Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Dr. Benishek. Just to close, Mr. Speaker, 41 years ago next week--January 22--marks the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous, reckless, and inhumane abandonment of women and babies to abortionists. Forty-one years of victims--dead babies, wounded women, shattered families. Forty-one years of government-sanctioned violence against women and children. Since 1973, more than 56 million children have been killed by abortion--a staggering loss of children's precious lives--a death toll that equates to the entire population of England. The passage of time hasn't changed the fact that abortion is a serious, lethal violation of fundamental human rights, and that women and children deserve better, and that the demands of justice, generosity, and compassion require that the right to life be guaranteed to everyone. Rather than dull our consciences to the unmitigated violence of abortion, the passage of time has only enabled us to see and, frankly, better understand the innate cruelty of abortion and its horrific legacy--victims--while making us more determined than ever to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable. All life is sacred, Mr. Speaker. No one, regardless of sex, race, religion, disability, or condition of dependency, is a ``throwaway.'' All of us, especially lawmakers and policymakers everywhere in this town and throughout the country, have a profound moral duty to protect the innocent and the inconvenient. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the African Union, or AU, is in the midst of a long program to create an African Economic Community through the eventual merging of existing regional economic communities. U.S. policy is to support regional integration in Africa as enhancing the success of U.S.-Africa trade by reducing trade barriers and creating larger markets. I chaired a hearing yesterday that examined the AU effort and its potential benefits for Africa and the United States. A focal point in U.S.-Africa trade policy is the encouragement of integrated markets in Africa. It makes trade with Africa more efficient and beneficial for African businesspeople and governments. It also is more attractive for foreign investors. The AU, a regional grouping of all countries in Africa except Morocco, was established in 2002 as the successor to the now-defunct Organization of African Unity, or OAU. Its formation was largely motivated by OAU members' desire to more quickly achieve the goals of the 1991 African Economic Community Treaty. The treaty is intended to promote African regional economic integration and socio-economic development through the planned creation of a common African market and shared political and economic institutions. Make no mistake, this is a challenging goal. The example of the European Community demonstrates the difficulty even when involving developed nations. The current African nations were not created to collaborate with one another. Varying languages, conflicting legal and commercial systems and often incompatible transportation infrastructures make this worthy goal a major challenge, and there are other obstacles that make this effort even more daunting. Nevertheless, the eight recognized Regional Economic Communities have a timetable to which they are generally adhering with few exceptions. The Arab Maghreb Union, a trade agreement comprising Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia, is inactive and frozen due to deep political and economical disagreements between Morocco and Algeria regarding, among other issues, the matter of Western Sahara independence. The Community of Sahel-Saharan States, comprising 28 countries across Africa's Sahel region, is finding regional integration difficult because of its members being part of other trade blocs that are more advanced in their integration. Meanwhile, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, a free trade area with nineteen member states stretching from Libya to Swaziland, has agreed to an expanded free-trade zone and is also considering a common visa scheme to boost tourism. The East African Community, an intergovernmental organization comprising five East African countries--Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda--signed a protocol just last year outlining their plans for launching a monetary union within 10 years. The Economic Community of Central African States, which includes 10 countries across the middle of the continent, formed a customs union with a free trade area between members and a common external tariff for imports from other countries as long ago as 1966. The Economic Community of West African States, a regional group of 15 West African countries, is creating a single large trading bloc through an economic and trading union and serves as a peacekeeping force in the region--all despite operating officially in three co-equal languages--French, English, and Portuguese. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development is an eight-country trading bloc based in East Africa and has transformed from an executive group with a focus on development and environmental control to a larger structure as a Regional Economic Community. The Southern African Development Community began as an anti- apartheid coalition fighting for majority rule in South Africa in the 1970s, but since majority rule came to South Africa in 1994, it has become a traditional Regional Economic Community, and like its West African counterpart, sometimes engages in peacekeeping operations. By 2017, a free trade union and customs union is supposed to be established in each Regional Economic Community. The process is still stalled in North Africa and the Sahel, although there is progress elsewhere. This phase is now fully in force in East Africa, as well as West and Central Africa. In today's hearing, we are looking for recommendations on what the Regional Economic Communities and their member countries must do to fulfill the AU's ambitious agenda, but we also want to examine what the U.S. government, other donor governments and international financial institutions can do to enhance their efforts in this regard. Ostensibly, this assistance has been ongoing for some time now but we want to find out more about why these efforts have not moved farther ahead. At yesterday's hearing, we had with us experts who have observed regional integration in Africa, and in some cases, have worked to promote it for more than a decade. We know what governments have said about the benefits of regional integration, and we have heard from the private sector about their preference for integrated markets. Yesterday we heard from those who can provide and have provided the technical assistance necessary to make these goals a reality. We in Congress currently are working on legislation to extend the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and integrated regional markets will only enhance the success of this trade process moving forward. We hope today's contributions will better inform us on how we can more effectively encourage regional integration and the expansion of African markets.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, January 11, is Human Trafficking Awareness Day--a day on which we remember that more than 20 million human beings toil and suffer as slaves across the globe. A day to rededicate ourselves to creating an environment of zero tolerance for human trafficking in all its forms. 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 strategy that included sheltering, 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, was merely a solution in search of a problem. For most people at that time, the term trafficking applied almost exclusively to illicit drugs or weapons. Reports of vulnerable persons--especially women and children--being reduced to commodities for sale were often met with surprise, incredulity or indifference. It took two years to overcome opponents and muster the votes for passage. Now, after the enactment of my Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (P.L. 106-386), and subsequent reauthorizations of the original landmark law, we see strong efforts to fight trafficking at both the federal and state level. This year New Jersey ranked first in the country--with one other state--for enacting aggressive anti-human trafficking laws--i.e. we are leading the nation both on helping the trafficking victims, who are mostly women and children, and on cracking down on the thugs who coerce them into this modern day slavery. Being first in the nation is a distinction of which New Jersey can be proud especially as we apply our strong anti-trafficking laws for Super Bowl XLVIII. Along with welcoming enthusiastic fans, New Jersey is also preparing for an influx of traffickers who will bring with them trafficking victims in an attempt to cash in on the Super Bowl crowds. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that more than 10,000 prostituted women and girls were moved to Miami for the Super Bowl in 2010. According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Super Bowl can be described as ``the single largest human trafficking incident in the United States.'' A 2011 study conducted by Traffick911 with law enforcement agencies found that online escort ads increased dramatically in Dallas from 135 in mid-January to 367 as the Super Bowl approached. One hundred thirty three arrests were made for underage prostitution (a key indicator for trafficking) in Dallas during the Super Bowl 2011. Capt. Doug Cain, Louisiana State Police spokesman, said after the 2013 Super Bowl in New Orleans, ``Any time you have a large influx of tourists in town and they're spending a lot of money, there's a criminal element that moves in to take advantage of that.'' In light of this history, New Jersey's location on the I-95 corridor, and easy access to bus stations, trains and airports, the state can expect to be a target for an influx of prostituted women and girls at Super Bowl XLVIII. Still, if New Jersey properly prepares and trains-- promoting ``situational awareness''--it can undercut traffickers and help save their victims. For several years now, I have pushed efforts to enhance training not only for law enforcement but for tourism personnel such as hospitality industry workers and transportation operators--bus drivers and station operators, train conductors, taxi drivers, trucking associations, and airline industry personnel. In 2010, I chaired a conference--focused on the airline industry-- bringing together the relevant U.S. agencies, such as Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), various U.S. airlines, and nongovernmental organizations--to train commercial carrier employees in the identification of trafficking victims. Best estimates show that every year 600,000 to 800,000 trafficking victims are moved across international borders. Millions more victims are moved within national borders. Speakers at my conference explained how flight attendants were the ``first line of defense'' in the fight against human trafficking. The federal government has responded with the Blue Lightning Initiative--a voluntary training program in which airlines can collaborate with the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security and the CBP. They work together to help train flight crews and airline personnel about common signs of human trafficking and how they can safely report suspected human trafficking cases. With minimal modifications, the training is easily adaptable to professionals in other transportation industries as well as workers in the hotel industry. The New Jersey Human Trafficking Task Force, which was originally launched and funded through a program created by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and its reauthorizations, is the key anti- trafficking coordinating agency for New Jersey. In anticipation of the Super Bowl, the Task Force has taken a hands-on approach expanding the reach of New Jersey's anti-human trafficking law enforcement unit as well as victim services. They have also increased print and electronic public service announcements and training programs and symposiums for law enforcement officials, health care workers, lawyers, transportation workers and hoteliers. The New Jersey Department of Homeland Security and Preparedness has also stepped up to combat trafficking at the Super Bowl, distributing flyers to EMS, fire department, law enforcement, and other emergency care professions so that these front line professionals will know when to be concerned that someone is a trafficking victims and how to respond appropriately. By the end of January, New Jersey is expected to have thousands of law enforcement personnel and civilians with the goal of not only ramping up New Jersey's anti-trafficking efforts for the Super Bowl, but using the event to fully institutionalize reforms going forward--so that more women and children will be protected in the future. This concept has proven straightforward, effective--and it is catching on. In December, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is made up of 57 countries from Europe and North America, endorsed my plan to make anti-trafficking training for airline employees, other public and commercial carriers, as well as hotel workers a primary goal in the international strategy to combat human trafficking. In an earlier session, the OSCE parliamentary assembly adopted my resolution to implement such trainings in each member country. Any country that competes to host the next major sporting event must be fully aware of the human trafficking vulnerabilities associated with such events and the best practices for protecting and rescuing the victims. The Super Bowl--and every other major sporting event worldwide--should not have a dark side of human trafficking, plain and simple. This year, let us mark Human Trafficking Awareness Day by remembering that trafficking awareness training for individuals likely to interact with trafficking victims in their daily jobs--and being aware ourselves--can create an environment of zero tolerance for human trafficking. Awareness can and will save lives.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, When China bullies, incarcerates, tortures--and even executes--a prisoner of conscience, their entire family and friends suffer an excruciating sense of loss, bewilderment, emotional pain and agony. Often members of the family are themselves subjected to interrogation, mistreatment and house arrest in order to amplify the hurt. In a very real sense, everyone close to a prisoner of conscience goes to jail and lives a seemingly unending nightmare. Every day, family and friends are left to wonder what terrible abuse awaits dad or mom or a brother or sister or child. Every day, the tears flow. The people who rule China today with an iron fist resort to these ugly methods of control in the mistaken assumption that the people--the masses--can't be trusted to govern themselves, practice their faith as they see fit or create a family. China's barbaric one child per couple population control policy in effect since 1979 continues unabated to make brothers and sisters illegal and relies on ruinous fines and penalties, forced abortion, and coercive sterilization--crimes against humanity--to achieve its ends. And all ``news'' content and commentary in cyberspace, TV, radio or in print media continues to be strictly controlled and manipulated by the communist party. The Chinese government today is in the business of breaking minds, bodies and hearts. The repression is systematic, pervasive, unrelenting and unnecessary--the people of China love their nation and deserve better treatment. Even heroic persons like Chen Guangcheng, Wei Jingsheng, Rebiya Kadeer, Bishop Su, Harry Wu, and countless others who have demonstrated by their extraordinary perseverance an indomitable will to advance bedrock human rights principles regardless of cost carry the indelible scars of unspeakable mistreatment. The people who rule China today employ these ugly methods of control to prop up their own political power and increase their personal wealth. China, a great nation, deserves better. Far too many of us who live in freedom often fail to exert ourselves in a meaningful way to assist prisoners of conscience and their loved ones--in China and elsewhere. Far too many of us fail to empathize with their plight. Or to see what's just below the faccade of the purported harmonious society. How can it be that the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo remains in prison while his wife Liu Xia is forced to endure the extreme isolation of house arrest and is now reportedly experiencing severe depression? Perhaps we are uninformed or too busy or prefer to look askance. However, with so much preventable suffering being endured by so many prisoners of conscience and their families in China today, the time has surely come for a more serious and sustained defense of these heroic individuals and their noble causes. All of us--including the Chinese government--have a duty to protect. At a hearing that I held several weeks ago, we heard the cries for release and freedom from five remarkable daughters on behalf of their wrongly imprisoned fathers and from a dad on behalf of his unjustly jailed son. We also received expert testimony from a previously incarcerated Christian pastor who cares deeply for the vulnerable and at risk and another human rights activist who was detained in China after an attempt to visit a dissident.