legal and accounting adviser with Firestone Duncan, an international law and accounting firm with offices in Moscow and London. William Browder, Chief Executive Officer of Hermitage Capital Management Ltd., who was one of the witnesses at the hearing, has provided a detailed account of the violent expropriation of the assets of Hermitage--the largest foreign investment brokerage in Russia--by rampant Russian Government corruption, bribery, fraud, forgery, cronyism, and outright theft. Magnitsky had documented Hermitage's losses and other illicit financial dealings, including draining $230 million from the Russian treasury by tax fraud. He was arrested in November 2008, reportedly for tax evasion, and denied medical care, family visits, or due legal process, in custody. He was beaten and tortured, and died in prison in November 2009. He was 37 years old and married with two young children. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 targeted those who participated in related liability concealment efforts, financially benefited from Sergei Magnitsky's detention, abuse, or death, or were involved in the criminal conspiracy uncovered by Magnitsky, or were responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other human rights violations committed against individuals seeking to expose illegal activity carried out by Russian officials, or against persons seeking to promote human rights and freedoms. The Act directed the Secretaries of State and Treasury to annually report to Congress on actions taken to implement the Act, including rejecting visa applications, revoking existing visas, and blocking property transactions, for persons the President put on the Magnitsky List. The United States is a land of opportunity, but it should not be for those who misused and murdered Sergei Magnitsky. Without the original Magnitsky Act, the government officials and businesspeople who perpetrated crimes against a young man, against a major international firm, and against even the Russian people themselves by stealing from them, could have taken their ill-gotten gains and come to this country to purchase property and live the good life that the United States offers. The hearing examined the need for H.R. 624, ``The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act,'' which extends these human rights and anti-corruption tools to other countries. The House passed the 2012 act by a vote of 365-43, and there is now strong Majority and Minority co- sponsorship for H.R. 624. Since the original Magnitsky Act became law on December 14, 2012, human rights victims and advocates from around the world, and anti- corruption champions, have asked for a Magnitsky Act for their specific country. H.R. 624 ensures--with minimal cost or burden on the United States--that our government gives some justice to victims and stands in solidarity with them in a tangible way, shines a spotlight on perpetrators, making them pariahs, and pressures governments to prosecute perpetrators who are their citizens. The Global Magnitsky Act is intended to disrupt the impunity and comfort that far too many international human rights violators currently enjoy and to keep their tainted money out of our financial systems. It also fights the human rights abuses and corruption that generate national security, terrorism, and economic threats to the United States. A few years ago, Teodorin Obiang Mangue son of the President of Equatorial Guinea, visited the United States regularly. Using funds siphoned from American companies operating in his country, he lived a glamorous life in Malibu, California, dating celebrities and collecting expensive cars. When France issued a warrant for his arrest after he refused to appear at a money-laundering hearing, his father provided him with diplomatic immunity to escape prosecution. In June 2012, after years of trying to track Teodorin's wealth, the U.S. Department of Justice finally filed a lawsuit in a California court alleging massive money-laundering and listing, among the scandalous catalog of assets, his $35 million Malibu mansion, with a four-hole golf course, tennis court and two swimming pools. That's just one of the acquisitions he made in the U.S. The financial manipulations of young Mr. Obiang's family led in part to the closing of Riggs Bank in Washington, one of the capital's premier financial institutions. Such people should not be able to steal from foreign firms and their own people and use these funds to live lavishly in our country. Similarly, those who torture and otherwise commit the worst human rights violations against others should not be welcome here either and I have written legislation over the years to enforce that principle. The Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights Advancement Act of 2006 would have prevented officials who ordered the callous shooting of peaceful demonstrators in Ethiopia from entering this country. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 became law and required the U.S. Government to impose visa bans on any foreign national the Secretary of State has determined is directly involved in establishing or enforcing population control policies that force a woman to undergo abortions against her will or force a man or woman to undergo sterilization against his or her will. The Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 also became law and imposed visa bans and asset freezes on government officials from the Government of Belarus because of their violations of basic human rights and freedoms. If we stand by quietly when governments refuse to prosecute human rights abusers and financial fraudsters, and then welcome those guilty of such crimes into the United States and into our financial systems, we are enabling their crimes. The 2012 Magnitsky Act was a major step in freeing ourselves from aiding and abetting international perpetrators. H.R. 624 makes the next step in taking a stand against their crimes. If we are serious about rejecting their deeds, perhaps their governments, and other governments, will become more serious as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, let me just say at the outset to my friend, the former Speaker for whom I have the highest regard, it is always appropriate to defend to the best extent possible the fragile lives of unborn children from the violence of abortion, and it is always appropriate to defend to the greatest degree possible conscience rights when they are under assault. That is why I, along with many of my colleagues, rise today in support of H.J. Res. 43, to disapprove of D.C. legislation that infringes on the First Amendment freedoms of religious charities and pro-life advocacy groups in the District of Columbia. I especially want to thank Congresswoman Diane Black for her consistent and highly effective leadership over many years for fundamental conscience rights and for attempting to respect human life to the greatest extent possible. I agree with six distinguished law professors--and I will include their letters fully in the Record--who wrote the D.C. Council last November and who said: ``RHNDA's attempt to prevent employers from making decisions based on their 'personal beliefs' implies that the State has the power to judge what are and are not legitimate 'personal beliefs' and to conclude that religiously motivated opposition to State policies is unacceptable. The Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed that employers, not the State, may determine which religious practices they use as the basis for their organization's policies.'' The Secretary of Education for the Archdiocese of Washington wrote every Member of Congress, and he said: ``RHNDA would force religious institutions, including the 20 Catholic schools in the District of Columbia that I oversee, to hire or retain employees who publicly act in defiance of the mission of their employer. It would subjugate the church's moral teaching to the moral views of the government.'' The National Right to Life Committee, which has its national headquarters right here in the District, said: ``It would be intolerable for an advocacy organization such as ours to be required to hire or prohibit from firing a person who makes a 'decision' to engage in advocacy or any other activity that is directly antithetical to our core mission to lawfully advocate for the civil rights of the unborn.'' Christian and Muslim leaders also wrote a letter in which they pointed out: ``We come together to oppose RHNDA. We believe it would infringe on religious employers' freedom to make employment decisions when necessary to preserve their religious mission and identity.'' Catholic University president John Garvey, a very, very distinguished president of Catholic U. and whom I literally had up in hearings to speak out against anti-Semitism, said: ``This bill would require all employers, including religious schools such as ours, to hire or retain employees who publicly act in defiance of our mission. It would take away our right to carry out our mission through personnel policies and practices that are rooted in our faith. The D.C. bill carries no exemption or language of tolerance.'' Again, I would agree with former Mayor Vincent Gray in that it raises serious First Amendment concerns in the Constitution. April 29, 2015. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative, I am writing to urge your support of the House Joint Resolution 43, disapproving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act in the United States House of Representatives. The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act would force religious institutions, including the 20 Catholic schools in the District of Columbia that I oversee, to hire or retain employees who publicly act in defiance of the mission of their employer. It would subjugate the Church's moral teaching to the moral views of the government, violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and result in discrimination against religious believers. Practically speaking, Catholic schools would be obliged to keep teachers that sow confusion among schoolchildren by engaging in conduct that is contrary to Catholic teaching on the fundamental dignity of human life from the moment of conception. The Archdiocese of Washington has long respected home rule for the District of Columbia and, therefore, advocated for our constitutional rights with the D.C. Council and Mayor. However, they moved forward despite our objections forcing us to appeal to the United States Congress to restore our freedoms. Accordingly the Archdiocese of Washington joins other religious institutions, faith-based organizations and pro- life advocacy groups urging you and your colleagues to defend our freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association in the Nation's Capital. Please vote for House Joint Resolution 43 disapproving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act. Thank You. Sincerely, Thomas W. Burnford, D.Min. Secretary for Education.