Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4653 demonstrates--again, introduced by our distinguished friend and colleague Frank Wolf--the strong bipartisan support that exists for religious freedom, with nearly an equal number of Republican and Democrat cosponsors of the legislation. I believe this makes a powerful statement in a world where we see the rights of religious minorities and conscientious objectors being trampled upon in countries where intolerant ideologies, be they of a sectarian or secular nature, seek to crush moral and spiritual thought and conscience. The headlines, indeed, are filled with examples in country after country in the world. A 27-year-old mother in Sudan was imprisoned and faced a death sentence in Sudan because, under shari'a law, she was considered an apostate as the child of a Muslim father, even though the only religion she herself had ever practiced was Christianity. To this day, Meriam Ibrahim remains unable to leave Sudan. Anti-Semitism, pervasive and lethal in the Middle East, has spread like a cancer in many parts of Europe, and has resurfaced in Ukraine with a series of shocking and violent attacks following the ouster of former Prime Minister Yanukovych. In communist dictatorships such as China, religious believers are imprisoned, tortured, and even executed for attempting to practice their faith. In China today, there is a pernicious, escalating war on believers, made worse by the wanton brutality of the regime's ubiquitous secret police. In North Korea, the situation couldn't be more dire, with Christians in particular subject to what human rights observers have termed genocide, dying by the tens of thousands from starvation and torture in concentration camps for daring to hold true to their consciences--that innermost sanctuary of the individual. Tragically, many countries of the world are a long way from achieving the human right of religious freedom recognized by article 18 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr. Speaker, in 1998, with great legislative skill, commitment, and driving passion, Chairman Frank Wolf pushed a somewhat supportive Congress but highly reluctant White House into enacting a singularly important human rights law: the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. For the first time ever, Frank Wolf's law made the protection and promotion of religious freedom a serious priority in U.S. foreign policy by creating an Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom; by establishing the Office of International Religious Freedom at the Department of State, which, among other duties, compiles the International Religious Freedom Reports on every country in the world; and by crafting the independent-minded U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the subject of today's reauthorization. Importantly, Frank Wolf's landmark law also created a system for naming and taking action against Countries of Particular Concern, or CPCs. History has shown that when the U.S. elevates religious freedom-- and that priority is conveyed to Countries of Particular Concern-- conditions often change for the better, prisoners of conscience gain their freedom, and progress is made in the free, or at least a freer, exercise of religious liberty. According to the Commission, three themes guide the nine Commissioners' discussions on priority countries with serious violations of religious freedom: state-sponsored hostility to and repression of religion; state-sponsored extremist ideology and education; and state failure to prevent and punish religious freedom violations--or, a sense of impunity. Several of the CPC countries that systematically violate religious freedom fall into all three of those categories. Mr. Speaker, when an administration, be it Republican or Democrat, demotes or trivializes religious freedom to a minor talking point, human rights-abusing nations construe such indifference as license to harass, abuse and exploit persons of faith. Since its founding, the International Religious Freedom Commission has issued 15 annual reports and 14 special reports covering 76 countries. Of these, the Commission has identified 16 of these as countries that ought to be designated as Countries of Particular Concern. I would also point out the Commission has acted as a true watchdog, recommending with incisive commentary--and I read their reports, as I know Frank Wolf and many other Members in this Chamber read them--twice as many countries as CPCs than the State Department has designated as Countries of Particular Concern. Our hope is that the State Department will say other diplomatic concerns need to be subordinated and just call it the way it is. If a designation is warranted, then name them a Country of Particular Concern and begin a robust intervention to try to get that nation to mitigate and, hopefully, end such egregious practices. This includes the Commission's list of eight nations that are not on the list currently. One is Vietnam, which is an egregious violator of the rights of religious minorities. The Commission always calls it like it is and pulls no punches. I would hope--and I would add this parenthetically--that when Members travel, they ought to look up on the Commission Web site and read what the country they are going to visit has said and done about religious freedom violations. Read the country specific report on it, and bring it up with your interlocutors in the country you are going to. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that while the CPC designations remain, the penalties associated with the designations have now essentially lapsed. The last designations by the Obama administration were in 2011, and as 2 years have passed, the sanctions directly linked to the International Religious Freedom Act's sanctions authority have expired. This failure to implement our law on religious freedom sends a deeply troubling message to violators of this fundamental human right. It is thus more important than ever that we in Congress speak with a clear and loud voice today. Two-and-a-half years ago, after passing with strong bipartisan support in the House, reauthorization of the Commission got bogged down in the Senate. Eventually, through the tenacity of Chairman Wolf, holds were lifted and the bill passed and was signed into law. We hope that the Senate will move swiftly to passage. Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that in the House there has been tremendous cooperation on both sides of the aisle. This is, as I said at the outset, a truly bipartisan piece of legislation. We have had excellent input from the Commission itself throughout this process, including testimony from then-Chairman Dr. Robert George of Princeton University, who attended my hearing on May 22 and laid out in long, and very, I think, precise detail what needs to be done to combat the religious intolerance that exists today. I would point out parenthetically that on July 1, Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett was elected as the new Chairman. Dr. George is now the Vice Chairman. I would also point out that at my hearing members from the religious minority communities--Muslim, Baha'i, Christian, and Jewish--spoke out about the importance of the work of the Commission in countries like Iran, Pakistan, and China, helping to shine a bright light on the serious abuses that take place in all three countries. Of course, they raised other concerns as well. Therefore, I ask all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this fine bipartisan piece of legislation, sending a very important message to the world that the United States of America deeply values religious liberty, and that it should continue to be a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the author of this legislation and the man that pushed this bill to enactment, the prime author of the International Religious Freedom Act, the chairman of the Commerce, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, and also the cochair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To conclude, I want to thank Chairman Wolf again for, authoring the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998. What we reauthorize today is just one part of it, and that is the International Religious Freedom Commission. For the record, the Commission is comprised of nine Commissioners, plus the Ambassador at Large. As of July 1, the current Chairman is Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett, Dr. Robert George is Vice Chairman; Dr. James Zogby is Vice Chairman; and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and Mary Ann Glendon are Commissioners. Dean Eric Schwartz--who, as we all know, used to work up on the Hill as a staffer on the Democrat side and who went on to work in the NSC and work on refugee policies--is also a Commissioner, as are Daniel Mark, Father Thomas Reese, and Hannah Rosenthal--who acted as--as point person in combating anti-Semitism. They work at their own expense. These are very, very dedicated individuals and their work is supported by a highly professional staff. Again, I would ask Members to read their reports. They are among the best reports that have been produced anywhere in Washington. They are accurately posting what is going on, and then they go into great depth as to what some of the remedies ought to be. I want to thank, again, Chairman Wolf for his extraordinary leadership for 34 years as a Member of Congress in combating all forms of human rights abuse, especially religious persecution. This is just another manifestation of his extraordinary leadership. General Leave