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, at our full committee hearing on Tuesday, December 10, I asked Secretary of State Kerry whether he had raised Pastor Saeed Abedini's release during the Iranian nuclear talks. I read him the following advance excerpt of the testimony that Naghmeh Abedini--wife of Pastor Saeed Abedini who remains imprisoned and subject to torture in Iran--would offer on Thursday, December 12. ``While I am thankful for President Obama's willingness to express concern about my husband and the other imprisoned Americans in Iran during his recent phone conversation with Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, I was devastated to learn that the Administration didn't even ask for my husband's release when directly seated across the table from the leaders of the government that holds him captive. My husband is suffering because he is a Christian. He is suffering because he is an American. Yet, his own government at least the Executive and diplomatic representatives has abandoned him. Don't we owe it to him as a nation to stand up for his human rights, for his freedom?'' Secretary Kerry acknowledged that he had not done so--confirming the awful report that Naghmeh had already heard. Pastor Abedini remains imprisoned in Iran, sharing a cell with violent criminals who have more than once surrounded Pastor Abedini as he tried to sleep, wielding knives and threatening his life. Saeed Abedini is an American citizen. He went to Iran last year to build an orphanage for Iranian children. He had been arrested in Iran before, but released and told he could enter and exit the country for humanitarian aid work if he agreed to cease pastoring house churches. As Pastor Abedini's wife, Naghmeh, testified last week, he accepted that proposal--but Iran did not uphold its end of the agreement. Abedini was arrested in July 2012, imprisoned, and tried for sharing his religious beliefs and thereby supposedly undermining the security of Iran. He was denied contact with his attorney until just before the trial. The trial was not public, and he and his attorney were barred from participating in key portions of the trial--following which a judge sentenced him to 8 years in prison. His appeals have been denied. In prison, he has been repeatedly beaten, denied medical care, and held in solitary confinement. While nuclear talks played out on the world stage--Iran moved Pastor Abedini to a prison notorious for housing the worst criminals in Iran, Rajai Shahr. The very fact that Pastor Abedini was moved to a dangerous prison in the middle of negotiations confirms that the Iranians recognized him as a potential factor in the negotiations. Since August of 2012, the United States has reportedly released four Iranians, including most recently a high-ranking scientist, who were imprisoned in the U.S. for sanctions violations. Speaking for myself, I question whether these releases are unrelated to the nuclear talks. Yet American citizen Saeed Abedini remains in a hell-hole prison in Iran. The U.S. government must not waste another opportunity to secure the release of Pastor Abedini--his case needs to be front and center in the next round of U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Time is running out. Naghmeh, Rebecca, and Jacob need their husband and father home.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a hearing that I convened last week examined the escalating human rights abuses in Egypt. It was fitting that we held the hearing on December 10, International Human Rights Day, because we are witnessing grievous violence and other abuses directed against religious and political minorities, particularly the Copts and other Christians, about which our government and the media has said far too little--which seems to be a pattern worldwide. The persecution of Christians is escalating. Witness the slaughter of Christians in the Central African Republic (CAR). Bishop Nongo of the CAR told my committee that Christians were being targeted because of their faith while the U.N., the United States, and the rest of the world looked on. Last Thursday, I chaired a hearing on American pastor Saeed Abedini who is jailed and suffering torture in Iran. Pastor Abedini's wife, Naghmeh, told my committee: ``While I am thankful for President Obama's willingness to express concern about my husband and the other imprisoned Americans in Iran during his recent phone conversation with Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, I was devastated to learn that the administration didn't even ask for my husband's release when directly seated across the table from the leaders of the government that holds him captive. My husband is suffering because he is a Christian. He is suffering because he is an American. Yet, his own government, at least the Executive and diplomatic representatives, has abandoned him. Don't we owe it to him as a nation to stand up for his human rights, for his freedom?'' After President Mubarak resigned in February of 2011, the world hoped for a new Egypt, a just government for all Egyptians, which would not make President Mubarak's mistakes--but reality has been just the opposite. Horrific anti-Christian pogroms have taken place under each of the post-Mubarak governments. For some of these abuses, the governments bear the responsibility of inaction. For others they bear direct responsibility. In recent months, undercurrents of abuse and contempt for human dignity long existing in Egypt have turned into flash floods of violence. For example, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces presided over the Maspero protest massacre in October 2011. At least 25 people were killed and more than 300 injured--almost all of them Copts--when the military drove trucks through the crowd and used live ammunition against the unarmed protestors. Under the now-displaced Morsi government three low-level soldiers involved were charged with minor crimes and received two- to three-year sentences. No commanding officers were held responsible for ordering or failing to prevent the deadly assaults. While Mr. Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, at times voiced support for an Egypt that was home to Muslims and Christians, his inaction belied his rhetoric. In April of 2012, St. Mark's Cathedral, seat of the Coptic Pope, was attacked by 30-40 Muslim youths. While dozens of Copts were sheltering inside, security forces joined the mob. Rather than dispersing the crowd, they participated in the all-night attack or stood idly by as rocks, gasoline bombs, and gas canisters were lobbed into the iconic cathedral. Despite this, President Morsi denied that the clash was sectarian in nature. After Mr. Morsi was removed in July of this year, the military ended the Muslim Brotherhood's sit-in with violence, killing hundreds of protestors. Tragically, some in the Muslim Brotherhood scapegoated the Copts although the Copts had nothing to do with the military's violent response. On August 14, a day that will be remembered as the worst day for Copts in 700 years, thirty-seven churches, five schools, three Bible societies, four other Christian institutions, and many homes and businesses were burned or damaged by mobs. More than 100 deaths were documented in the initial spate of violence and its aftermath. Some Copts have charged the current military government in Egypt with allowing the attacks on Coptic persons, businesses, churches, and homes to continue--often in sight of police stations and in spite of repeated and direct calls for help--in order to solidify government power as the only alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as to justify their own heavy-handed crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood denies any involvement in the attacks occurring across the country, and has at times condemned them. Yet the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party Branch in Helwan reportedly posted a statement holding the Coptic Pope responsible for Morsi's removal and otherwise linked Copts to attacks on the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood also called for Friday prayers to be held in an evangelical church in Minya after it was occupied and converted into a mosque on August 15. Whoever the attackers are--and that is one thing we hope to learn more about today--the bottom line is that Coptic citizens are having their most basic human rights--freedom of religion, freedom of association, and equal protection of the laws--denied. We can never rest while human dignity is so grossly trampled on--nor can we ever accept the suffering that has marked Coptic life for decades, very much including the abductions, forced conversions, and forced marriage of Coptic girls and women. These abuses have continued unabated, and, by some reports, have escalated sharply following the Arab Spring, as has the abuse of the Egyptian courts to prosecute blasphemy cases against Christians, moderate Muslims and secularists. Moreover, despite the nearly 1.5 billion dollars in foreign aid American taxpayers give Egypt each year, neither the Mubarak government nor the Morsi government, or now the military government, has seen fit to return kidnapped American citizen children Noor and Ramsey Bower, who were abducted by their mother to Egypt in 2009 in violation of valid U.S. court orders, to the United States. They, along with about 30 other American children in Egypt, are forced to live without the love and guidance of an American parent who daily fights for their return, while being stripped of half of their culture and half of their identity. In addition, freedom of expression continues to be under fire. The current interim government has been arresting and jailing journalists critical of the military government, jamming the broadcast signals, deporting foreign reporters, and otherwise closing the offices of news outlets that are ``broadcasting lies.'' In his September 23rd speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the President stated that his ``. . . approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: the United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests.'' These core interests were earlier defined in the speech to include the ``Camp David Accords and counter- terrorism'' efforts but not, I believe mistakenly, to include human rights. Human rights, and the intrinsic dignity of every human being from womb to the tomb, are important in and of themselves. But for those who fail to grasp this, there is another important point to be made: It is in the strategic interest of the United States to encourage governments to respect the rights of their people, because governments that fail to do so are in the final analysis unstable: This should be the abiding lesson of the Arab Spring. The president also stated that future U.S. support to Egypt ``will depend upon Egypt's progress in pursuing a democratic path.'' Again, it is unclear what criteria this entails. What if the democratic path does not include protection of human rights, such as what we saw under the Morsi government and now the interim government? It is not democracy per se that is to be the goal, but rather a duly- elected constitutional government that respects minorities, the separation of power, and human rights. Tyranny of the majority is not an acceptable option. What is clear is that the U.S. needs a new approach. This administration's short-sighted approach of not clearly linking aid to the protection of human rights in Egypt has been unequivocally ineffective. It is my hope that our hearing today will shed light on what went wrong and how the United States can be more effective in protecting human rights going forward.