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Sexual Assault Awareness Month and call attention to legislation I reintroduced this morning that will help to ensure that victims of sexual assaults can seek and receive permanent protection from their attackers. By way of background, Nicole Norberto, a constituent of mine from Jackson, New Jersey and for whom the bill is named, was raped at the age of 15 by an acquaintance. While seeking prosecution of the attacker and appropriate restraints to protect herself, Nicole was advised by a court clerk in her home county that she could not request a permanent restraining order from the judge because she was not in a ``dating relationship'' with her attacker. As a result, Nicole's no-contact order, which offered her a significant means of protection from her attacker, ended when her attacker was released from government supervision. To remedy this situation, the New Jersey state legislature adopted legislation (Chapter 133 of the laws of 2007) to extend the right of permanent protection to all victims of sexual abuse. In my state, Nicole's Law closed a gaping loophole and the bill I introduced today will provide victims across the country with the same protections. Mr. Speaker, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) estimates that approximately 2/3 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim and 38 percent are a friend or acquaintance. Nicole's Law will ensure all victims have the option of obtaining a permanent restraining order--and the peace of mind it provides. In addition to requiring states to ensure their laws afford victims the option of seeking a permanent restraining order, my bill will allow a judge to, essentially, default to permanent protection instead of issuing protection orders which expire on a specific date or upon termination. In other words, if the offender would like the order removed, the burden is on the offender to ask for its removal, rather than on the victim to ask for its continuance. Mr. Speaker, RAINN states that 68 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to police and 98 percent of rapists will never spend a day in jail. By offering victims added protection and support, we can enable them to have greater confidence in the administration of justice. The more support and confidence victims have in the ability of our justice system to hold those who commit sex crimes accountable, the more likely victims will come forward--which will help ensure that more criminals are properly prosecuted, leading to fewer victims in the future. As Nicole stated this week: ``This law is a chance to help ensure victim's rights are protected and needs are met before, during and after a sexual assault. Hopefully this law will help victims of sexual assault be more comfortable with coming forward about their incident knowing that there are laws set in place to help protect them during this difficult process.'' We should do all we can to encourage victims to come forward and ensure those victims who do, are afforded permanent protection. My legislation will help this effort and I urge all members to support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently held a hearing on the importance of accountability in the annual Trafficking in Persons Report--the State Department's biggest opportunity of the year to prod countries to fight human trafficking with greater effect, greater efficiency and greater effort. There are some twenty plus million people around the globe who live in sex or labor slavery today. When one hears such a figure--over twenty million people--one's eyes begin to glaze over, as a number of such magnitude becomes an abstraction. There is a cynical saying, attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, that ``the death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.'' Stalin knew that many would shrug their shoulders and avert their gaze. But we must never allow such cynicism to obscure the fact that each of those twenty million persons is a human being with inherent, God- given dignity. Each one is a child that suffers from beatings and abuse, a woman raped, a man who labors in the field as a slave--all for the commercial gain of others. The annual Trafficking in Persons Report, required by the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Action of 2000 (TVPA)--legislation which I authored--ensures that countries making anti-trafficking efforts a priority are praised and supported, while countries that ignore the cries of the enslaved are justly shamed, and considered for sanctions. The success of the TIP Report and rankings is beyond anything we could have hoped for. From presidential suites and the halls of parliaments, to police stations in remote corners of the world, this report focuses anti-trafficking work in 187 countries on the pivotal principles of prevention of trafficking, prosecution of the traffickers, and protection of the victims. Each year the trafficking office at the Department of State evaluates whether a government of a country is fully compliant with the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking or, if not, whether the government is making significant efforts to do so. The record is laid bare for the world to see and summarized in a tier rankings narrative. Tier 1 countries fully meet the minimum standards. Tier 2 countries do not meet the minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to do so. Tier 3 countries do not meet the standards and are not making significant efforts to do so--and, indeed, may be subject to sanctions. Over the last 14 years, more than 100 countries have enacted anti- trafficking laws, and many countries have taken other steps required to significantly raise their tier rankings. Some countries openly credit the TIP Report for their increased and effective anti-trafficking response and look to us for examples of how to do even better. Last year, for example, I was invited by the speaker of Peru's unicameral congress to address legislators on how to protect victims of trafficking, meeting also with prosecutors, members of a multi-agency task force, victims and those who provide for victims. The Tier 2 Watch List was created in the 2003 TVPA reauthorization and I also authored to encourage good-faith anti-trafficking progress in a country that may have taken positive anti-trafficking steps late in the evaluation year. Unfortunately, some countries made a habit of last-minute efforts and failed to follow through year-after-year, effectively gaming the system. To protect the integrity of the tier system and ensure it works properly to inspire progress, Congress in 2008 created an automatic downgrade for any country that had been on a Tier 2 Watch List for 2 years but had not taken significant effort enough to move up a tier. The President can waive the automatic downgrade for an additional 2 years if he has certified ''credible evidence'' that the country has a written and sufficiently resourced plan that, if implemented, would constitute significant efforts to meet the minimum standards. In 2013, the first test of the new system, China, Russia, and Uzbekistan ran out of waivers and moved to Tier 3, which accurately reflected their records. In the 2014 reporting cycle, only Thailand and Malaysia were auto- downgraded, out of six countries. Russia and Uzbekistan retained their Tier 3 downgrades from the previous year--but China was upgraded from Tier 3 to the Tier 2 Watch List. I am very concerned that China fooled the State Department, which seemed to believe that China was abolishing its re-education through labor camps rather than simply renaming the camps and continuing the practice. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China reported that in 2013, Chinese authorities increasingly used ``other forms of arbitrary and administrative detention such as Legal Education Centers, Custody and Education Centers, `black jails,' and compulsory drug detoxification centers.'' Moreover, the Commission reported that in November 2014, the Deputy Director of China's Ministry of Justice said at a press conference that the ``vast majority'' of China's [reeducation through labor] facilities have been converted to compulsory drug detox centers. The China Commission believes that these compulsory drug detox centers force detainees to do labor, as do the Custody and Education Centers. If true--and I believe it is--then the Chinese government is directly involved in human trafficking and profiting from it. The Chinese Government also continues, through its one-child birth limitation policy, to decimate the female population, creating a vacuum for sex and bride trafficking in China as males confronted with a sentence of lifetime bachelorhood seek to obtain a mate. And despite a much-ballyhooed November 2013 government announcement of a relaxation of the one-child policy that affects only a small subset of the population, this fig leaf will not do enough to correct the gender imbalance in China. Last summer, a local official at the Mid-Year Family Planning Work Meeting in Chongqing municipality noted that ``the intensity of family planning work has not diminished.'' And the evidence of coercive enforcement continues to emerge. The U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, following its May 2014 review of China, noted that it was ``seriously concerned about reported instances of the use of coercive measures, including forced abortion and forced sterilization, with a view to limiting births.'' This is unacceptable. Approximately 40 million women and girls are missing from the population--and China's birth limitation policy continues to increase that number--making China a regional magnet for sex and bride trafficking of women from neighboring countries such as Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea. Indeed, an estimated 90 percent of North Korean women seeking asylum in China are trafficked as brides. And yet China does not take responsibility for the government-made disaster and provide these women with aid. Rather, China denies these women refugee status and sends them back to punishment in North Korea--punishments that far too often include execution. Yet we gave China a pass, turning our backs on these suffering women. But Asia is not the only place where there are victims of trafficking. The hearing also looked at three African countries that must be automatically downgraded unless they significantly improved efforts to fight human trafficking in 2014: Burundi, Comoros, and Angola. The shared tragedy of these countries is that it is their children who are being trafficked. Chinese nationals in Angola exploit the Angolan children in construction, rice farming, and brick making. In Comoros, poor families place their children with wealthy relatives, who then exploit them in domestic servitude. Similarly, in Burundi, family members sometimes profit from the prostitution of children with tourists or, according to the State Department, ``teachers, police officers, and gendarme, military and prison