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 588) concerning the suspension of exit permit issuance by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for adopted Congolese children seeking to depart the country with their adoptive parents, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I speak in strong support of the Peterson resolution, H. Res. 588, concerning the suspension of exit permit issuance by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for adopted Congolese children seeking to depart the country with their adoptive parents. Last year, the Democratic Republic of the Congo suspended the issuance of exit permits for Congolese children who were adopted by foreign parents, impacting hundreds of U.S. families. The suspension means that Congolese children adopted by American parents cannot leave the country to go to their new homes, even though the parents have been officially declared the legal guardians under Congolese law. What is more, despite the exit permit suspension, Congolese courts have continued processing new adoptions, leading to a further backlog of adopted children who are unable to leave the country. It is estimated that over 900 American families are caught up in varying degrees and stages of this adoption limbo--breaking many, many hearts. This is a deplorable situation for these children and for their distraught families. The DRC has not offered a clear explanation for the suspension. The government has provided no evidence of widespread abuse in the adoption process. The Peterson resolution underscores the importance of an ethical and transparent adoption process, and there are currently robust procedures in place for ensuring that these children are, indeed, orphaned and going to safe homes. Ultimately, the DRC is entitled to amend its adoption process in going forward, but once the parents' legal guardianships are approved and established by the Congolese courts, the government should allow these children to depart the DRC with their adoptive moms and dads. All children deserve loving homes with moms and dads. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, Collin Peterson, for authoring this important measure, which has strong bipartisan support. Mr. Peterson has always been a consistent voice in support of human dignity and of the least and littlest among us, consistently defending the human person from the womb to the tomb. At the full committee markup, several adoptive parents who were denied the requisite permission to bring their sons or daughters home were in attendance. They, Collin, when we went down and spoke to them, told many of us how incredibly grateful they are to you for your leadership and your compassion and for your authorship, especially, of this important resolution. I also want to thank my colleagues on the committee--Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and subcommittee Ranking Member Karen Bass--for their leadership in marking up this resolution at both the subcommittee and committee levels and for helping to get it to the floor. I also thank Eric Cantor and the Speaker for ensuring that it was up for consideration today. Again, more than 900 American families from across the U.S. and their Representatives in Congress are watching this very closely. Indeed, in April, 170 Members of Congress wrote and asked the DRC Government to lift the exit permit suspension. When Secretary Kerry visited the Congo in May, he personally raised the issue with President Kabila. I also call on President Obama to raise this issue personally when he and President Kabila meet at the gathering of African heads of state here in Washington during the first week of August. Finally, I want to say a word to those parents who have endured not only the burdens that are financial, but that are primarily emotional in being separated from the children they have graciously welcomed into their lives. Your hardship and pain is deeply understood by my colleagues and me, as well as by our staff members, many of whom have worked not only on this resolution, but who have also pushed our State Department and the Government of the DRC to resolve this important issue. Please continue to persevere. Don't give up hope. You will get to love and to have those wonderful children in your homes. I also want to let the parents know that our Africa Subcommittee plans to hold another hearing to address the growing crisis of orphans in Africa to which adoption is one of the very important durable remedies, and we specifically intend to address the situation that you are confronting with your children from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I would hope that Congressman Peterson would lead off that testimony, again, in having been the man, the person in Congress, walking point on this very important issue. Our approval today of House Resolution 588, with support across party lines, will send a strong signal to Kinshasa that we need to unite these affected families. They shouldn't be separated from these kids. They have done everything by the book, and they ought to be with their loving parents. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I have several speakers who want to be here, but they are not physically present on the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently held a hearing on an issue that deserves the world's attention: the systematic abuses of human rights in North Korea, which amount to crimes against humanity by perhaps the world's most repressive totalitarian regime--and totalitarian, not authoritarian, is the right word. As so very correctly stated in the United Nations Commission of Inquiry report on North Korea, such a regime is ``a state that does not content itself with ensuring the authoritarian rule of a small group of people, but seeks to dominate every aspect of its citizens' lives and terrorizes them from within.'' For in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, we see a State that seeks to control all aspects of the lives of its citizens, not only their political lives, but also that innermost sanctuary we call conscience as well. The term ``hermit kingdom'' is applied to any nation that willfully cuts itself off from the rest of the world--either metaphorically or physically. This term was applied to Korea as long ago as the late nineteenth century, but it continues to be applicable to North Korea today. This is why the terrible human rights violations in North Korea are little noticed outside foreign policy circles. We must see that the crimes of the North Korean regime are more widely known than they are now. The first step toward that is to listen to experts who have presented testimony on the horrific situation in North Korea, where political prisoners serve as virtual slaves, where starvation is used as a political weapon, and where religious believers--Christians in particular--are imprisoned, tortured and killed with such ferocity that some say it amounts to genocide. Unfortunately, however, today the world's attention is distracted by manifold crises which seem almost to overwhelm us. To enumerate just a few, there is the: breathtaking collapse-in-progress of the Maliki regime in Iraq, which we had supported at the cost of so much American blood and treasure; various humanitarian catastrophes in Africa, most notably in the Central African Republic and South Sudan, but also the presence of violent Islamist movements such as Boko Haram and al- Shabaab in the major nations of Nigeria and Kenya; the ongoing tensions in Ukraine, as a restive Russia seeks to reassert its imperial hegemony over neighboring states; and clashes in the South China Sea as an increasingly-bellicose China makes a gambit to become a maritime power and fill a perceived vacuum. We have always lived in a wounded world, but today the tourniquets required to stop all the bleeding the world over would tax even the most compassionate of souls. Yet it is precisely this exhaustion of compassion that we must fight against, and we must summon the necessary conviction to address the sufferings of the people of North Korea. At last week's hearing, we had an eyewitness to the barbarity of North Korea's cruel regime--a defector from North Korea who was born in a ``total-control zone'' political prison camp in the North, and who gave us an unsettling first-hand account of what he experienced. The torture he endured--and not simply physical torture, as horrific as that was--was a psychological barbarity of such ruthlessness that once you have heard what he underwent, your imaginations will forever be affected. We heard stories of starvation by design--how the denial of food is used as an instrument of wide scale torture. We also heard about a North Korean nuclear program that goes beyond the headlines. Yes, we do know that North Korea, in its quest for nuclear weapons, threatens to destabilize the world, but what many of us did not know, is the extent to which the North Korean nuclear program is built upon the cadavers of its own people. The United Nations Commission of Inquiry report, as important as it was, never explored the full extent to which workers in uranium mines are exposed to high levels of radiation, and how even the most basic concern for the safety needs of workers are routinely ignored. Finally, I want to call attention to H.R. 1771, the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act. It is my hope that Congress--both the House and Senate--will take to heart the testimony that was presented, and, with a renewed focus on North Korea's human rights record, pass this important legislation, which takes a step toward holding this rouge regime accountable for the sins committed against its own people.