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Recently, the deadliest typhoon ever to hit South East Asia devastated portions of the Philippines, including the islands of Leyte, Samar, and Cebu. With sustained winds of 155 miles per hour, Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda reached as high as 270 miles per hour at one brief point. The storm surge reached a maximum height of 40 feet. It is the deadliest Philippine typhoon on record, killing more than 5,600 people. Another 1,759 are listed as missing. Approximately 26,000 were injured. Yolanda is also the strongest storm ever recorded at landfall, and unofficially the fourth strongest typhoon ever recorded in terms of wind speed. Philippines Foreign Secretary Alberto Del Rosario told us the storm was ``three and a half times the size of Katrina.'' Several weeks ago, I led a congressional delegation to the Philippines to witness the devastation unleashed by Typhoon Haiyan-- known locally as Typhoon Yolanda--and to gain a better understanding of the unmet needs going forward. Joined by my distinguished colleagues Trent Franks and Al Green--and staff director Greg Simpkins and counsel Piero Tozzi--we were unanimous in our deep respect and abiding gratitude for the accomplishments of the U.S. military, USAID leaders, and NGOs on the ground including Catholic Relief Services--who alone has committed over $20 million to assist victims. For their part, the Philippine military was also playing a vital role along with the remnants of local governing bodies. In the immediate aftermath of the storm--right up until arrival-- highly motivated U.S. service members brought desperately needed supplies, including food, water, medicine, and housing materials by the planeload to the ruins of Tacloban, with homeless, destitute victims-- over 19,000 and counting--hitching flights back to Manila for safety and shelter. As was the case after the 2004 tsunami, the United States deployed an aircraft carrier--this time the USS George Washington--and other major military assets to provide assistance. Smart, rapid response, combined with unique airlift capability has made all the difference in the world. In the Philippines, I had the privilege of meeting Col. Eric Mellinger, Chief of Staff of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force. I nominated Eric to the Academy in 1982--and it was clear watching him in action that he has earned extraordinary respect. His leadership--and that of Generals Kennedy and Wissler--ensured that a desperate, shell- shocked population of victims got immediate, tangible help. Every Marine we saw, including three from New Jersey--Lance Cpl. Anthony Pellegrini, Lance Cpl. James Soccodato, and Lance Cpl. Michael Nappa-- was working around the clock to protect victims. ``Sleep--what's that?'' one Marine told me with a smile. ``We're saving lives.'' Al Dwyer, Principal Regional Advisor for East Asia and the Pacific at the USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Relief said ``when the U.S. hit the ground things got moving . . . this was a model response . . . we saved lives here--I know that for a fact.'' The cooperation and teamwork of the military and disaster assistance leaders from USAID, including Jeremy Konyndyk--Director of the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance--who traveled with us, the NGO community, and Philippine officials was a textbook example of how disaster assistance ought to be done. But of course the relief efforts are far from over. The emergency phase has matriculated into recovery. With Donald Reilly from Catholic Relief Services, our delegation visited a sanitation kit distribution at a local parish church, and received a briefing from Mayor Remedios Petilla of Palo--whose daughter Jessica Petilla is a medical doctor in New Jersey--and met with numerous survivors who told us heartbreaking stories yet radiated a calm and inner peace. One man told us how his father drowned only a few feet from where we stood and how he had stoically carried many waterlogged dead bodies to a mass grave. He said he nearly collapsed emotionally however when he carried the lifeless body of a three year- old girl. He said he just broke down, overwhelmed, and felt he could continue no more. Yet amazingly, a few hours later, there he was-- determined to rebuild and overcome and full of faith in God. That resiliency was best summed up by Archbishop Jose Palma of Cebu who said ``the Typhoon was the strongest in the world . . . but our faith in the Lord is even stronger . . . no calamity or natural devastation can quench the fire of our hope. The Filipino soul is stronger than Yolanda.'' Enroute from Tacloban to Manila aboard a C130 commanded by Major Jason Kauffman, our plane was diverted to seek the whereabouts and rescue of a helicopter that crashed into Manila Bay. After a flawless, just above the deck, systematic search for survivors in the water--kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack--the pilot spotted two individuals, opened the back end of the C130, and kicked out a yellow life raft to two lifejacketless swimmers. With night darkness fast approaching, it was clear that their lives had been saved. Aboard was the crew's superior officer, Colonel John Peck, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade Chief of Staff, along with copilot Captain Kim and Crewmasters MSgt. Holdaway, Sgt. Weins, Cpl. Oliver, and LCpl Lopez. Back in Manila, we had productive meetings with both the Health Minister Enrique Ona and Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario. Matt Bohn, Resident Country Director of the Millennium Challenge Corporation told us that roads that had been constructed pursuant to a $435 million 5-year MCC grant had been only minimally damaged but had provided--after debris removal--an additional artery for humanitarian aid. We also met with a plethora of NGOs and U.N. agencies. Our interest was not only in seeing how effective our emergency aid coordination has been throughout it all, but going forward where our assistance ought to be directed in the medium- and long-term. We felt that two areas deserved special attention: preventing or addressing potential epidemics and minimizing human trafficking. It normally takes two to three weeks for a marked increase in disease prevalence after a natural disaster such as the typhoon, but international health experts on the scene told us that dengue fever already was endemic in the storm-ravaged areas and could increase four- to five-fold in the coming weeks. In addition to dengue fever, cholera, hepatitis A, typhoid fever, leptospirosis, shigelosis, pneumonia and other diseases can proliferate in a post-storm environment. There are vaccines for cholera, hepatitis A and typhoid fever (as well as some other diseases likely to spread post-storm), but there are no such vaccines for dengue fever, leptospirosis or shigelosis. Efforts to address potential epidemics are complicated by several factors. First, the Philippines is undergoing a rainy season that will not only increase breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other disease- bearing pests, but also will hamper relief efforts. Furthermore, the many residents without shelter or with inadequate shelter will be more susceptible to the elements. Second, the lack of electricity means no cold chain for medicines that must be refrigerated to remain usable. Third, many roads remain uncleared or badly damaged, making transportation for health workers or patients more difficult. Fourth, many Filipino health workers have either left the affected areas or died in the storm, and the continued presence of foreign health workers will depend on ongoing donor funding and the health needs demanded by subsequent crises elsewhere. Internationally-funded protection efforts currently focus on family reunification, personal identification and creation of safe spaces for women and children. USAID grantees are establishing women-friendly and child-friendly spaces in strategic locations to address the needs of women and adolescent girls, as well as male children. The lack of electricity and insecure housing raises their risk of falling prey to abusers, especially at night. However, while there is acknowledgement of the increased