officials.'' In 2013, as automatic downgrade loomed, the President of Comoros finally admitted his country had a trafficking issue and the National Assembly changed the penal code. Angola and Burundi have also amended their penal codes while on the Watch List. Aggressive implementation of these anti-trafficking laws would keep them off Tier 3, as well as protect children from trafficking. I earnestly hope implementation has been a priority. The Southeast Asia region continues to struggle with particularly acute and entrenched human trafficking. Thailand and Malaysia were downgraded to Tier 3 last year. Burma must receive a presidential waiver this year to avoid Tier 3. One of the key drivers of intense human trafficking in the region is the vulnerability and desperation of the Muslim minority Rohingya people. Squalid living conditions in displacement camps, discrimination, child limitation, and violence are pushing the Rohingya out of Buddhist-dominated Burma into the hands of human traffickers who claim to have jobs for them in Muslim-majority Malaysia. However, according to reports by Reuters last year, many Rohingya never make it to Malaysia, and instead end up in tropical gulags in the jungles of Thailand, where they are held for ransom. Many die from abuse and disease. Those who cannot pay the ransom are sold into sex slavery or forced labor, often in the fishing industry. Thai General Prayuth Chan-ocha has vowed to crack down on any Thai authorities involved and to bring an end to the practice. While we have seen an impressive number and variety of anti-trafficking efforts in Thailand during the last year--including a new law in March that heightened penalties to life imprisonment for traffickers--prosecutions have significantly diminished in the last year. Prosecutions regarding trafficking of Rohingya migrants seem particularly low. Nevertheless, over the last year, Thailand has taken concrete steps to register nearly 100,000 migrants, amend laws related to the fishing sector, raise the minimum age for labor at sea to 18 years old, set mandatory rest periods and employment contract requirements, and inspect hundreds of boats. And we also need to look at ourselves, and ask too whether we are complicit in abetting trafficking, perhaps unwittingly. Last month, for example, the Associated Press documented Thai boats picking up seafood in Indonesia caught by Burmese slaves who, when not at sea, are kept in cages on remote Indonesian islands. The seafood was taken back to Thai ports and processed by the company that owns Chicken of the Sea. Much of the tainted seafood may have entered the supply chain to reach the shelves of American grocery stores and, through vendors such as Sysco, have landed on the plates of our service men and women. There are nevertheless success stories, and Thailand has been a stalwart partner with the United States in fighting the sex tourism that drives sex trafficking. The Philippines also has worked with us in fighting sex tourists and helping the victims of trafficking--indeed, one of the witnesses we will hear from is a priest whose faith-based organization has helped thousands heal from the horrors of human trafficking. Finally, a word to those who think that our TIP report embarrasses allies and undercuts our efforts to cultivate friendly ties around the globe. I will never forget two of our closest allies, Israel and South Korea, at one point were both on Tier 3, the worst rank. I remember meeting with their Ambassadors who had files demonstrating to all of us and anyone who would listen the measures they were taking to mitigate this terrible crime. And both of those countries got off Tier 3 when they backed words with substantive action. Rather than alienating them, the exercise underscored that friends watch out for each other, and that we must call upon our friends to live up to the high ideals they profess. Ultimately, countries that do live up to their ideals show they value and treasure their citizens-- their greatest resource--and in the long run will benefit the most.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to Autism Awareness Month and a huge yet largely invisible crisis that begs serious focus and a concerted national effort. Every year, 50,000 young people on the autism spectrum transition into adulthood and are in the process of losing access to the vital educational, therapeutic and other services which enable them to live full, independent and successful lives. Individuals with autism in the aging out generation find themselves entering into a system unprepared to meet their needs, and as a result face shrinking opportunities--and in many cases even regression. As co-chairs of the Congressional Coalition on Autism Research and Education, Congressman Mike Doyle and I hosted a briefing called ``Autism and the Aging Out Crisis.'' We brought together prominent researchers, parents of autistic children and self-advocates to discuss how to best respond to the needs of this growing demographic. Jonathan Kratchman, a 17-year-old with Asperger's from New Jersey, spoke and stated that ``many people with autism can be contributing, tax paying citizens of society. We just all need some level of funding for the support services that we were entitled to before graduation.'' High school students are given services and supports to help prepare them for young adulthood. However, when they graduate, they face a support cliff--their services end and limited options remain available to continue development. Many of us view high school graduation as a proud accomplishment-- when hard work pays off and we become participants in an adult society. For adolescents on the autism spectrum like Jonathan, a diploma can represent the end of an era without a new beginning. The support that allowed them to continue their development and remain in the community is quickly and dramatically reduced. The challenges ahead can seem overwhelming. According to a report released this week from Drexel University researcher Dr. Paul Shattuck--who participated in the briefing and whose work was prompted by my recent law--40% of autistic youths do not receive mental health therapy, speech counseling, case management, or even medical services related to their disability once they reach early adulthood. 26% of young adults on the autism spectrum received no services whatsoever to help them become employed, continue their education, or live more independently. Further, the consequences of the cliff are tangible and profound. One third of young adults with autism did not continue their education or get a job in their early 20s, compared to less than 8% of young adults with other disabilities. Individuals with autism from low-income households were almost twice as likely not to continue their education or find meaningful employment. The study found individuals with autism who transition into adulthood continue to struggle with communication, social skills, and decision making; confront behavioral challenges; and face co-morbid medical conditions and co-occurring mental health disorders related to their diagnosis. When the services which help them to address these challenges evaporate, not only do these individuals fail to progress in these areas, they are profoundly impacted by the loss of their routine, and many regress. Mr. Speaker, autism does not end when a person reaches adulthood-- and our commitment shouldn't either. Support should transition along with the individuals, bolstering the promise and realization of self- sufficiency. My Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education, and Support Act of 2014 or the ``Autism CARES Act'' (Public Law 113-157) began this conversation by tasking multiple federal agencies with producing a comprehensive study on the special needs of autistic young adults and transitioning youth. As researchers, parents, and advocates indicated in the briefing today, we need a holistic approach--one that looks at healthcare, housing, employment, education and public safety, among other needs. With the assistance of Chairmen Fred Upton and Joe Pitts, last year I also requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report evaluating existing programs for effectiveness and making recommendations--in consultation with key stakeholders--on how the public and private sectors can advance initiatives to ensure a better transition. The briefing is the first in a series the Caucus will host--building on my recent hearing ``The Global Challenge of Autism''--to highlight the aging out crisis and explore remedial action. In addition to the importance of transition planning, there is evidence that with specialized support, employment is feasible even among individuals with high levels of impairment. At my hearing, Jose Velasco, Vice President of Product Management at software giant SAP discussed their process of actively recruiting and hiring over 700 young adults on the autism spectrum. Management at SAP has recently told me that SAP's diligent young employees with autism are extraordinarily effective workers, and the corporation and the employees mutually benefit through this innovative alliance. We have an obligation to help individuals with disabilities grow into adulthood. It is not only the right thing to do; it's a smart investment of taxpayer dollars that lower costs in the long run. The University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities estimates that: ``Diverting just one young person into living-wage employment could save an average of $150,000 in SSI benefits over their lifetime. According to the Social Security Administration, transitioning just one half of one percent of current SSDI and SSI beneficiaries from benefits to self-sustaining employment would save $3.5 billion in cash benefits over the work-life of those individuals.'' By investing in and harnessing the potential of young adults with autism, we as a society will benefit from the unique skills, abilities, and perspectives of the aging out generation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) are a group of 17 parasitic and bacterial diseases which blind, disable, disfigure, and sometimes kill sufferers among more than one billion of the world's poorest people, trapping the most marginalized communities in a cycle of poverty. The list ranges from chagas to rabies to leprosy to dengue fever. However, there are others not on this list of 17 diseases that also receive too little attention. These include such diseases as polio and smallpox, which have largely been eliminated from the planet, and often fatal, fortunately rare NTDs, such as kuru. Prior to last year, that list of rare diseases included Ebola. Even though not immediately fatal, these diseases can keep children from attending school and their parents from working, as well as resulting in excessive loss of blood by mothers during birth and low birth weight babies. These conditions constitute a significant hurdle to achieving economic growth and dilute the impact of foreign assistance