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the chairman for yielding and thank him for his strong support, along with Chairman Fred Upton, former Chairman Henry Waxman, and so many others--Mike Doyle, my good friend and colleague, who together, since 2000, headed up the Coalition for Autism Research and Education. We have done everything bipartisan. We have 91 members in the coalition right now. I would also like to thank the staff, who have helped us move this bill and negotiate text, including Gary Andres, Cheryl Jaeger, Brenda Destro, Jean Roehrenbeck, Katie Novaria, Cate Benedetti, and, of course, Neil Bradley, and so many others who have been so critical to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, previous autism law, including the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011, made critical investments--continued by this bill--that are working to determine the causes of autism spectrum disorder, identify autistic children as early as possible to begin treatment, raise critical awareness, and develop new therapies and effective services. The latest prevalence data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mr. Speaker, is shocking. One in every 68 American children are on the autism spectrum, a tenfold increase over the last 40 years. Boys on the spectrum outnumber girls 5 to 1. In my home State of New Jersey, one in every 45 children has ASD, the highest rate in the CDC study. I would note parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I have chaired two congressional hearings on global autism, and this developmental disability is everywhere--one conservative estimate, 67 million worldwide. Looking back, Mr. Speaker, it was two dedicated parents from New Jersey who helped launch the comprehensive Federal policy we seek to reauthorize today. Almost 17 years ago, September 1997, Bobbie and Billy Gallagher of Brick, New Jersey, and parents of two small autistic children, walked into my Ocean County office looking for help. They believed Brick had a disproportionate number of students with autism and wanted action, especially for their son Austin and daughter Alana, so I invited CDC and other Federal agencies to Brick for an investigation, only to learn that prevalence rates were high not only in Brick, but in nearby communities as well. Believing we had a serious spike in prevalence, I introduced the ASSURE Act, and that was incorporated as title I of the Children's Health Act of 2000. Mr. Speaker, much progress has been made since. Today, the evidence suggests there is no single cause of autism or type. Genetic risk, coupled with environmental factors, including advanced parental age, low birth weight, and prematurity--among other factors--may be triggers. Signs of autism in a child usually manifest between 12-18 months, some as early as 6 months, while some regress after the age of 2, yet transformative early intervention continues to lag. According to the IACC: The clinical reality is that, currently, only about 20 percent of children with ASD are being identified early (by 3 years of age). That, Members of the House, is not good, and it has got to change. The research clearly shows that early diagnosis means early intervention and much better outcomes. The most recent IACC strategic plan--and I encourage Members to read it. It is a textbook on how the Federal Government should do anything when it deals with research. They have pointed out that: During the past few years, there has been a major revolution in ASD genetics research. Research on the potential relationship between the immune system and ASD has grown considerably, resulting in ``major breakthroughs.'' They go on to say: Much progress has been made in understanding the prevalence and biology of conditions that commonly co-occur with ASD, including epilepsy, sleep disorders, GI disturbances, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other psychiatric comorbidities. They also point out: Particularly intriguing are the results of prenatal vitamin intake through supplements and diet, showing a 40 percent reduction in risk of ASD with prenatal vitamin supplements taken in the 3 months before or during the first month of pregnancy. Daily folic acid is also highly recommended. Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that this bill seeks to address. Every year, 50,000 young people on the autism spectrum matriculate to adulthood and are in the process of losing services. Jonathan Kratchman, a 16-year-old with Asperger's from New Jersey, was the keynote speaker at a Dare to Dream conference at Mercer County Community College last year. He stated: I know I can be a great contributor to society when I graduate. However, I need continuing support to get there.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Kratchman said: If you take your high school diploma at age 18, you automatically lose services from your school district. Both individuals with autism--like Jonathan--and their parents find themselves confronted with almost unimaginable challenges, including loss of school, housing, and then they have job needs. We are in the midst of a huge yet largely invisible crisis that begs serious focus and remedies. The Autism CARES Act tasks multiple Federal agencies to comprehensively study and report back to Congress on the special needs of autistic young adults and transitioning youth. Additionally, Chairman Upton and Chairman Pitts are in the process of requesting a comprehensive aging-out GAO report that will include key stakeholder involvement. Passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is an important investment in a very important special group of people who, along with their families, caregivers, and friends, face seemingly endless challenges and struggles. I strongly urge Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 4631, the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education and Support Act of 2014--Autism CARES ACT of 2014. Mr. Speaker, previous autism law including the Combatting Autism Act of 2011 made critical investments--continued by this bill--that are working to determine the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), identify autistic children as early as possible to begin treatment, raise critical awareness and develop new therapies and effective services. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), ``ASD is a range of complex neurodevelopment disorders, characterized by social impairments, communication difficulties, and restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior. Autistic disorder, sometimes called autism or classical ASD, is the most severe form of ASD, while other conditions along the spectrum include a milder form known as Asperger syndrome . . .'' The latest prevalence data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is shocking: 1 in every 68 American children are on the autism spectrum--a tenfold increase over the last 40 years. Boys on the autism spectrum outnumber girls 5 to 1. In my home state of New Jersey, 1 in every 45 children has ASD, the highest rate in the CDC study. I've chaired two congressional hearings on global autism--and this developmental disability is everywhere. One conservative estimate: 67 million worldwide. Looking back, it was two dedicated parents from New Jersey who helped launch the comprehensive federal policy we seek to reauthorize today. Almost 17 years ago--September 13, 1997--Bobbie and Billy Gallagher of Brick, New Jersey and parents of two small children with autism, walked into my Ocean County district office looking for help. They believed Brick had a disproportionate number of students with autism and wanted action especially for their son Austin and daughter Alana. So I invited CDC and other federal agencies to Brick for an investigation only to learn that prevalence rates were high not only in Brick but in nearby communities as well. Believing we had a serious spike in the prevalence of autism, I introduced H.R. 274--the Autism Statistics, Surveillance, Research and Epidemiology Act (ASSURE) which was enacted as Title 1 of the Children Health Act of 2000. Much progress has been made since. Today, the evidence suggests that there is no single cause or type of autism. Genetic risk coupled with environmental factors including advanced parental age, low birth weight and prematurity among other factors may be triggers. Signs of autism in a child usually manifest between 12-18 months--some as early as 6 months--while some ``regress'' after 2. Yet, transformative early intervention continues to lag. According to the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC): ``The clinical reality is that currently only about 20 percent of children with ASD are being identified early (by 3 years of age)'' and that members of the House is not good and has got to change. Early diagnosis means early intervention and better outcomes. IACC says ``More needs to be done to raise awareness in the practitioner community of the current capabilities and benefits of early, repeated screenings, early diagnosis, and early intervention.'' Research on autism is showing tremendous promise. The most recent IACC strategic plan--which is reauthorized for five years by Section 5--is filled with insight and actionable information: ``During the past few years there has been a major revolution in ASD genetics research. Using the newest molecular and epidemiological methods, recent data continues to strongly support the role of genes in ASD, and the understanding of this role has been greatly refined.'' ``In infants at high genetic risk for ASD due to having an older sibling with autism, symptoms of autism begin to emerge as young as 6 months of age in those who later develop ASD. These new findings suggest that it may someday be possible to screen for children at risk for ASD before the emergence of the full symptoms of autism and early enough to facilitate even more effective intervention.'' ``Research on the potential relationship between the immune system and ASD has grown considerably over the past 2 years, resulting in several major breakthroughs. In the realm of basic developmental research, immune cells and immune signaling molecules have been identified as essential for establishing stable connections between neurons during early brain development.'' ``Much progress has been made in understanding the prevalence and biology of conditions that commonly co-occur with ASD, including epilepsy, sleep disorders, gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other psychiatric comorbidities.'' ``The time around conception and during pregnancy are likely the most important time windows of heightened vulnerability for the development of the brain with supporting evidence from early reports linking autism symptoms to maternal ingestion of drugs.'' ``Particularly intriguing are the results of prenatal vitamin intake through supplements and diet, showing a 40 percent reduction in risk of ASD with prenatal vitamin supplements taken in the 3 months before or during the first month of