risk of human trafficking in the wake of the storm, the lack of reports of increased trafficking may be a good thing--or could mean that this issue is not yet a sufficient focus of protection efforts. This is despite the fact that the Philippines had a problem with human trafficking even before the latest typhoon. The Philippines was raised from Tier II Watch List to Tier II in the current human trafficking report by the Department of State. Nevertheless, that report states that trafficking of men, women, and children remains a significant problem, but child sex trafficking is a special danger, with children being forced to perform sex acts on the internet. Clearly, there needs to be more involvement of trafficking-in-persons experts on recovery planning teams. Also important will be providing shelter for the 1.2 million families whose homes have been damaged or destroyed. Schools have been so widely destroyed on Leyte that officials told us the school year may be over now--months before it normally would have ended in March. Livelihoods have been severely affected as the coconut industry--the leading agricultural producer--has been decimated, and it will take 5-7 years to replace the trees lost in this storm. The Philippines is a major American ally and trading partner. There are an estimated 350,000 Americans living in the Philippines, and 4 million Filipinos living in the United States. We have an important stake in seeing that our friends and neighbors in the Philippines can recover from this devastating storm.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Chairman Royce, for your total support of this legislation and the initiative behind it. You have been a great friend of all of the left-behind parents and abducted children. I want to thank you very sincerely, and I also thank Eliot Engel, our ranking member. At a time when there are very few bipartisan initiatives, you, as leader of our committee, have ensured that the committee is a bipartisan committee where we work on a global basis for all people on human rights and humanitarian issues. It really has made a difference. Thank you for your support in getting this legislation here today. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Speaker, 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 had extraordinary legal counsel both in Brazil and in the United States. Patricia Apy, his American attorney, is a world- class expert in child abduction cases. He 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 parties. In the end, Mr. Speaker, because of the father's abiding love for his son and an indomitable will, the Goldmans today are united and happy. But the Goldmans are an exception in an ever worsening injustice that harms thousands of American children and many more kids worldwide. Most cases of parental abduction and wrongful retention have a bad ending. The child or children never return, and the left-behind parent often never sees them again. Even if left-behind parents are allowed access, the conditions are tightly supervised and of excruciatingly short duration. Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting many absolutely amazing, dedicated, yet heartbroken left-behind parents. Some of them are here today in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, up in the gallery, as they wage an effort on behalf of their abducted children. Out of deep love and a commitment to justice, they, too, like David Goldman, adamantly refuse to quit. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, their stories are often eerily the same. In the beginning days and weeks post-abduction, they thought the Hague treaty, their government, and the rule of law would ensure a swift, just, and durable remedy. As the months and then years go by, however, the journey of the left-behind parent is filled with unbearable pain. The heartache they endure is severely compounded by the fact that child abductions and wrongful retentions significantly harm children in many ways, especially psychologically. Mr. Speaker, more than 1,000 international child abductions are reported to the State Department's Office of Children's Issues, also known as Central Authority of the United States, each and every year. That is just those that are reported. There are many that are not. Between 2008 and 2012, 7,000 American children were abducted, according to the Department of State. According to the State Department as well, only about half of those children abducted from the U.S. to countries with which this country has reciprocal obligations under the Hague Convention are ever returned. In other words, the other half are not. And when there is no treaty obligation, less than 40 percent of abduction and access cases are resolved. It is an awful record that Congress today can help change. The purpose of H.R. 3212, as amended, the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2013, is to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and wrongful retention and to assist left-behind parents to not only have access to their children, but to significantly enhance the prospects of resolution. My biggest policy takeaway from working on the Goldman case, Mr. Speaker, was the absence of incentives for nations to prioritize resolving parental abduction cases and the complete lack of penalty for callous governmental indifference or complicity. The Goldman Act is based on two human rights laws: the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, or TVPA, which I authored in 2000, and the International Religious Freedom Act, or IRFA, which was authored by our distinguished colleague, Frank Wolf. The Goldman legislation seeks to hold countries to account by meticulously monitoring their performance in adjudicating parental child abduction and wrongful retention. After a vigorous analysis, if a country at its administrative, judicial, or law enforcement levels demonstrates what we call a pattern of noncooperation, that is to say, persistent failure to fulfill its Hague Abduction Convention responsibilities, or failure of a non-Hague nation to abide by a memorandum of understanding with the United States, the President is empowered to take any number of escalating Presidential actions against that nation. Again, patterned after both the TVPA and IRFA, the message to all nations and all past, present, and future abductors is that the United States is very serious about preventing or resolving child abduction cases. In order to ensure that the administration has maximum flexibility in advancing solutions, the President is given generous waiver authorities. The bill also encourages the Secretary of State to seek opportunities to enter into an MOU with non-Hague Convention countries--and, obviously those that are not non-Hague can also become a part of it even when they do become one--and to establish protocols to identify, locate, and effectuate the return of an abducted child as well as access issues. Finally, in order to ensure more robust accountability and the potential of successful interventions, the bill significantly beefs up reporting. Finally, let me just say also, Mr. Speaker, the bill has been endorsed by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I will include in the Record a letter from that very august organization in support. I have a letter from Robert Wallace, the executive director of the VFW, who has also endorsed the bill and made it very clear their concern, which is reflected in the text of the bill, about our servicemembers deployed abroad who find themselves in the unbelievably horrific position of having a child abducted while they are deployed and then not only not having access to but certainly not getting their children back. And there are a number of cases. I have had four hearings so far where they have testified. In the case of Commander Toland, who was stationed in Japan, his daughter was abducted by his now-deceased wife, and he has not had access to his daughter in a decade, Mr. Speaker. She is now 11, and he has desperately, through the rule of law and by using the process, tried to have access to and to reclaim his precious daughter as the only surviving parent. He is like so many others. Both children of Michael Elias, a combat- injured Iraqi war veteran, were abducted. He cannot even have access to them. I actually traveled to Japan, Mr. Speaker, with the grandparents. We could not even get to see those two wonderful children. That has got to change. This legislation seeks to use the civil aspects of the Hague Convention to empower that treaty, which is very well-intentioned but lacks enforcement capability. This legislation gives the President the tool. It adds to those tools in the toolbox to make return and access a reality rather than a dream and a hope. Veterans of Foreign Wars, of the United States, December 11, 2013. Hon. Chris Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing today to express the strong support of The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) for H.R. 3212, the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2013 (Goldman Act), as it is sorely needed to protect members of the armed services from the tragedy of international parental child abduction. As you know, members of the armed services, by virtue of their deployments abroad, are particularly vulnerable to having their children abducted off base and into the jurisdiction