programs. Last year, the world witnessed an Ebola disease pandemic that hit six African countries and spread to Spain, Scotland, and the United States. Furthermore, in recent years diseases such as dengue fever and chickugunya have spread into the United States. These and other tropical diseases most often victimize the poor who live in tropical climates--whether in Africa, Latin America or parts of the United States. Even in the face of the worldwide challenge these tropical diseases pose, the administration has proposed cutting the budget in this area by 17%. Yesterday's hearing examined the problem of neglected tropical diseases and U.S. current and potential efforts to address this problem. Eight NTDs account for almost all worldwide cases. Seven of them can be treated with low-cost medication that can be dispensed by non-health workers irrespective of disease status. Nearly 80% of all NTD cases are comprised of people carrying intestinal worms. In our June 27, 2013, hearing on NTDs, we learned the catastrophic nature of these preventable intestinal worm infections. So many of the problems we struggle with, such as difficult births and malnourishment, cannot be remedied without dealing with the infections themselves. These intestinal worms not only steal nutrients from their hosts; they steal their very futures by denying them a healthy life. We can no longer look at photos of happy young children standing in muddy water without shoes and not think of the possibility that they are losing their future even as we see them enjoy a break from the poverty in which they live. Yet we must understand that these are not merely diseases affecting people in faraway lands. Current U.S. law favors research on those diseases threatening the American homeland, but in today's world, diseases can cross borders as easily as those affected by them or the products imported into the United States. For example, chagas is most prevalent in Latin America, but it has been identified in patients in Texas, and cases of dengue fever have recently been reported in Florida. We cannot afford to assume that what may seem to be exotic diseases only happen to people in other countries. (And of course, even if that were true, we have a moral obligation to aid and assist those who contract these diseases and mitigate transmittal to the greatest extent possible). Ten years ago, West Nile Virus, another rare disease, was not seen in the United States or anywhere else outside the east African nation of Uganda, but in less than a decade, it has spread across this country and much of the rest of the world. More than 10,000 people have died of Ebola worldwide thus far. Although only one person died in this country due to that disease, we saw clearly how unprepared our medical services and the rest of the world were initially to deal with a rare disease that had previously been confined to isolated areas in Central Africa. There are other rare diseases--not to mention the recognized NTDs--that can cause havoc if they find their way to populated international transit areas as Ebola did last year. Meanwhile, far too many people live lives of quiet suffering from diseases we must fight more effectively. This is why I have introduced H.R. 1797, the End Neglected Tropical Diseases Act. Among other provisions, H.R. 1797 calls on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to modify its NTD programming with respect to rapid impact package treatments, school-based NTD programs and new approaches to reach the goals of eliminating NTDs. This bill also sets forth measures to expand the USAID program, including by establishment of a research and development program. In our effort to achieve reachable goals to prevent and eliminate NTDs, the projected 17% cut in funding for such projects in the FY 2016 budget would pose a serious setback. I have appealed to the appropriators to maintain NTD spending at the most recent regular budget levels in FY 2014, and our hearing yesterday examined how our current NTD programs will be affected either by the planned budget cut or by maintaining the level of funding we saw before the Ebola response skewed the level of such funding.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last month I held a hearing to continue and increase attention on international parental child abduction, whose victims include primarily children denied the love and attention of one of their parents, and parents cut off from the children they love. Every year, approximately 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. Most of the left-behind parents in the audience at last month's hearing have not seen their children in years and know all too well the financial, legal, cultural, and linguistic obstacles to bringing their children home from a foreign country. Many of them had already been through U.S. judicial proceedings prior to the abduction, and the courts had settled custody and visitation, only to have a kidnapping spouse defy a court order. Other parents were caught completely by surprise when a spouse's vacation turned into an abduction, a phone call in the middle of the night telling them that would never again see their child. Their suffering is exponentially compounded by knowledge of the pain caused to their child by the separation. Child abduction is child abuse. Parentally-abducted children are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems, and may experience anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness. These young victims, like their left-behind parents, are American citizens who need the help of their government when normal legal processes are unavailable or have failed. In 1983, the United States ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to try to address abduction and access. This convention creates a civil framework for the quick return of abducted children and for rights of access for left- behind parents. Absent extenuating circumstances, the child, or children, are to be returned within 6 weeks to his or her country of habitual residence for the courts there to decide on custody, or to enforce any previous custody determinations. The Convention has helped return some children but implementation has been unpredictable and spotty at best. Susceptible to abuse by taking parents or judges who either don't understand their obligations under the Convention or are unwilling to abide by them, the Convention has too often been stretched to provide cover for the abduction, rather than recovery of the child. Some Hague Convention parties are simply not enforcing legitimate return orders. The State Department's 2014 Hague Convention Compliance Report highlights four countries--Brazil, Mexico, Romania, and Ukraine--that habitually fail to enforce return orders. Other countries--Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Bahamas--are non- compliant with the Convention. In other words, abducted American children are not coming home from these countries and so many other countries where the Convention operates weakly, or with which the U.S. has no bilateral agreement of any kind. To give one more example, Jeffery Morehouse a left behind parent testified that ``there have been 400 cases of U.S. children kidnaped to Japan since 1994.'' We do not know of a single case, however, in which the Government of Japan has issued and enforced an order for the return of an abducted child to the United States. And, I must emphasize, that since they have signed the Hague, Japan's efforts have been breathtakingly unresponsive especially for abductions that occurred prior to their ratification of the Hague Convention. Mr. Morehouse testified that, ``one year ago next week, at the very moment Japan acceded to the Hague Abduction Convention, parents joined us to hand-deliver 30 Article 21 Access applications (I joined those parents at the Japanese Embassy) . . . none of the BAC Home parents have received access to their kidnapped children. Japan's implementation of the Hague Abduction Convention is an abysmal failure. Sanctions under the Goldman Act will provide some of the necessary public pressures on Japan to create change to this ongoing human and family rights crisis.'' The status quo is simply unacceptable. Over the last 5 years, many of those at the hearing helped me write and pass through the Congress the Sean and David Goldman Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act. Last month's hearing occurs more than seven months after the Goldman Act became law and gave us an opportunity to hear from the State Department and parents whether the bill's key provisions are being implemented according to the law. A brief refresher on Sean and David: David Goldman spent over 5 agonizing years trying to legally rescue his son, Sean, from an abduction to Brazil, which is a signatory nation, like the United States, to the Hague Abduction Convention. Despite Mr. Goldman's airtight case that demonstrated an egregious example of both child abduction and wrongful retention, the Hague treaty was unavailing, and the outcomes in the Brazilian courts largely proved infuriating, infirm, and ineffective. David Goldman waged his case by the book and won judgments in the New Jersey courts. Yet both Sean and David were made to suffer emotional pain for over half a decade as one delaying ploy after another was employed by the abducting party. In the end, because of the father's abiding love for his son and an indomitable will, the Goldmans today are united and happy. To underscore: the Goldman Act was not intended to simply reform the system, but to bring about a fundamental sea change in U.S. diplomacy so that State Department officials would see themselves as advocates for the return of abducted American children. Now under the Goldman Act, when a country fails to appropriately address an abduction case pending more than 12 months, the law requires the Secretary of State to take action. When a country has more than 30% of its U.S. cases pending for more than a year, the law requires the Secretary of State to designate the country as ``Non-Compliant'' in an annual report, and take action. The Goldman Act specifically lists the increasingly escalating actions that Congress has in mind, from a demarche--or a protest through diplomatic channels--to a public condemnation to a delay or cancellation of one or more bilateral visits and even the withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of foreign assistance including non- humanitarian aid and including security assistance to the central government of a country. These are serious sanctions that must be seriously applied by a country that takes parental child abduction seriously. We may also request extradition where appropriate. If these measures sound pointed, it is because they are intended to focus the destination country on quick and accurate resolution of abduction and access cases. The Goldman Act was written to cover countries that have signed the Hague Convention, such as Brazil; countries that have not signed the Convention, such