pregnancy.'' ``A trend of decreasing ASD risk as mothers consumed greater daily folic acid intake from foods, vitamins, and supplements in the first month of pregnancy was also reported.'' Over the past 5 years, progress has been made toward developing tools and practices for more effective screening and early diagnosis--and I am pleased that the Committee reports includes language that will ensure federal agencies pay particular attention to the need to focus on early diagnosis and intervention in children. While biological differences in individuals with ASD were hypothesized earlier, there is now ``data demonstrating specific changes in the genome and epigenome, gene expression, cell structure and function, brain connectivity, and behavior that have been linked to the causes and underlying biology of ASD.'' I mentioned Bobbie and Billy Gallagher's children earlier because they represent a generation of young men and women who are aging out-- both are now over 21 years old, which means far too much of their support system no longer exists. Mr. Speaker, every year 50,000 young people on the autism spectrum matriculate to adulthood. Jonathan Kratchman, a 16-year-old with Asperger's from New Jersey, was the keynote speaker at a ``Dare To Dream Conference'' at Mercer County Community College last year, where he stated: ``I know I can be a great contributor to society when I graduate. However, I need continuing support to get there... Here is a fast fact. If you take your high school diploma at age 18, you automatically lose services from your school district.'' Both individuals with autism, like Jonathan, and their parents find themselves confronted with almost unimaginable challenges including loss of school instruction, housing and job needs. We are in the midst of huge yet largely invisible crisis that begs serious focus and remedies. The Autism CARES Act tasks multiple federal agencies to comprehensively study and report back to Congress on the special needs of autistic young adults and transitioning youth. While studies show that young adults with autism appear to fare worse in employment outcomes--including when compared to young adults with other types of disabilities--there is evidence that with specialized support programs employment is feasible even among individuals with higher support needs. I'm planning a congressional hearing next month in my global health committee on employers like software giant SAP which has actively recruited and hired over 700 young adults on the autism spectrum and recently told me these diligent young employees are extraordinarily effective workers. Well planned transition programs will not only assist families and help shape a brighter future for individuals with ASD, they are also a smart investment that will reduce government spending in the long-term. The University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities recently estimated 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.'' IACC recently concluded that since 2009, the adult services research field has made some important advances, including gathering of new data on the services available across the states, information about how adults are interacting with the service system, and data on the service needs of adults on the autism spectrum. But in light of the severity of the aging out crisis, we must do more and do it fast and ensure we are providing a comprehensive and thorough review of available services--and those that need to be established. Additionally, Chairman Upton and Chairman Pitts are in the process of requesting a comprehensive autism aging-out GAO report that will include key stakeholder involvement. We are making real progress, but we still don't have all the answers. Specifically, the Autism Cares Act of 2014 authorizes funding for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2019 at $22 million for the CDC, $48 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and $190 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and IACC activities--for a total of $1.3 billion. I especially want to thank Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Chairman Fred Upton and former Chairman Henry Waxman as well as Chairman Joe Pitts-- all strong and committed friends of persons with autism--for their critical support of this legislation. Special thanks to my friend Mike Doyle. Since 2000, Mike and I have co-chaired the 91 member congressional autism caucus--the Coalition on Autism Research and Education (CARE). I am very grateful to the many excellent, professional staff who played key roles in helping move the bill and negotiate text including Gary Andres, Cheryl Jaeger, Brenda Destro, Jean Roehrenbeck, Katie Novaria, Cate Benedetti and of course Neil Bradley. I also want to express my deep appreciation for the extraordinary contributions made by Autism Speaks, the Autism Society, the Association of University Centers on Disabilities and the American Academy of Pediatrics--all of whom strongly endorse H.R. 4631. Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill today is an investment in a very important group of people who, along with their families, caregivers and friends, face seemingly endless challenges and struggles. I urge support.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 70th Anniversary of the Original GI Bill, the first legislation of its kind establishing educational assistance for our nation's veterans. Seventy years ago this week, on June 22, 1944, Congress enacted the Servicemen's Readjustment Act and introduced a new veterans benefits program that continues to this day. The GI Bill has had, and continues to have, an incredible impact--opening doors for servicemembers and their families and benefiting society as a whole. Our nation has a strong history of ensuring those who fight in defense of our freedom have access to career-enhancing, educational benefits. The GI Bill not only provides veterans with the tools to transition from our military force to our workforce, it is sound and valuable investment that collectively benefits our society. I have long believed that the post-World War II education benefits created the modern middle class. Because of the GI Bill, millions of veterans who have defended the American Dream are achieving--and sustaining--it. In 2001, when I became chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, one of my major legislative priorities was to modernize and expand the GI Bill. I wrote and Congress enacted the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act (P.L. 107-103) which at that time provided the largest increase in GI Bill benefits since World War II. Prior to passage of my legislation, veterans receiving the maximum benefit under the Montgomery GI Bill received $24,000 toward their degree. The benefit was terribly under-utilized as eligible vets were declining to participate because the benefit was too small to make a difference in the cost of college. We had the foresight to adjust this benefit for inflation, ensuring that the value of the benefit would keep pace if the cost of college increased. The maximum benefit is now $59,328. The GI Bill can be used for a variety of education and training opportunities--including certificate programs, post-secondary degrees, and work-study programs, including the successful Helmets to Hard Hats apprenticeship program--that can boost both marketability and earning potential for veterans. And now that we have an all-volunteer military that is smaller and highly trained, it is critical we have good benefits that attract and retain quality young people into our armed services. We remain in awe of their bravery and are humbled by the selfless sacrifice of our nation's veterans. Accordingly, Congress again beefed up GI Bill benefits in 2008 with passage of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (P.L. 110-252), putting a college degree within reach for men and women who have been called to active duty since September 11, 2001. Each year more and more veterans benefit from this program and the Post-9/11 GI Bill combined with the continued funding increases yielded from my law will hopefully give every veteran the ability to take full advantage of all the GI bill has to offer.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we recently had the 25th anniversary of when the world watched as students from Beijing's Central Academy of Fine Arts unveiled the replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square. It was an amazing sight to behold, this enduring symbol of liberty standing face-to-face with the dictator Mao Zedong's portrait. It was a moment when we all dreamed that the Tiananmen Square demonstrations would become a triumph for freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, China's Communist leaders sought to hang on to power through force. They sent tanks and soldiers into Beijing to ``clear the Square'' on the evening of June 3 and June 4. The beating, the bayonetting, torture, and murder of students and the ubiquitous display of tanks turned the dream of freedom into a bloody nightmare. At a hearing that I recently held, we had five witnesses to this tragic scene in world history so that this time in China will not fade from memory, but will remind us of the longing for freedom that remains within the Chinese people. We want to remember the extraordinary sacrifice endured by thousands of peaceful Chinese democracy activists. Some may prefer to look past or even trivialize the slaughter of innocents by Chinese soldiers. But the memory of the dead and those arrested, tortured, and exiled requires us to honor them, respect their noble aspirations for fundamental freedoms, and recommit ourselves to the struggle for freedom and human rights in China. The government of China continues to go to astounding lengths to erase the memory of the Tiananmen demonstrations and their violent suppression. The Internet is censored, citizens holding private discussions or public commemorations are harassed and detained, and we still have no account of those who died, those arrested, those disappeared or those executed. It is my promise that