of a foreign country, or in the case of marriage to foreign spouses, the flight of that spouse with the child to the country of origin. In both cases, our service members' pleas for help are too often met with bad legal advice, misinformation, or indifference. They are told that the abduction is a simple custody case, and that they should litigate in the foreign court system. The result is financial and emotional disaster for our soldiers and their children. In most cases, they are never reunited with the children. Japan, in particular, has been a ``black hole'' for the abduction of our service members' children--and yet the United States still has not covered abduction in the Status of Forces Agreement with Japan, or any other country. It is time for the U.S. government to take concrete action to protect our service members from the dangers of international parental child abduction. The Goldman Act would require the President to take one or more specified actions, or a commensurate action, in response to a failure to resolve a child abduction case or a ``pattern of noncooperation.'' It would authorize the Secretary of State to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding where no legal framework exists for the return of abducted children. It would also strengthen reporting requirements on abductions, so that the DOD can make better decisions about how to educate and protect our service members from the dangers of international parental child abduction. Thank you again for your work on this much needed bill. The Veterans of Foreign Wars offers our full I support, and we look forward to working with you on this issue. Sincerely, Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director, VFW Washington Office.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Patricia Smith, a constituent of mine from Jackson, New Jersey and the President of Lyme Disease Association, Inc., LDA, recently testified before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee regarding the need to establish an advisory committee on Tick-Borne Diseases. I would like to submit her compelling testimony from the hearing, entitled ``Examining Public Health Legislation to Help Local Communities,'' for the Record: Chairman Pitts and Committee Members, Thank you for allowing me to testify on the need to establish an advisory committee on Lyme disease to ensure that government resources are being appropriately used to move forward the field of science and treatment in an area that is fraught with political, scientific, and medical obstacles, yet is dominating discussion on the worldwide stage. In 2009, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) indicated that Lyme surpassed HIV in incidence followed by a 2013 announcement confirming a 10-fold under-reporting of Lyme cases, estimating 300,000 Lyme cases annually. A 2001 National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored study found that the impact of Lyme disease on physical health status was at least equal to the disability of patients with congestive heart failure or osteoarthritis, was greater than those observed in type II diabetes or in recent myocardial infarction, and chronic pain contributing to impairment was similar to that reported by patients with osteoarthritis. Couple those facts with Lyme spreading worldwide to 80 countries and the discovery of many newly emerging tick-borne pathogens being carried by many different ticks, then the passage of HR 610 is long overdue. The LDA just revised its comprehensive education and prevention brochure, LymeR Primer, which went from featuring 7 tick-borne diseases (TBD) in 2009 to 15 diseases. Besides Lyme disease, there are at least 15 other TBD of concern in the US: anaplasmosis; babesiosis, bartonellosis; ehrlichiosis; Rocky Mountain Spotted fever; Colorado tick fever; Q fever; tick paralysis; tularemia; Powassan encephalitis; STARI, a Lyme-like disease often with the same rash, transmitted by a lone star tick bite, pathogen cause unknown, but may be a bacteria similar to the Lyme bacteria; Rickettsia parkeri Ricketsiosis found increasingly along the Gulf Coast and in the South; Borrelia miyamotoi, a tick-borne bacteria which had been producing disease outside the US, now found in the US; newly found Ricketsia species 364D in the Pacific Region; and a newly discovered tick-borne virus in Missouri, Heartland, carried by the lone star tick. One tick- bite can give someone more than one disease. My education on Lyme began almost 30 years ago as a NJ Board of Education member whose district had a large number of students and staff out with Lyme disease. Then, only a few US ticks were recognized as major health threats to humans. Now, many ticks in the US are causing more human diseases, ticks including Ixodes scapularis (deer, black legged), Amblyomma americanum (lone star), Dermacentor variabilis (American dog), Dermacentor andersoni (Rocky Mt. wood), Ixodes pacificus (western black legged), Amblyomma maculatum (Gulf Coast), and Dermacentor occidentalis (Pacific Coast). My Lyme work, including 17+ as president of the national volunteer-run non-profit Lyme Disease Association (LDA), has kept me in close contact with patients nationwide. The complicated nature of Lyme disease, the difficulty in diagnosis, and lack of recognition by some in the medical community have exacerbated the plight of patients and their families, many of which contain more than one Lyme victim. Medical bills rise; jobs are lost; education is interrupted. Divorce is not an uncommon result in these families, further complicating the picture. Often, the families are forced to seek government help, government which is already burdened with more debt than it is able to handle. Children have always been at the highest risk of acquiring Lyme disease. Based on CDC's Lyme reported cases numbers from 2001-2010 by age, LDA estimated that 37% of reported cases were children. Using 1990-2011 CDC reported numbers adjusted for 10-fold underreporting, LDA found that 1,590,449 children have developed Lyme disease over that period. Many more children were probably clinically diagnosed but not included in the CDC surveillance figure, which uses a strict reporting definition not meant for clinical diagnosis. These are children who often go on to develop chronic Lyme disease--who often miss months/years of school and have their childhood destroyed. Showering, walking, talking, thinking can be a problem, and serious pain is a daily challenge. A 1998 Columbia University study documents improvement in IQ of 22 points in a 16 year-old after IV treatment for Lyme disease. A 1992 CDC/NJ Department of Health study in NJ of 64 school children with Lyme showed that the median duration of Lyme at time of interview was 363 days; the median number of days the illness was said to have significantly affected normal activities was 293; the mean number of total school days lost was 140; the mean duration of home instruction, 153 days. Only 26% of children under study were said to have fully recovered. The direct medical costs per case incurred by 54 case- patients totaled $5.2 million, $8.7 million in CPI adjusted 2013 dollars. The mean estimate was $96,569 ($274,412-2013); and costs of $100,000 ($166,891-2013) or greater were incurred by more then 1/5 of children. Some indirect costs were assessed totaling about $15,000 ($ 25,034-2013) due to lost time caring for patient and parents' lost time transporting children to medical treatment. A 2001 Columbia study showed children with Lyme disease had significantly more cognitive and psychiatric disturbances. Cognitive deficits were still found after controlling for anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Lyme disease in children may be accompanied by long-term neuropsychiatric disturbances, resulting in psychosocial and academic impairments. Regarding depression, parents indicated that 41% of children with LD had suicidal thoughts, 11% had made a suicide gesture. Early intervention and appropriate treatment are the answers for patients with Lyme to prevent the development of chronic Lyme disease, aka, Post Treatment Lyme Disease, late disseminated Lyme, persistent Lyme, Post Lyme Disease Syndrome, etc. While discussions continue on the justifications for the various terms used for chronic Lyme disease, we cannot allow the semantics to eclipse the need for research on chronic Lyme, the area producing the most human suffering and receiving the least research funding. According to a new Columbia University Lyme study, based upon 10-fold underreporting and on 10% of newly infected and treated patients developing symptoms that persist for more than 6 months, ``the actual incidence of new chronic cases (PTLS) is . . . 