as India; and countries that have a mix of open abduction cases from before and after signing the Hague Convention, such as Japan. In 2013, India was the number three destination in the world for parents who abducted from the United States. Currently, there are 64 known open abduction and denial of access cases involving India. And yet the United States does not have any sort of resolution mechanism with India. Moms and dads left behind in the United States are forced to enter a labyrinthine foreign court system known for its incessant appeals and multi-year delays. But now the Goldman Act applies. India will now face real penalties for any case that has been pending for more than one year, and will be ``named and shamed'' in the State Department's report. As with the State Department's annual trafficking report, there is morally suasive value in simply reporting what a country does, and some countries will I am sure respond to such moral pressure. Thus we expect the State Department to apply these penalties zealously, and to work with India on establishing a bilateral agreement for the efficient and fair resolution of abduction and access cases. If the State Department faithfully applies the law as written, it will be in India's interest to come to the negotiating table. The same holds true for Japan, even though Japan recently signed the Hague Convention. Among such cases is that of 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 will protect her, but what is our country doing to protect Michael and his children? While the State Department has touted Japan's accession to the Hague Convention as an accomplishment, Japan has said the Convention would only apply in post-ratification cases. As Ambassador Jacobs knows, I and several others predicted that unless a MOU or other bilateral agreement was concluded with Japan, American children and their left behind parents will be left behind in perpetuity. I ask to my friends at the State Department, what then is to happen for parents already suffering from abductions prior to ratification? Would they be left- behind again--this time by their own government? I know Ambassador Jacobs, who testified at last month's hearing, as recently as February 2014 in her testimony before the Senate, stated that she would continue to make ``progress with the Japanese government on resolving existing cases in the spirit of the Convention.'' The Goldman Act requires accountability for the Japanese government on the abduction cases open at the time Japan signed the Convention. Unless Japan resolves scores of American cases before the end of next month, nearly 100% of abduction cases in Japan will still be unresolved and Goldman Act penalties will apply. 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.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last month I chaired a Congressional hearing where we welcomed as witnesses Ambassador Ronald Lauder, the President of the World Jewish Congress; Mr. Roger Cukierman, President of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France; and Mr. Dan Asmusssen, Chairperson of the Danish Jewish Community. In 1982, during my first term in Congress, I traveled with the National Conference on Soviet Jewry (NCSJ) to Moscow and Leningrad to meet Jewish refuseniks in their homes and to engage Soviet leaders. Mark Levin invited me to be on that trip and has been a friend and mentor ever since. For hours on end, Mark and I, and a delegation that included Sam Gejdenson, heard stories of Soviet physical and mental abuse, systemic harassment, gulags and psychiatric prisons and an array of seemingly wanton brutal acts of anti-Semitism. To apply for an exit visa--a universally recognized human right, which on paper at least, the Soviet Union had acceded to--was to invite the cruelty and wrath of the KGB and other small minded, morally- stunted communist thugs. To courageously seek freedom rendered you ineligible for employment in Lenin's farcical ``workers paradise.'' The Soviet system, militantly atheistic and morally incoherent, wouldn't let you leave, but didn't want you to stay either--a bizarre paradox. To a new 27 year old Congressman, it was bewildering and deeply troubling--why do they hate Jews? Why the anti-Semitic obsession? I have now chaired nine hearings on combatting anti-Semitism. Never in modern times however, has the need to defend Jews everywhere been greater. My next hearings will be on the explosion of anti-Semitic hate on the college campus and Jewish community security. For the first time since the Holocaust, the physical security of Jewish communities in Europe has become a top-level concern. The hearing I held last month examined the horrifying state of affairs facing Jewish communities in Europe at this time. At a Congressional hearing I chaired in 2002, Dr. Shimon Samuels of the Wiesenthal Center in Paris testified that, ``The Holocaust for 30 years after the war acted as a protective teflon against blatant anti- Semitic expression (especially in Europe). That teflon has eroded, and what was considered distasteful and politically incorrect is becoming simply an opinion. But cocktail chatter at fine English dinners can end as Molotov cocktails against synagogues.'' That's exactly where we are now, thirteen years later--what was anti-Semitic ``cocktail chatter'' then has led us now to two people shot and killed at a synagogue and a Jewish cultural center in Copenhagen, and four killed in a terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris. These are only the most recent outrages in a terrifying increase in extreme anti-Semitic violence--let's not forget the May 2014 murder of four people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, and the March 2012 murder of three Jewish children and a rabbi at a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse. Each of these four attacks was perpetrated by a killer with links to the jihadist movement. For too long, far too government officials, many of them mired in what Natan Sharansky summarized as the application of double standards and demonization of Israel, have reacted weakly to this danger. Meanwhile, the threat has grown exponentially. Today, at least 3,000 and perhaps more than 5,000 EU citizens, have left to join ISIS in Syria, Iraq and other conflict zones. This is the recent estimate of Europol, the EU's joint criminal intelligence body. It would be criminally irresponsible not to take this number as a warning of much worse to come, and to make every effort to prepare accordingly. In 2002, in response to what appeared to be a sudden, frightening spike in anti-Semitism in several countries, including here in the United States, I first proposed the idea for a conference on combating anti-Semitism under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Convinced we had escalating crisis on our hands, I teamed with several OSCE partners to push for action and reform. Many of the people and NGOs present in this room played leading roles. Those efforts directly led to the creation of the OSCE's Personal Representative on Combating Anti-Semitism, which has been filled by Rabbi Andy Baker since 2009. Rabbi Baker has done outstanding work. Dogged and energetic, he has been the driver behind everything the OSCE has accomplished in fighting anti-Semitism in recent years. My efforts with partners to put anti-Semitism on the OSCE agenda also led to important OSCE conferences on combating anti-Semitism in Vienna, Berlin, Cordoba, Bucharest--and last fall in Berlin. In each of these, participating states have made solemn, tangible commitments to put our words into action. In some countries, progress has indeed been made--institutions to fight anti-Semitism have been created, and they have done excellent work. But it has not been enough to reverse the new anti-Semitism in Europe, and failed miserably to anticipate and prevent the arrival of jihadist anti-Semitism in Europe. That is why I convened the hearing, to review, re-commit, and re- energize efforts to stop the evil anti-Semitic violence that is threatening the Jewish communities of Europe. We need to learn more about what must be done to ensure community security--how the communities see the threats they face, what they are doing about them, what the European governments are doing about them-- and how everyone can and must do more. We also need to learn how the U.S. Government can be more effective especially in light of World Jewish Congress President Lauder's all important question: ``where is the United States?'' Ambassador Lauder testified: ``once again, like the 1930s, European Jews live in fear . . . In my travels to all of these communities, I am asked the same question around Europe and the world: `where is the United States? Why isn't the United States leading the world in this crisis?' ''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, genocide is the most terrible crime a people can undergo, or another people can commit. It must never be forgotten--to forget it would be to dull our consciences and diminish our own humanity. It must never be denied, but fully acknowledged--otherwise any meaningful attempt at reconciliation will be thwarted. Last weekend I was present as Brookdale College, the Center for Holocaust, Human Rights, and Genocide Education presented two exhibits and launched a book on the Armenian genocide. The exhibit A Journey to Life: Armenia teaches the history of the Armenian Genocide through the lives of local Armenian Genocide Survivors who settled in Monmouth County, while Illuminating Images: A Hundred Year Remembrance is an art exhibit created by middle school, high school and college students from across the county and beyond. The book released last weekend was Hundred-Year Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide: Celebrating the Lives of Armenian Genocide Survivors in Our Community, which features the personal histories of 54 Survivors who lived in Monmouth County. Everyone who contributed to these exhibits and this book has performed a great service to New Jersey--not only to Armenian-Americans, but to everyone, including those who deny the genocide. They opened paths to the truth, and therefore to a better future. In September 2000 I chaired a hearing on the Armenian Genocide and co-sponsored legislation to finally put the United States on record officially acknowledging it. It was a four-hour hearing, the first hearing the House of Representatives ever held on the Armenian Genocide. The testimony I heard that day, and accounts of the atrocities I have read in the articles and books over the years have shocked me deeply. The resolution H. Res. 398--vigorously opposed by the Clinton Administration--never got a vote. But just as shocking then is what we still see today: a completely political and callous campaign to deny the Armenian genocide. In 1915, there were about 2 million Armenians living in what was then the Ottoman Empire. They were living in a region that they inhabited for 2,500 years. By 1923, well over 90 percent