we will always remember--always remember-- Tiananmen as long as the Chinese people cannot discuss its significance openly without harassment or arrest. When the tanks rolled down the Square on June 4, 1989, all of China suffered--mothers lost sons, fathers lost daughters and China lost an idealistic generation of future leaders. China's loss has been America's gain. Our witnesses today--exiles and refugees from their native land--have contributed mightily to the American fabric. Out of tragedy and disillusionment, they have created lives that make America stronger. They are entrepreneurs and pastors, businesspeople and academics, members of the military and civil society leaders. The Chinese government may call them criminals and hooligans, but one day soon they will be called heroes. The people testifying here today are also our conscience--as are all advocates from freedom and human rights such as Chen Guangcheng and Harry Wu and others in the audience today. There will always be those who want to downplay human rights in relations with China. But the people here today remind us that the people of China suffered for freedom, bled for liberty, and demanded justice, democracy and an end to corruption. These demands were made 25 years ago, and they still fire the imagination of the Chinese people today. More than ever, the U.S. needs a robust human rights diplomacy with China. We need policies that actively promote human rights, freedom of speech, Internet freedom, and the rule of law. We must support the advocates for peaceful change and the champions of liberty and clearly signal our support for those seeking rights and freedoms for all China's citizens, not only for those seeking to pad the economic bottom-line. Such leadership is needed now because China is in the midst of a severe crackdown on human rights advocates and freedom of speech. Last year was the worst year, since the 1990s, for arrests and imprisonment of dissidents. More than 230 people have been detained for their human rights advocacy. In the past month Beijing has detained two dozen activists for simply seeking to commemorate the Tiananmen anniversary in private. And China remains one of the world's worst offenders of human rights overall. It remains the torture capital of the world. Religious freedom abuses continue with impunity. And ethnic minority groups face repression when they peacefully seek rights to their culture and language. Hundreds of millions of women have been forced to abort their precious babies because of a draconian attempt to limit population growth. China's one-child policy, even if it is slightly modified, is a demographic and human rights disaster. The preference for having boys has led to a gender imbalance and a mass extermination of girls. This is not only a massive gender crime, but a security problem as well. Experts are coming to the conclusion that China's gender imbalance will lead to crime, social instability, worker shortages, sex and bride trafficking, and will make the possibility of war more likely. Despite the country's stunning economic growth over the past two decades, Beijing's leaders still remain terrified of their own people. China's ruling Communist Party would rather stifle, imprison or even kill its own people than defer to their demands for freedom and rights. Repression has not dimmed the desires of the Chinese people for freedom and reform. There is an inspiring drive in China to keep fighting for freedom under very difficult and dangerous conditions. As our witnesses today will surely attest, the U.S. must demonstrate clearly and robustly that democratic reforms and human rights are a critical national interest. We want to see a more democratic China, one that respects human rights, and is governed by the rule of law, because a more democratic China will be a productive and peaceful partner rather than a strategic and hostile competitor. This future also should be in China's interests, because there is growing evidence that the most prosperous and stable societies are those that protect religious freedom, the freedom of speech, and the rule of law. I believe that someday China will be free. The people of China will be able to enjoy all of their God-given rights. And a nation of free Chinese men and women will honor, applaud, and celebrate the heroes of Tiananmen Square and all those who sacrificed so much, and so long, for freedom.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently chaired a hearing on effective accountability for countries that blatantly commit religious or freedom violations or that turn a blind eye to such violations within their borders. The headlines are filled with examples. A 27-year-old mother, Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, is imprisoned and faces a death sentence in Sudan because she refused to renounce her Christian faith. This case in Sudan mirrors a similar incident in Nigeria in which Boko Haram shot Habila Adamu, who refused to renounce Christianity, just like Mrs. Ibrahim. Also in Nigeria, Islamic terrorist organization Boko Haram is holding over 200 school girls hostage (most of whom are Christian), after kidnapping them from their school dorms in the middle of the night. Anti-semitism has resurfaced in Ukraine with a series of violent attacks following the ouster of former Prime Minister Yanukovich. We have also received word that American Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is serving an 8 year sentence in Iran for his faith, was severely beaten and returned to prison. He had been hospitalized due to internal bleeding from beatings previously received in prison. His wife, Naghmeh Abedini, testified before my subcommittee in December and begged that the Administration make securing her husband's release a top priority. Tragically, many countries of the world are a long way from recognizing the human right of religious freedom set forth by Article 18 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the United States, we claim religious freedom as the ``first freedom'' because of its placement at the top of the Bill of Rights enumerated in our Constitution, and because of its foundational role in the life of a free and democratic nation. Religious freedom is a constant reminder to governments that their power is limited, that governments do not create rights but merely recognize them, and that a man or woman's first duty is to his or her well-formed conscience. The evidence bears out the importance of protecting and promoting religious freedom. As the Pew Research Center and Berkley Center at Georgetown have shown, governments that protect and promote religious freedom have higher levels of social harmony. Just as importantly for national security, high observance of religious freedom is correlated with lower levels of religious extremism. In 1998, Congress had the foresight to make the protection and promotion of religious freedom a priority in U.S. foreign policy by creating an Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom, the Office of International Religious Freedom at the Department of State, which authors the International Religious Freedom Reports on every country in the world, and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, with their watchdog report to Congress. Importantly, this landmark piece of legislation, the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), authored by Chairman Frank Wolf of Virginia, created a system for naming and taking action against Countries of Particular Concern or CPCs. Sixteen years later, the need for U.S. leadership on religious freedom could not be more critical--but the tools to achieve it are lightly used. The Administration recently announced its intention to appoint two new members to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom--but the post of Ambassador-at-Large is in its seventh month of vacancy. The post has been empty for more than a third of this Administration, and the Ambassador's level of authority within the State Department has been demoted. Despite the fact that the IRFA called for an annual review of CPC designations, the Administration has not named CPCs since 2011. What few Presidential Actions--like sanctions--have been taken in correlation with the 2011 CPC designation, have now lapsed. History has shown that when the United States makes religious freedom a priority and that priority is conveyed to countries of particular concern, we have seen conditions change with minimal harm to security or economic cooperation. For instance, the CPC designation worked as intended with Vietnam--until it was removed prematurely. In 2004, the Bush Administration designated Vietnam as a CPC as part of the larger bilateral relationship. Vietnam took positive steps toward reforming its laws and practices related to religious freedom and releasing religious prisoners. Other parts of the relationship--trade and security cooperation-- expanded at the same time. Vietnam saw that it was in its interest to take positive steps on religious freedom because it was a priority of the Administration and a prerequisite of a harmonious bilateral relationship. In 2006, the CPC designation was removed prematurely. In 2007, shortly after Vietnam gained World Trade Organization status, it launched a crackdown on religious leaders, free speech advocates, labor unions, and others that continues to this day. USCIRF has made a compelling case for why Vietnam should be designated as a CPC, why that designation would again produce results, and why it is in the United States interests to prioritize religious freedom in the bilateral relationship. Seven years later, we are waiting for CPC designation. The hearing took a close look at the ongoing need for the United States to actively pursue religious freedom as a priority goal of its foreign policy, as intended by Congress in the IRFA, and, specifically, the work of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in reaching this goal.