30,000.'' Currently, many major health threats including chronic fatigue have an advisory committee. Lyme disease does not, placing its patients and advocates at a great disadvantage. We have lobbied for a research agenda which includes more effective treatments for Lyme and other TBD and better diagnostics, including detection of active infection. B. burgdorferi was recognized in 1981 to cause Lyme, almost 33 years ago, yet the two-tier testing system endorsed by CDC is very specific for Lyme disease (99%), so it gives few false positives, but according to some sources, the tests have a uniformly low sensitivity (56%)--missing 88 of every 200 patients with Lyme disease. Yet HIV was identified as the cause of AIDS in 1984, and tests were developed within a few years after and are 99% sensitive and specific. Moreover, Lyme has not attracted industry funding for treatment approaches, which has allowed patients to develop severe mental and physical disabilities from the disease without help from science. There is also a need for educating doctors and the public about the state of the science regarding these diseases. The above agenda requires the establishment of a venue where government agencies working on diverse aspects of tick- borne diseases (e.g., CDC surveillance, testing; NIH research funding-clinical trials, as well as basic and translational research; FDA drug, vaccine and device approvals; USDA research into natural tick prevention strategies; EPA tick prevention strategies) can present their activities, submit their proposed TBD agenda, and receive input from committee members who represent a wide variety of stakeholders with diverse scientific viewpoints on development of new diagnostics, treatment methods, and prevention strategies. Utilizing this format, government would ensure its agencies were providing the most judicious use of human and financial resources for Lyme and TBD. Using an already established federal advisory committee format ensures that the committee is only advisory in nature--committee members would not control nor dictate agency agendas, a concern that has been expressed by an outside group in the past. However, those agencies should not be insulated from the public input and diverse scientific viewpoints this committee would provide in shaping an agenda and ensuring the wise use of tight federal dollars, which are provided by taxpayers. Another concern might be whether an advisory committee is worth the costs, including time, to support the operation of the committee. In the case of Lyme disease, the history of the past decades should lead to an easy yes. One does not have to be a scientist to realize that it is premature and unwise to preclude further clinical trials studying a broader range of treatment regimens when there are numerous major and significant aspects of the bacteria's known pathophysiology which have not been accounted for in studies conducted to date, when there are still many unknowns in that pathophysiology, and when we are learning more every day. While our knowledge of the pathophysiology of the bacteria continues to evolve, we must be open to additional clinical trials to document and establish better treatment regimens. There is preliminary evidence for more effective regimens, and a specific forum for open dialogue can help ensure we move forward and don't get waylaid. An open dialogue also could only improve the process of utilizing the pool of competent researchers--not in any manner that would interfere with established fair and open processes for grant-making, but only to increase awareness. It's a fact that a small number--a handful--of Lyme researchers have individually received many millions of federal research dollars, many of whom shared the same set of biases and perspectives. Common biases and perspectives are not objectionable if they are based upon the best scientific evidence; open dialogue, information sharing, and transparency can help safeguard the process and the taxpayers' money. Patients want research which will restore their health. Their voice and the voice of the clinicians must be given the necessary weight to legitimize the research agenda and the research process. Truth in science can be achieved through open discussion with diverse viewpoints in an independent process free from bias and conflicts of interest. The scientific process fails when one side of a debate controls the arena and sets the rules to ensure that its viewpoint prevails. Patricia V. Smith Lyme Disease Association

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, four years ago this month, I stood on the House floor to oppose the so-called health care reform bill (ie: Obamacare), stating my firm belief that: ``We can and must reform our health care system and provide better solutions for those currently uninsured or underinsured. But we must do so without jeopardizing the quality of health care for these currently insured people and families, many of whom will see their own health care access and quality seriously eroded under the bill.'' Unfortunately for millions of Americans, as I and many others predicted four years ago, Obamacare is expensive, forcing them to lose their coverage and undermining our world class system of care. The law's implementation is resulting in many patients having less--not more--health care and they have less say in who their doctor is, what procedures and medications are covered, and what hospitals remain in their network. The President's promise to insured individuals--that ``if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you'' and ``if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period''--was, simply, a false promise and a foolish one. We knew then, and are seeing now, that this was not the case. In fact, my colleagues and I raised these concerns during the debate and several of my speeches included my grave concerns that the bill would cause most Americans to lose access to their current health insurance coverage. At the time of passage, according to the Urban Institute, approximately 90% of the people in my district had health care coverage. Now, the New Jersey Association of Health Plans estimates that in my state alone, 800,000 people-150,000 with individual plans and 650,000 in employer sponsored small group plans--have or will have their coverage disrupted by Obamacare. In fact, I have been contacted by many of these constituents who are losing their current health care coverage. One constituent from Lakewood wrote: ``I just got a letter from [my insurance company] that my private insurance policy is being terminated due to the new Health Care Law requirements. . . I am struggling middle class citizen. Where is the president's promise that we will be able to keep our policies?'' Another constituent from Fair Haven wrote: ``I am a Vietnam veteran. . . . my wife is a 60 year old breast cancer survivor. . . . [Her insurance company] just referred her to a new policy that is almost twice the cost of the one she had.'' Similarly, four years ago, I stated: ``The bill also guts Medicare Advantage plans, which offer additional coverage to over 11 million seniors--15,983 in my district alone--who choose Medicare Advantage plans as the coverage that best meets their needs.'' Mr. Fredrick Thompson from Hamilton commented: ``My 96 year old mother-in-law who has lived with us for the past 16 years with Social Security as her only income just received a letter from [her insurance company] canceling her [Medicare Advantage policy]. This policy was cancelled due to new standards imposed by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A new policy will increase her cost by 83% plus add a deductible that did not exist in the original policy.'' The impact on future Medicare Advantage enrollment is unclear but the costs have increased for seniors, like Mr. Thompson's mother-in-law, many of who can ill afford a higher cost of living. Many more of my constituents have seen their costs rise dramatically and others are fearful that they will soon receive a cancellation notice in the mailbox stating they are being pushed off their current plans and must find a new, more expensive plan on a website that doesn't work and does not appear to have the ability to keep their required personal data safe and secure. This is unacceptable. The impact of Obamacare on small businesses is also troubling--and was predicted. One business owner in my district, April Zay from Hamilton, wrote to me: ``I am a small business owner in Mercer County NJ. I am concerned about the effect of the Affordable Care Act on my business and family. . . I have been trying my best to keep my business afloat, but with the cost of health plans and the loss of revenue is putting my livelihood at risk.'' Since the latest recession, small businesses accounted for 67 percent of the net new jobs in this country. They are the engine of a sustained job market and a recovery. Controlling costs and making healthcare policies affordable for these small businesses should be our focus. Unfortunately, Obamacare--both its insurance mandate's sticker price and the crippling taxes on individuals and businesses--incentivizes part-time employment and accelerates the trend away from employer sponsored plans. My record--on Medicare, Community Health Centers, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Veterans health care, and children with special needs--demonstrates that I remain fully committed to ensuring the federal government plays an appropriate role and provides a health care safety net for those in need of support. The solutions we put forward during the debate on Obamacare to replace it with responsible health care reform can provide credible health insurance coverage for everyone, strengthening the health care safety net, and incentivizing quality, innovation, and prevention. Reforming the private health insurance market to eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps and promoting portability between jobs and geographic areas, including across state lines, are proposals I supported and have continued to support. I also support modernizing the tax code to promote affordability and individual control and provide assistance to low-income and middle-class families who seek insurance but cannot now afford the cost. The administration's temporary decision to allow insurance companies to grandfather in existing plans is not sufficient to stop the bleeding. Obamacare must be suspended and replaced. Suspending and replacing Obamacare would fulfill the President's promise: If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it. Then we can work on real reform that puts patients first, lowers costs and advances solutions rather than creates new problems.