of these Armenians had disappeared. Most of them, as many as 1.5 million, were dead. The remainder had been forced into exile. There is no lack of historical record. In fact, we only have to listen to the words of the US Ambassador to Turkey at the time, Henry Morgenthau, who called it a ``campaign of race extermination.'' We only have to listen to the British, French, and Russian governments who said the Young Turks committed a ``crime against humanity,'' the first time in history that charge was ever made by one state against another. And we only have to listen to the government of Turkey itself, which tried and convicted a number of high-ranking Young Turk officials for their role in what the Turkish government's indictment called, ``the massacre and destruction of the Armenians.'' When the term genocide was invented in 1944 to describe the systematic destruction of an entire people, its author Raphael Lemkin explained the term by saying it was ``the sort of thing Hitler did to the Jews and the Turks did to the Armenians.'' The campaign to deny this genocide--often driven by the Turkish government--is repulsive. It is a slap in the face to Armenians everywhere. It is this denial that keeps the Armenian genocide a burning issue and prevents much needed healing of old wounds. Armenians are unfortunately not alone in suffering the hurt and pain that stems from the denial of truth. The international community failed the victims of the Holocaust, China, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Bosnia, DRC, Darfur, Syria to name a few. That means that we here in the United States, and that means not only the Congress but also the President, have the responsibility to speak truthfully and to speak boldly about the past in order to secure our future. We must write and speak the truth so that generations to come will not repeat the mistakes of the past. Only 20 nations around the world have recognized the Armenian Genocide. That includes Canada as well as eleven EU countries including France, Germany Italy, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Greece and Cypress. Conspicuously absent from the list of nations that have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide is the United States of America. When political leaders fail to lead or denounce violence, the void is not only demoralizing to the victims but silence actually enables the wrongdoing. Silence by elected officials in particular conveys approval--or at least acquiescence--and can contribute to a climate of fear and a sense of vulnerability. History has taught us that silence is not an option. We must do more.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Equal Pay Day and call for long overdue passage of legislation to strengthen the Equal Pay Act. According to the American Association of University Women, women in my state of New Jersey have a wage gap of 80 percent--for every dollar men in New Jersey make, women make only 80 cents. Nationally, it's 78 cents. All told, over the lifetime of work, college educated women will lose an estimated $1.2 million as a result of the pay gap. The wage gap is not just a women's issue, it's a family issue. Four in 10 American households with children now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family. Closing the wage gap would allow women to invest more in their children's health and wellbeing and help boost economic stability and security for American families. As a remedy, I twice supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, now Public Law 111-2. By overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber, we restored and enhanced both the protections against pay discrimination in the workplace and the remedies available for women who have been discriminated against. While the Ledbetter law was a clear step in the right direction, the numbers demonstrate how much more work we as a society have to do. Today, I signed on as a cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act-- legislation I have previously supported twice when it was brought to the floor of the House for a vote. The Paycheck Fairness Act would increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for equal work, create a grant program for negotiation skills training for women and girls, and increase training and outreach to ensure effective implementation. This legislation would build on the Equal Pay Act and the Ledbetter law by disincentivizing pay discrimination and encouraging employers to enforce equal pay for equal work. Mr. Speaker, based on data between 2003 and 2013, AAUW predicts that if current trends continue, the wage gap will not close for 124 years. Over 50 years after the signing of the Equal Pay Act, we are still more than a century away from equal pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act is necessary to reverse the current trajectory and help accelerate progress to our shared goal of equal work for equal pay.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague, Mr. Stewart, for reserving this time to send a message of vigorous, unequivocal, and unflinching U.S. support for Israel. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of Prime Minister Netanyahu's historic address, we have to join his efforts to set the focus on the existential, genocidal threat Iran poses to Israel. We have to be realistic about Iranian President Rouhani because many in the media--and some in the administration--have been reluctant to do that. Rouhani has a long history of murderous anti-Semitism and anti- Americanism. The corpses are all over the globe. Rouhani chaired Iran's National Security Council from 1989 to 2005-- the years when Iran plotted the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish cultural center, which killed 85 people in Buenos Aires. The 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers was also under his tenure--this one killed 19 U.S. servicemen in Saudi Arabia. He continues to support the global terrorism of Hezbollah. Likewise, Rouhani's defense minister, Hossein Dehghan, participated in plotting the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut--this crime took the lives of 241 Americans, including Paul Innocenzi from my district. His Justice Minister, Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, played a role in 1988 and 1998 in the summary executions of Iranian political prisoners and killings of intellectuals, as well as assassinations abroad. Mr. Speaker, this is the man that our government and Prime Minister Netanyahu are dealing with. For 16 years Rouhani ran Iran's nuclear program. He has boasted openly of his success in using negotiations as a tool to buy time to advance his program. The question before us is whether the agreement President Obama is trying to close with Rouhani is yet another deal favorable to the Iranian government, allowing it to move the hand on the nuclear clock yet closer to midnight. There are many signs that this is the case. Most reports on the negotiations are that the administration is not trying to prevent a nuclear Iran, but only to preserve some ``breakout time''--yet will not require the kind of transparency to make even that a remotely reliable measure. Even worse, it seems the administration is prepared to accept a ``sunset clause''--a date after which Iranian nuclear arms would be completely legitimated. And the deal being crafted reportedly ignores Iran's ballistic missile program. All this amounts to a potential catastrophe. Unfortunately, the administration seems to have telegraphed its determination to get a deal with Rouhani--almost any deal--and to shut Congress out. This is why I am concerned, and why we in Congress and the American people need to hear all the more from Prime Minister Netanyahu. Let's let the Prime Minister know that Congress and the American people stand with Israel, without any `ifs,' or `buts,' or `so long as,' or any other qualifiers, and without any illusions about the murderous and manipulative intentions of Rouhani. I'd like to close by thanking Speaker Boehner for inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I held a hearing to examine the state of human rights in Cuba, which is a very timely topic indeed, given the Obama administration's sea change in policy toward Cuba announced at the end of last year. I have repeatedly asked whether in undertaking this change in policy, the Obama administration used the considerable leverage that it wields to seek to better the condition of the Cuban people, or whether, as I fear, an opportunity was squandered in its haste to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough and create a legacy for the President. The hearing was not only about Castro regime accountability, but also Obama administration accountability, with Congress exercising its role of both oversight and as a bully pulpit for reminding the world that Cuba remains a Communist dictatorship which continues to arrest political dissidents--over 200 so far in 2015--and one whose caudillo, Raul Castro, has declared would not change, even in response to the Obama administration's concessions. This Castro regime continues to harbor fugitives from justice such as Joanne Chesimard, who was convicted in the 1973 murder of a state trooper in my home state of New Jersey, Officer Werner Foerster. Indeed, earlier this month, we had the Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Roberta Jacobson appear before the full Foreign Affairs Committee. I asked her what the response of the Cuban Government was when she raised the issue of the return of Joanne Chesimard to justice. She replied that the Cuban Government stated that it was ``not interested in discussing her return.'' This is unacceptable. I received a statement from Christopher J. Burgos, the President of the State Troopers Fraternal Organization of New Jersey, wherein he states on behalf of our Jersey State Troopers that ``We are shocked and very disappointed that returning a convicted killer of a State Trooper was not already demanded and accomplished in the context of the steps announced by the White House regarding this despotic dictatorship.'' We had with us three very brave and uniquely qualified witnesses to the brutality of the Cuban dictatorship, three human rights activists who at great personal cost to themselves and their families stood up for human dignity. We heard about the deplorable state of human rights in Cuba, how Afro-Cubans in particular face discrimination on a day-to-day basis, and the brutality with which human rights activists, including women, are treated. We heard of murders sanctioned by the government, of beatings, of arrests and re-arrests. And I would also like to point out that after testifying here, in public, two of our witnesses returned to Cuba. They know that one day the regime will exact a price against them for their temerity. Yet they insisted on appearing, so that they can share the truth of what is happening in their beloved isle. What bravery! I therefore would like to dedicate the hearing I held to the Cuban people, who have suffered for so many decades under the brutal regime of the Castro brothers, and to thank our witnesses for testifying. I also would like to thank in particular my dear friend and colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership day-in-and-day-out, in good weather and in bad, on behalf of the people of not only Cuba, but in countries such as Venezuela, China, and Vietnam, where the people continue to suffer under oppressive rulers. Thank you, Ileana, for your leadership and moral clarity. It is thus my belief that there should be no easing of the pressure until Cuba has met definitive and concrete human rights and democratic milestones. Among these milestones are the release of all political prisoners, the end of harassment and a policy of releasing and then re- jailing, the ending of restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, and on the rights of Assembly. Moreover, the Church must be allowed to conduct its affairs fully and freely without government interference. And, finally, the Castro regime must be held to account for their harboring of some seventy fugitives from justice, including Joanne Chesimard, who is on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list. To that end, I would like to state that I intend to introduce legislation that will complement our existing legislation on Cuba, in particular Helms-Burton, making sure that important human rights milestones are met before our government makes concessions that are effectively unilateral, squandering leverage.