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, since November 2013, the U.S. government has declared Boko Haram and its affiliate Ansaru to be Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This supposedly provides further tools with which to fight such organizations and their sponsors. However, an Administration that resisted the FTO designation for so long continues to downplay its significance. A hearing that I held earlier this week was intended to provide information on that reluctance and on obstacles to our effective security and/or military assistance to the Nigerian government in this anti-terror fight. Boko Haram is a Nigerian terrorist group whose full name in Arabic means ``people committed to the propagation of the Prophet's teachings and jihad.'' The name ``Boko Haram'' is a translation from Hausa meaning that conventional education (boko) is forbidden (haram). According to various reports, Boko Haram began in 2003 when about 200 university students and unemployed youth created a camp in Yobe State near the Niger border to withdraw from what they considered the corrupt, sinful and unjust Nigerian government, and their community was supposedly founded on Islamic law. The group was then known by the nickname the Nigerian Taliban. Violent clashes with Nigerian security forces nearly destroyed the group several times, but its charismatic leader, Mohammed Yusuf kept the group alive until his death while in police custody in July 2009. Since Yusuf's death, there have been various spokesmen but one person who is believed to be the nominal leader: Abubakar Shekau. Furthermore, a breakaway group known as Ansaru has appeared on the scene, but still coordinates with the original Boko Haram. Because of its repeated attacks against Christian targets during holy days such as Christmas and Easter, Boko Haram is seen by some as principally an anti-Christian organization. This past year alone, Boko Haram terrorists are believed to have killed more than 1,000 Christians in Nigeria. In fact, it is estimated that more than 60 percent of Christians killed worldwide because of religious intolerance die in Nigeria. However, it would not be a completely accurate interpretation of the facts to assume that what is happening in Nigeria is just a Muslim-Christian conflict. The kidnapping of nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls in the Borno State town of Chibok on April 14 has caught the attention of the international community, albeit two weeks after the incident. However, the kidnapping of eight additional girls after that has been an afterthought, and the kidnapping of another 20 women last week has yet to receive much notice. Prior to the April kidnappings, Boko Haram had generally killed boys but let girls go, warning them to go home and give up their dreams of education. There have been previous incidents, however, in which girls have been kidnapped, though not in large numbers as in Chibok. Now Boko Haram leaders realize that kidnapping girls gets worldwide publicity, and whether these girls are recovered or not, they know that they can do this again to get publicity for their group. The very news media used to galvanize pressure on Nigeria to obtain the freedom of the kidnapped girls is being used by Boko Haram to brag of its ability to disrupt society and taunt Nigerians and their government about their ability to take their women and girls away. Several videos, purportedly of the kidnapped Chibok girls, have been released, echoing previously- used al-Qaeda tactics in this regard. In the past two years, our subcommittee has sent a staff delegation to investigate the Boko Haram threat; this past September, Gregory Simpkins, our subcommittee's staff director, and I visited Abuja and Jos to further look into this matter, and I just returned the other day from Abuja, where I took time out from another human rights mission in Nigeria to further investigate the ongoing struggle against this terrorist threat. Last week, I met in Abuja with one of the Chibok girls who escaped early on in the ordeal. This brave young woman has suffered much and was clearly traumatized and in emotional pain. You could hear it in her voice and see it in her eyes as she sat motionless, recounting her story. Yet she spoke of her concern not for herself, but her friends and classmates who remain in captivity. I met with a Muslim father of two girls abducted from the Chibok School. Fighting back tears, he said the agony was unbearable. The story of his daughters underscored the fact that Boko Haram brutalizes Muslims as well. I also met with other Boko Haram victims, including a Christian mother whose two daughters were abducted in February 2012. She told us her husband was shot on the spot. Three months later, Boko Haram returned and asked if her son had converted to Islam. When she said no--he was shot and killed. We wasted more than a year of not using all our tools because of the specious argument that doing so would provide publicity to terrorists, and now the Administration is downplaying what the FTO designation can accomplish. There must be robust use of the benefits of this designation if we are to be successful in the battle against terrorism in Nigeria. The three criteria for an organization to be declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. government are: 1) it must be a foreign organization, 2) it must engage in terrorist activity, and 3) it must threaten the security of United States nationals, U.S. national security or the economic interests of the United States. Clearly, Boko Haram/Ansaru meets that test. This was why I introduced H.R. 3209 last year to urge the Administration to declare Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The proliferation of voices speaking for Boko Haram and the new faction lead some to believe this is not a coherent organization, but we have learned that it is actually a very sophisticated organization operating in cells disconnected from each other but coordinating at a high level. Some also believe this group is purely a domestic terrorist group operating in Nigeria. We found that to be a false assumption as well. Boko Haram/Ansaru does wage attacks on the Nigerian government and other domestic targets. Nevertheless, their actions prove their participation in the global jihad movement that wages violent war worldwide to establish their skewed version of Islam as the prevailing religion globally. Various actions, such as the bombing of the United Nations Abuja office in August 2011, and numerous statements from Boko Haram spokesmen indicate their international intent. This international focus has been confirmed by American and Nigerian intelligence information. In fact, there was at least one American present during the U.N. bombing, which if the Administration had acknowledged that at the time, would have created pressure to use the FTO designation then. As recently as the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on May 21st, Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Sarah Sewell would neither confirm nor deny that fact. In fact, the State Department has refused to confirm what we now know to be true since the 2011 U.N. building bombing. When then- Assistant Secretary of State Johnny Carson told us in our July 2012 hearing on Nigeria that Boko Haram's attacks were caused mostly by animus against the Nigerian government, he was wrong in his apportionment of cause and effect. There is tremendous animus toward the Nigerian government and an effort to embarrass President Jonathan. However, Boko Haram is determined to convert or kill Christians and Muslims they believe oppose them. Poverty did not create Boko Haram--religious fanaticism did. Still, underdevelopment in northern Nigeria provides fodder for a level of discontent with the federal government that provides at least tacit northern support for anyone opposing the government. If northern Nigeria were its own country, it would be among the poorest, least educated, least healthy countries in the world. Largely due to the terrorist violence in the North, an estimated 3.3 million Nigerians are displaced--making Nigeria the world's third largest displaced population, behind only Syria and Columbia. Many of those displaced people are farmers, which will certainly disrupt the next harvesting season and further impoverish Nigeria's suffering people. Yet the blame for the perennial lack of development in northern Nigeria should not be heaped on the federal government alone. We have been told that northern states have money for development, and one national legislator from the north acknowledged that each member of Nigeria's Parliament has at least $1 million dollars (not Nigerian naira) at his or her disposal to use for constituent services. National and state governments in Nigeria have to be pushed to do more on development with money they already have. It is imperative that we provide the training and support for Nigerians to develop their own capacity to help Nigeria to end the Boko Haram threat. The Leahy Law, which forbids U.S. support for military and security forces involved in human rights violations, is seen as an obstacle to achieving that goal. We need to examine this matter further if our assistance is to be effective. We also need to ensure that our investigative capacity under the Foreign Terrorist Organization designation is sufficient to identify those providing material and other assistance to Boko Haram. Without this element, our sanctions on Boko Haram and its leaders will not be effective. The Boko Haram crisis is complex, but it can be understood and tackled effectively if we know the relevant facts. We had witnesses at the hearing I held who shed significant light on this situation so that we are better able to proceed in helping to end this threat to Nigeria, its neighbors, and the international community.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, I spent four days in Nigeria, and while in Abuja, I met with one of the Chibok girls who escaped after the infamous mid-April Chibok school abduction. This brave young woman has suffered much, was clearly traumatized, and in deep emotional pain. You could hear it in her voice. You could see it in her eyes, as she sat motionless, recounting her tragic story, yet she spoke of concern not for herself, but for her friends and classmates who remain in captivity. She pleaded for their rescue and for their protection. In Nigeria last week, I met with a Muslim father of two girls abducted from the Chibok school. Fighting back tears, he said the agony was unbearable. The story of his daughters underscored the fact that Boko Haram brutalizes Muslims as well. Last week, I also met with several other Boko Haram victims, including a Christian mother whose two daughters were abducted in February of 2012. For the past 2 years, this mom has had no idea where her two girls are or whether or not those two daughters are dead or alive. She told me that her husband was shot on the spot when they raided her home, simply for being a Christian. Three months later, Boko Haram returned and asked if her son had converted to Islam. When she said no, he was shot and killed. Mr. Speaker, on another trip to Nigeria, last September, I traveled to the city of Jos and visited churches that were firebombed by Boko Haram and met with survivors, those who lost loved ones and those who have been wounded in those terrorist attacks. In an internally displaced camp, I met with a man named Habila Adamu. Habila Adamu lived in the north, had fled to Jos, but here was a situation where Boko Haram broke into his home, put an AK-47 to his face and said: If you convert to Islam, I will spare your life. If you don't, I will shoot you. He told the terrorists: I am ready to meet my Lord. He was shot immediately, with his wife pleading with the terrorists not to do so. It blew away much of his face. When I met with him, I was so moved by his story, I invited him to a hearing. When he testified, he told that story to members of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and you could have heard a pin drop--what courage, what tenacity, what love. I was struck by the fact that he had absolutely no malice for the man who pulled the trigger, who almost turned him into a martyr. In Jos, I also met with Archbishop Kaigama and Muslim leaders in that city who told me how Christian and Muslims were working together to assist the victims and to try to mitigate the threat, but, Mr. Speaker, the violence has gotten demonstrably worse and shows absolutely no signs of abating. After the May 20 Boko Haram bombings in Jos that killed 118 innocent people--that is less than a month ago--and wounded at least 56, Catholic Archbishop Kaigama, an extraordinarily brave and compassionate religious leader, reminded the world that Boko Haram is faithful to its target of eliminating and destroying Christianity from parts of the country. They only difference is that we are not just seeing Christians dying and being abducted, we are seeing attacks on Muslims, as well, who Boko Haram considers not Muslim enough. The Archbishop said: The international community can help in a number of important ways. The sale of arms is of grave concern. In short, the government needs help in cutting the supply lines of Boko Haram. Mr. Speaker, Emmanuel Ogebe, special counsel for the Justice for Jos Project and also a leader in the Jubilee Campaign testified yesterday: Boko Haram continues to ravage northern Nigeria, killing over 1,000 people in 8 weeks. The terrorists are bolder and more diabolical than ever and have completely overrun several borderline rural communities. Prior to the Chibok schoolgirl abductions, much of the international response was inattention and inaction. Now, it is attention, but inadequate action. Mr. Ogebe also testified that it took the United States 25 months after the first two Americans were attacked and 1 year after the third and fourth Americans were targeted before Boko Haram was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the Obama administration. I would note, for the record, that during the last 2 years, I have pushed hard--and I am not the only one in this Congress who has done so--to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, or FTO. I introduced legislation, H.R. 3209, the Boko Haram Terrorist Designation Act of 2013, in an attempt to make it so. On December 13 of last year, I chaired yet another congressional hearing on Boko Haram and was prepared to advance the legislation. However, on the day before the hearing, the Obama administration finally announced FTO designation--late, but welcomed--which is designed, in part, to slow or help interdict the flow of arms and terror financing. Mr. Speaker, at yesterday's hearing, we also heard from the former American Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders, an experienced and very distinguished diplomat, who told my committee: Nigeria is at the beginning of a long war, and they have to realize this. This is no longer a localized conflict or insurgency. There is no easy fix, and every attack and response to Boko Haram cannot be viewed as a death knell blow to it. A long-range security framework to the terrorist threat is what is needed. Ambassador Sanders said: The security services need to regroup, reapproach, and readdress it as such, in order to begin to get off their heels on the defensive and get on an aggressive offense. This has not happened yet, and Boko Haram has not only succeeded in terrorizing 60,000 square miles of territory, but it is also evident that, with the late April 2014 attacks, that they have the ability to reach locations just 15 kilometers outside of Abuja, either with sleeper cells or with bombs getting past checkpoints. Current Nigerian security services have never experienced anything like this, like what it is facing with Boko Haram. Boko Haram is executing asymmetrical warfare, and for the most part, this is outside of the framework of the security forces and their capability to effectively respond. Among Ambassador Sanders' recommendations were additional material, especially mobile communications equipment, vehicles, technologically- based bomb detection equipment; improved control over their very porous borders; improved military planning, logistics, equipment and supplies, including sufficient spare parts and fuel; expanded small Special Forces units and a 24-7 counterterrorism center; establishing a satellite CT center closer to the northeast region, so information doesn't take so long to react to or to be analyzed; and more rapid response forces, or what we call mobile units, and probably more outposts. Another expert at yesterday's hearing, Dr. Peter Pham, director, Africa Center, Atlantic Council, testified: A comprehensive strategy is required to respond to the burgeoning threat posed by Boko Haram, including the promotion of specialized training for Nigerian security forces. Undoubtedly, the Nigerian security forces, both military and police, need that assistance in the fight. However, the need is less a matter of personnel and equipment than training, especially in intelligence and investigations. Mr. Speaker, while some training has begun--and U.S. military personnel deserve high praise and thanks for their professionalism, skill, and commitment--much more needs to be done. Human rights vetting must be improved so that eligible soldiers are not wrongfully excluded and intelligence cooperation needs to be expanded. Let me also express my gratitude to our Embassy personnel for also working overtime in trying to mitigate this threat and to do the work that the Embassy does so selflessly. They are doing a wonderful job, and I appreciate their work in hosting and helping with my trip there. Finally, just let me say, nothing has galvanized global opinion and a sense of extreme urgency more than the abduction of the Chibok schoolgirls, and now other girls since. Some 20 more girls were just abducted by Boko Haram. Despite escalating threats of terrorism, however, many Nigerians, including and especially the faith community--Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims--have responded with extraordinary courage, resiliency, resolve, and empathy for the victims, and they hope and they are working to ensure that Boko Haram--the whole country--is stopped. Counterinsurgency training and intelligence capacity are among the highest priorities, and my hope is that more, not less, will be done going forward in order to mitigate this threat and to end the reign of terror that is being promoted by Boko Haram. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Gohmert, thank you for your trip there and your concern, which has been throughout your entire career for human rights in general, but also for religious freedom. This is a serious assault on religious freedom, forced Islamization. Again, those Muslims who do not agree with the extremism are also targeted, but Christians by and large. At yesterday's hearing, Mr. Ogebe said that, of the 60 churches that have been destroyed, three mosques have been destroyed during that same time period. This is an attack on the Christian faith and it is a slaughter of Christians. I want to thank you for your leadership on this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Again, the great urgent needs for the Nigerian military are actionable intelligence and the capacity to know what is going on where, when, in real-time, and training. There needs to be a reevaluation of the vetting process, the Leahy amendment which I absolutely agree with; but when good troops and good soldiers and, especially, good officers are unnecessarily excluded because of a taint that may be ascribed to their unit rather than their individual performance, that needs to be relooked at so that we can train. There is a battalion that is being trained by the U.S., but there needs to be far more training in counterinsurgency. I would say to my friend, I remember a trip to Darfur. The Nigeria military has been very robust in their peacekeeping. I remember I met with Major Ajumbo in Darfur who had also been deployed to Sarajevo. I was very active in the terrible Balkan war. I went several times to places, including with Frank Wolf, to Vukovar and other places that were under siege. When the peacekeepers got there, among them were the Nigerians. So peacekeeping is something they had been very generous in deploying their troops to try to help other countries deal with civil wars or wars of aggression and, of course, terrorist activity as we have seen in Darfur, but now that kind of training is not applicable to a counterinsurgency effort. That takes a very specialized type of skill set, and that needs to be ramped up exponentially if this horrific threat is to be mitigated and then eventually done away with.