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation and is the continent's largest economy. Unfortunately, Nigeria is beset by various challenges that threaten the peace and stability of this African giant. The terrorist group Boko Haram continues its bloody reign of terror, now threatening to establish a ``caliphate'' on the model of ISIS in the Levant. Religious and ethnic discord, which pre-dates Boko Haram's emergence, continues unabated. Lower oil prices have serious damaged an economy significantly dependent on oil revenues. Meanwhile, the prospect of a violent repeat of the 2011 post-election scene has ratcheted up tensions in Nigeria even further. A hearing that I recently held examined the situation in Nigeria and the U.S. efforts to maintain positive relations with the largest U.S. trading partner in Africa and a major ally in international peacekeeping. U.S.-Nigeria relations were understandably rocky during the military rule of Sani Abacha in the 1990s. However, the advent of democracy with the 1999 elections ushered in an improved atmosphere of cooperation. Nigeria consistently ranks among the top recipients of U.S. bilateral foreign assistance and is the second-largest beneficiary of U.S. investment in Africa. In recent months, though, our relations have deteriorated. Apparently, some in the government of President Goodluck Jonathan feel the United States is meddling in their internal affairs, especially when it comes to our noting deprival of the due process rights of citizens by Nigerian military and security forces. Our view is that friends don't just stand by when friends commit human rights abuses. The subcommittee that I chair held a hearing last July 10th to examine the complaints that human rights vetting was a major obstacle to U.S. counterterrorism. What we found was that the State Department estimated that half of Nigerian forces would pass our vetting process, which we found is slowed by too few staff working on these important issues. Still, the Nigerian Government must be more cooperative. Some units in larger divisions may have human rights issues, but if replaced by units without such baggage, there would be created an entirely acceptable division for training. Late last year, the Nigerian Government cancelled the counter-terrorism training of one of its battalions, which now places the entire training program on hold. We are making arrangements for discussions in the near future with Nigerian Military officials and Members of Congress and the Obama administration to overcome the current stalemate and resume the cooperation necessary to meet the challenge posed by Boko Haram. This terrorist group has wreaked havoc on the people of Nigeria, particularly in the northeast. It is estimated that more than 5,500 people were killed in Boko Haram attacks last year alone, representing more than 60% of the more than 9,000 deaths caused by this group in the past five years. As many as 2,000 people may have perished in the Boko Haram attack on the town of Baga and nearby villages last month. More than a million Nigerians have been displaced internally by the violence, and tens of thousands of others are now refugees in neighboring countries. Clearly, Boko Haram violence is escalating drastically. Boko Haram has become part of the global jihadist movement and threatens not only Nigeria, but also Cameroon, Chad and Niger. While the terrorist group may not be an official affiliate of al-Qaeda or ISIS, they appear to be trying to create an Islamic caliphate in Nigeria. Various press reports estimate that the group has seized as much as 70% of Borno state, with additional territory under its control in neighboring Yobe and Adamawa states. In fact, Reuters calculated that by mid-January of this year, Boko Haram was in control of more than 30,000 square kilometers of territory--an area the size of the state of Maryland. For approximately two years, I pressed the administration to designate Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist organization (FTO). I argued that, like cancer, early intervention can mitigate its spread, severity and duration. I traveled to Nigeria twice and convened three hearings during the last Congress on why an FTO designation might help, only to be told by then-Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson that ``the phenomenon of Boko Haram is one of discrediting the Central Government in power for its failure to deliver services to people.'' On the very day of our hearing to consider a bill on FTO designation, the state Department, led by Secretary of State Kerry announced that Boko Haram was being designated a Foreign Terrorist organization. Meanwhile, Nigeria faces the prospects of post-election violence after presidential voting. The race pits President Jonathan against former Nigerian military ruler General Muhammadu Buhari in a re-run of the 2011 elections. This time, however, Buhari's All Progressive Congress (APC) is a coalition of major opposition political parties and includes defectors from President Jonathan's People's Democratic Party (PDP), such as Speaker of the National Assembly Aminu Tambuwal. Some PDP officials have referred to their opponents as ``Nigeria's Muslim Brotherhood,'' while APC officials accuse the Jonathan administration of representing only Christian southerners. Party spokesmen on both sides have warned of potential violence if their candidate doesn't win. Out of nearly 69 million registered voters in Nigeria, political observers believe this race could be decided by as few as 700,000 votes. Lack of action by the government to ensure that internally displaced voters can participate in the elections, delays in the distribution of voter cards and in the recruitment and training of poll workers places in question the effectiveness of the February elections. Moreover, the election laws require that a winning presidential candidate must achieve a majority of the votes and at least 25% of the vote in two-thirds of the states. With so much territory in the control of Boko Haram or under the threat of their violence in the North, the northern-based APC likely would question a loss even though they have refused to accept a delay in voting to ensure that pre-election preparations are complete. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 13% of Nigerians have confidence in the electoral process. This makes the ``Quick Count'' being planned by a coalition of Nigerian civil society groups vital in providing any confidence that the vote on February 14th reflects the will of the people. In the face of all the challenges faced by Nigeria, its allies--such as the United States--must understand fully the context of this situation in order to determine how best to be of help. We hope that the Nigerian Government resulting from the February elections will be accepting of outside advice and assistance. Nigeria is the proverbial ``too big to fail'' nation. A collapse of its economy, increase in refugees to its neighbors or spread of its homegrown terrorism to the region and the broader international community clearly will be problematic for more than just Nigeria. Religious extremism already is a problem elsewhere in the Sahel region. Last month, Muslim extremists destroyed more than 40 Christian churches in Niger because of what they felt was irreverent depictions of the prophet Mohammed--not in Niger but in Europe. The hearing was just the beginning of our renewed efforts to help Nigeria address the problems that threaten its stability. We must be honest with Nigerians and ourselves about the difficulties we both face. This is why we have asked our witnesses to give their honest assessments of where we are in the various situations Nigeria encounters and to suggest what actions our Government can and should take to be most helpful. It is in our mutual interest to do so, and therefore, we will continue our efforts to restore full military and security cooperation between our two countries.