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. There are so many very excellent points from my friend from Texas. They don't want boots on the ground. The Nigerian military, Goodluck Jonathan, the President, what they need is this kind of specialized training, and they need it fast. As we have seen in Baghdad--and the threat being posed now to Baghdad--and Fallujah, of course, several months ago and now in Mosul, a highly motivated and capable group of terrorists can do extraordinary damage unless you have people facing them down who have the kind of training and motivation that can meet and stop it. Let me just say, too, Africa is now, you know, the Wahhabi sect and others, extremist elements, are trying to influence Africa to the detriment of moderate Muslims, as you have pointed out, who have gotten along and have been best of friends with the Christian community. Even in Nigeria, there have been bishops and imams who have traveled throughout the country. The country is roughly divided in half. It is the most populous country in all of Africa, about 180 million people, and a very, very important friend and ally of democracy and us. They are at risk because of these extremist elements. We saw it in Somalia with al-Shabaab and the pain that that terrible organization has inflicted on Somalia. Then as they were being defeated--they are not defeated yet, but as their numbers were lessened, they went over to Nairobi and went into a market and killed large numbers of people and terrorized. These people eat, sleep, and drink brutality and impose it on innocent people. They blow up children and women and men. As a matter of fact, one of the untold stories is how many of the schoolboys are just being summarily executed, particularly in the three northern states. They kidnap the girls, as you pointed out, sexually abuse them and do horrific things to them and kill some of them, but they just summarily execute the young men. So there is a reign of terror that is underappreciated around the world with regard to Boko Haram. You and I and others have been raising this for years. Our Ambassador Sanders yesterday talked about she was Ambassador in 2007-2010, U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, how she had raised so many issues. In 2011, the U.N. headquarters in Abuja was firebombed by Boko Haram--in Abuja. There was an American there, and yet the Obama administration refused to designate Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization. I asked Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie Carson at a hearing in 2012 and then again a year later, why. This organization meets the test of a foreign terrorist organization, and why not, especially with the tools that are available through an FTO designation, trying to track the terror money and the means and financing for guns and the procurement of weapons, IEDs and the rest, and they just refused. They named three individuals, but they would not do the FTO for the entire organization. A missed opportunity. Again, like I said, on the day before my hearing in December, the administration announced Boko Haram as an FTO. We welcomed it. Everybody was glad, but we missed an opportunity for approximately 2 years or more for an FTO designation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would just add, finally, that one of the big takeaways--and this was amplified yesterday by Ambassador Sanders-- is that there is a huge psychological toll being imposed upon the victims, and that the PTSD experienced by the families, especially with the Chibok abduction, is enormous. The government of Nigeria, obviously, needs to walk point on trying to ensure that psychological assistance, as well as the faith community, which can provide a tremendous benefit to those suffering trauma and the aftermaths of it, be given. One of the things that Ambassador Sanders mentioned yesterday that I thought was a very good idea is that President Goodluck Jonathan ought to meet with the families of the Chibok girls. One of the things that George Bush did, and he actually did it in my district as well--not George but his wife, the First Lady, but he did it at the White House and other venues--they met with the survivors of 9/11 and let them know not only that the sympathy and the empathy for their plight was real and the harrowing loss that they endured, but that, as President of the United States, George W. Bush, and his wife, said: We are with you, we have got your back, we care about you. So, respectfully, I would hope that the President, Goodluck Jonathan, would open his arms and meet with the Chibok family members, the parents who are in utter agony--who wouldn't be?--at the loss of their daughters. Again, I met with one of those dads who lost two of his daughters to the abduction, doesn't know where they are, like the others, and this man, tears flowing down his face. In his case, he was one of the Muslims. There were a few Muslim girls, we don't know how many, at the school--it was mostly Christians, overwhelmingly Christian--but his two daughters were Muslim. This trauma is real. We know from the work that the VA has done for years of posttraumatic stress disorder--PTSD--that those impacts are lifelong and they need to be addressed. When I sat, like you sat, across from some of those young victims, the lucky ones who were able to escape, this poor young 18-year-old girl that I met with was clearly broken and hurting beyond words, and yet she kept uttering and saying: But I care about my friends, what happened to my friends, where are my friends now? And tears welled up in her eyes several times. So again, I do thank you. There is one other idea to put on the table: The victims compensation fund. Nigeria does have significant oil wealth. While there are still huge numbers of poor people in Nigeria, there is also the idea that there are resources available. Certainly helping some people get their lives back together--when I went to the IDP camp--the internally displaced camp--in Jos last September I was struck by the destitute, the extreme poverty compounded by the exodus, and there are hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons, obviously in Nigeria but also in adjacent countries like Cameroon. So a victims compensation fund would be at least an effort, a gesture, to help out, it would seem to me, those who are suffering from, again, loss of life, abductions, and now no place to live too. It just gets worse and worse and worse. I also heard harrowing stories of people who leave their homes and hide in the bush at night because Boko Haram at any night can just come knocking on the door, AK-47 in hand, ready to open fire. So the pervasive fear, especially in the three northern states, is bad and getting worse. And again, our former Ambassador yesterday said: This is a long war, and Nigeria needs to understand, and everyone who supports Nigeria, that it is not going to just end with one fell swoop. There needs to be a strategy that takes in a framework to account that this is a long and protracted war, but it has to start now.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for his compassion and for bringing these stories forward and for meeting with those families. I did, too, hear of the false guilt--nevertheless, guilt--shared by some of the families, but what do you do when you are facedown with an AK-47 and you are holding a stick? That is basically what happened. I have been to Abuja a number of times. I am the author, as you know, of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, America's landmark law in combating sex and labor trafficking, enacted in 2000. I have been there a number of times, working with members of parliament--their congressmen and their senators--on trafficking legislation. They have a very, very well-written piece of legislation to combat the scourge of modern-day slavery and human trafficking. There are many fine members of the House and Senate. Part of the problem has been the corruption in some places--in the military, in some cases--in parts of the government, and we have corruption here; so we know how insidious, as you pointed out, that can be, but when the military units that are deployed lack the skill base and the training to deal with a terrorist organization that is highly adept, coupled with the fact they don't have enough munitions, enough capabilities that any military going to war against this kind of threat need to have, it just so hampers their ability to carry on the fight. So that, too, has to change. We are told something like $6 billion in defense spending by the government is what is going on. It seems to me--and I said this at yesterday's hearing--perhaps they need an urgent supplemental--the way we would do here--to significantly upgrade their materiel. That was one of the first things that Ambassador Sanders said yesterday. They have the money to buy this. They need to procure it-- and do it yesterday--certainly, today--and not wait any longer--so that these troops are ready, capable and trained. So I really appreciate your point. They do have a number of fine laws. Their legislature is functioning in many ways very well. There are gaps that particularly need to be addressed. Three northern states have some serious problems. So I do think we need to be a true ally and friend. As Professor Pham said yesterday, we will keep our footprint very light. Nobody wants U.S. troops on the ground. That is very clear, but we need to help them help themselves, especially since the Nigerians have been so generous in deploying peacekeepers to troubled areas throughout Africa and, like I said, in places like the Balkans, in Bosnia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. So much.