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the administration seems keen to reach a nuclear accord that relies on trust in the Iranian regime and perhaps even a de facto collaboration in the fight against ISIS, it is wise to consider and scrutinize the dismal human rights record of this country with which we are currently conducting negotiations based on good faith. How they treat their own people is illustrative of how they see and will treat outsiders. A hearing I convened yesterday provided a critical examination of human rights in Iran--which is important and necessary in its own right--and also placed it in the context of the administration's efforts to partner with this regime on critical issues. According to a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran, between July 2013 and June 2014, at least 852 people were executed in Iran. Shockingly, some of those executed were children under the age of 18. Iranian human rights activists place the number of people executed by the Iranian regime at 1,181. The current Department of State human rights report states that Iranian human rights violations include disappearances; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including judicially sanctioned amputation and flogging; rape, 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. While the Iranian constitution grants equal rights to all ethnic minorities and allows for minority languages to be used in the media and in schools, minorities do not enjoy equal rights, and the regime consistently denies their right to use their languages in school. In addition, a 1985 law, the Gozinesh (selection) law, prohibits non-Shia ethnic minorities from fully participating in civic life. That law and its associated provisions make full access to employment, education, and other areas conditional on devotion to the Islamic Republic and the tenets of Shia Islam. The regime disproportionately targets minority groups, including Kurds, Arabs, Azeris, and Baluchis for arbitrary arrest, prolonged detention, and physical abuse. These groups report political and socioeconomic discrimination, particularly in their access to economic aid, business licenses, university admissions, permission to publish books, and housing and land rights. Because of severe religious freedom abuses, our Government has designated Iran as a Country of Particular Concern since 1999. The frequent arrest and harassment of members of religious minorities has continued, following a significant increase in 2012. The government severely restricts religious freedom, and there have been reports of imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs. There have been continued reports of the government charging religious and ethnic minorities with ``enmity against God,'' ``anti-Islamic propaganda,'' or vague national security crimes for their religious activities. Those reportedly arrested on religious grounds faced poor prison conditions and treatment, as with most prisoners of conscience. One of those imprisoned on religious grounds is Pastor Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen and father of two--Rebekkah Grace and Jacob Cyrus--and a Christian imprisoned in Iran because of his faith. Pastor Abedini was imprisoned by the Iranian regime nearly 1,000 days ago, when members of the Revolutionary Guard pulled him off of a bus and placed him under house arrest. He was later taken away--in chains--to Evin Prison, where he has endured periods of solitary confinement, beatings, internal bleeding, death threats, and continued psychological torture, all because he would not deny his Christian faith. What was Pastor Abedini's crime? According to the court, he was a threat to the security of Iran because of his leadership role in Christian churches in 2000-2005. President Obama promised Pastor Abedini's son Jacob that he would do all he can to gain his father's release by the boy's birthday next month. Earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry, in answer to my question on this matter, said the administration was working quietly to gain Pastor Abedini's release as soon as possible. Let's hope. Meanwhile, Iran is repeatedly cited for virtually unrelenting repression of the Baha'i community, which Iran's Shiite Muslim clergy views as a heretical sect. Baha'i number about 300,000-350,000. At least 30 Baha'is remain imprisoned, and 60 were arrested in 2012. A February 2013 UN report said in that 110 Baha'is were in jail, with 133 more expected to start serving jail time. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the regime has executed more than 200 Baha'is. The regime frequently prevents many Baha'is from leaving the country, harasses and persecutes them, and generally disregards their property rights. Iranian regime officials reportedly offer Baha'is relief from mistreatment in exchange for recanting their religious affiliation. Iranian courts offer no recourse to the monstrous violation of human rights because without an independent judiciary, Iranians (and foreigners tried in those courts) are routinely denied fair public trials, sometimes resulting in executions without due process. This also results in ineffective implementation of civil judicial procedures and remedies and allows arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, and correspondence. This is the regime the administration trusts to make agreements and honor them. I call on the administration to do more than acknowledge these facts--it must take more seriously the blatant disregard of the rights of people and factor this into any interactions we have with this predatory regime. How can we make any binding agreement with such a dishonorable regime? That question remains to be answered.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize American Heart Month and commend the staff and volunteers of the American Heart Association, and the organizations in New Jersey and around the country for participating in this year's successful effort to raise awareness of heart disease and the associated risks. American Heart Month is a critical public awareness tool that helps promote heart-healthy lifestyles, with a focus on prevention and incorporating a healthy diet and exercise into all of our daily lives. Last Congress, I was honored to accept the position of co-chair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition. For nearly 20 years, the Coalition has served as a resource for all members of Congress and worked to advance federal policies that raise the quality of life for individuals with heart disease. The partnership of the Association and the Coalition is critical to raising awareness of the disease and ensuring those of us making decisions on funding and policy are educated on how what we do affects those suffering. The Association's briefings--which they organize throughout the year--are a key component of this strategy. Heart and stroke patients, as well as their loved ones and caregivers, need vocal advocates on Capitol Hill to ensure access to quality care and treatments. We have a duty to see that programs aimed at combating cardiovascular disease, or CVD, as well as medical research for prevention and treatment of stroke and heart attacks, are supported appropriately at the federal level. Mr. Speaker, the numbers and their public health implications are shocking. CVD is the nation's number one killer. A staggering 85.6 million people--1 in 3 American adults--suffer from heart disease, stroke, or other cardiovascular diseases. An American dies from cardiovascular disease every 40 seconds. It is estimated that by 2030, about 44% percent of all adult Americans will be affected by heart disease--with direct and indirect costs from CVD estimated to reach almost $1 trillion by 2030. Further, as both the Association and the CDC point out, heart disease is sometimes thought of as a ``man's disease.'' Yet, heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the No. 1 killer of women in the United States, claiming the lives of 398,035 women per year. According to the Heart Association, nearly half of all women are not aware that heart disease is the leading cause of death for women. That's worth repeating, Mr. Speaker. Every minute, one woman dies as a result of CVD or a stroke. The American Heart Association is leading the charge in raising awareness of this fact through coordinated campaigns, like National Wear Red Day and Go Red For Women. One organization working in my Congressional district is the Meridian Health Foundation's ``Women's Heart Fund.'' Since its inception in 2007, the Foundation--focused on promoting heart health in Monmouth and Ocean County--has funded nursing scholarships, equipment for management of the most severe heart attacks and vascular screenings, and boosted funding for the Pediatric Cardiology Program at the K. Hovnanian Children's Hospital and the CardioVascular Intensive Care Unit at the Jersey Shore University Medical Center, which opened last year. While American Heart Month comes to a close tomorrow, it's important we continue these efforts year round. I would like to thank all of my colleagues who are members of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition and urge those who have not yet joined to do so. Help us continue and grow the critical Coalition-Association partnership that is working to improve our constituents' health, families, and future.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the Autism Society of America's 50th Year Celebration and commemorate the organization on five decades of extraordinary service and effective advocacy on behalf of the autism community. In 1964, concerned parents of children with autism--including Ruth Sullivan, Dr. Bernie Rimand and Dan Torisky--joined together to form what is now called the Autism Society of America. Continuing to implement the vision of its founders, the Society today is a grassroots organization that ensures parents have quality options and the supports necessary for their child to live and prosper in our communities. The Autism Society of America and its 104 local and state affiliates work towards one goal: to help each individual with autism maximize his or her quality of life. Having worked with the Society's remarkable president Scott Badesch-- a tenacious and wise leader--I can attest to the dedication and commitment of the organization's leadership, and its staff and volunteers. Each person who comes to the Autism Society gains the knowledge that accompanies 50 years of experience to help ensure a life of dignity, respect and opportunity. The organization has played a critical role in the enactment of many landmark pieces of legislation for individuals with disabilities-- including the three laws I have written that provide federal resources for research, services and supports for children and adults with autism. Today, the Society's mission and work has never been more important or more timely. We as a nation are in the midst of a huge yet largely invisible crisis that begs serious focus and durable remedies. I am referring to the aging out crisis. Every year, 50,000 young people on the autism spectrum matriculate into adulthood and are in the process of losing essential services. Individuals with autism in the aging out generation and their parents find themselves entering into a system unprepared to meet their needs, and one that disincentivizes the opportunity and independence the Society has worked to achieve. With the strong support and hard work of the Society, last Congress, we enacted my Autism CARES Act which calls for an agency report that lays the foundation for better addressing the aging out crisis. The Society provided extremely valuable input into my legislation, now P.L. 113-157, which authorizes $1.3 billion over five years to continue the critical pipeline of federal research dollars, and was the first piece of enacted legislation to address aging out. The Autism CARES Act tasked multiple Federal agencies to provide a comprehensive study on the needs of autistic young adults and transitioning youth and how they can better shape policies and programs to meet these needs. This important law--like so many critical policy changes over the past 50 years--would not have been possible without the Autism Society of America. I am so proud of and deeply grateful for the work of all of the volunteers and staff of the Autism Society of America and their affiliates. Thank you for your hard work and daily commitment to improving the lives of individuals with autism.