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I held a subcommittee hearing that was not called an ``emergency'' hearing, but it very well could have been. Since we first decided to hold a hearing to spotlight the human rights situation in the Central African Republic, the situation has deteriorated even further so that today the country is on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe. Coups and dictatorships have characterized the Central African Republic since its independence in 1960, but the current crisis is far more dangerous than what has come before. Consider this: in a country of approximately 5 million people, roughly 1.1 million citizens face serious food insecurity. Some 460,000 CAR nationals are displaced, including 64,000 who have fled to neighboring countries as refugees and nearly 400,000 who are internally displaced. This is because there has been a complete breakdown of law and order in the country following the ouster of former President Francois Bozize in March of this year. After riding to power on the back of an insurrection known as Seleka, the current dictator, Michel Djotodia, has found it difficult to disengage. Seleka, originally a political alliance, has transformed into a militia of about 25,000 men, up to 90 percent of which come from Chad and Sudan and therefore constitute in the eyes of many a foreign invasion force. They do not speak the local language, and are Muslim in a nation that is roughly 80 percent Christian. They have targeted churches for destruction and stirred up sectarian hatreds where none had existed previously. Indeed, the Sudanese contingent in particular are said to be members of the notorious janjaweed, who have spread slavery and destruction in the Darfur region of Sudan and now are doing the same in the Central African Republic. And if that is not bad enough, elsewhere, the Lord's Resistance Army, or LRA, under the psychotic leader Joseph Kony is also loose in the Central African Republic. Both the LRA and Seleka are said to kidnap children to serve as soldiers, and UNICEF estimates that there are now as many as 3,500 child soldiers affiliated with armed groups in the country. Djotodia has formally disbanded Seleka, but Seleka continues to wreak destruction in the countryside, and they have seized mines and other resources in the country. Djotodia's writ does not extend much beyond the capital city of Bangui. Even in Bangui, the situation is chaotic. One of our witnesses, Mike Jobbins, related how ``There have been nearly a dozen successful or attempted carjackings of humanitarian vehicles over the past two weeks and at least three aid workers have lost their lives since the crisis began.'' In response to the depredations of Seleka, their victims have begun to form self-defense units referred to as anti-balaka, or anti-machete, gangs, which have begun to commit retaliatory outrages of their own. Rather than confront the Seleka rebels who are responsible for starting the cycle of violence, however, they often target Muslim civilians, who are deemed ``soft targets.'' Thus, violence begets violence. The situation is so bad that just this past week, John Ging, director of the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs warned, ``We are very, very concerned that the seeds of a genocide are being sown.'' All this is happening in a state which is, by any definition, dysfunctional. In the words of PM Nicolas Tiangaye, who is the closest thing to a legitimate figure in the government of the Central African Republic and whom my staff and I met with this summer when he visited Washington, the Central African Republic is ``anarchy, a non-state.'' This descent into chaos has compounded the misery of the people of the Central African Republic suffered greatly and lagged substantially in terms of development. Prior to this year, the Central African Republic ranked 180 of 186 countries per the UN Human Development Index. One area where the Central African Republic did lead bespeaks an irony: National Geographic ranked the Central African Republic as the nation least affected by light pollution. This is, of course, indicative of its low level of development, and the neglect and affirmative harm which generations of political leaders have subjected the country and its people. Amid this darkness, however, there are bright spots. It is the leadership of churches and faith based organizations, as well as traditional Muslim leaders long resident in the Central African Republic who have sought to defuse communal tensions. These indigenous Muslim leaders who speak for peace need to be recognized and distinguished from foreign fighters from countries such as Sudan--the same janjaweed who harrowed Darfur--who kill and sow destruction in the name of jihad. We had the opportunity to hear from one such courageous faith leader, Bishop Nongo. I had the privilege of hosting Bishop Nongo in my office when he came to visit Washington this summer, and I was moved nearly to tears as he described the suffering of the people in his country. It is leaders such as Bishop Nongo, who provide assistance to all regardless of their affiliation, and who strive for peace, who provide the greatest hope for the Central African Republic.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Rep. Randy K. Weber Sr., Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, and Rep. James P. McGovern should have been included as original co-sponsors of a piece of legislation that I introduced yesterday, H.R. 3526, a bill to permit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to enter into transactions with certain sanctioned foreign persons that are customary, necessary, and incidental to the donation or provision of goods or services to prevent or alleviate the suffering of civilian populations, and for other purposes or more simply, the Humanitarian Access Facilitation Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the two-year-old Syrian civil war has produced increasingly horrific human rights violations, including summary executions, torture and rape. Most recently, both government and rebel forces have targeted medical and humanitarian aid personnel. Snipers are reportedly targeting pregnant women and children. Since the Syrian civil war began, more than 100,000 people have been killed and nearly seven million people have been forced to leave their homes. By December of this year, it is estimated that neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq could see as many as 3.5 million Syrian refugees. Those who have perpetrated human rights violations among the Syrian government, the rebels and the foreign fighters on both sides of this conflict must be shown that their actions will have serious consequences. H. Con. Res. 51, introduced on September 9th, calls for the creation of an international tribunal that would be more flexible and more efficient than the International Criminal Court to ensure accountability for human rights violations committed by all sides. This hearing will examine the diplomatic, political, legal and logistical issues necessary for the establishment of such a court. Today's hearing will examine controversial issues such as sovereignty, the ICC versus ad hoc regional tribunals and the sponsorship of such a tribunal. Perhaps the most famous war crimes tribunals were the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials--the post-World War II trials of Axis military officers and government functionaries responsible for almost unimaginable crimes against humanity. The Cold War rivalry between the United States and the former Soviet Union prevented the international cooperation necessary for war crimes tribunals to be convened by the United Nations. After the end of that international political conflict, there have been three particularly notable international tribunals to hold accountable those guilty of genocide or crimes against humanity: in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and in Sierra Leone. Each of these tribunals has achieved a level of success that has escaped the International Criminal Court. The Yugoslavia tribunal has won 69 convictions, the Rwanda tribunal has won 47 convictions and the Sierra Leone tribunal has won 16 convictions. Meanwhile, the ICC-- costing about $140 million annually--has thus far seen only one conviction. The ICC process is distant and has no local ownership of its justice process. It is less flexible than an ad hoc tribunal, which can be designed to fit the situation. The ICC requires a referral. In the case of the President and Deputy President of Kenya, it was Kenya itself that facilitated the referral. That is highly unlikely in the case of Syria. Russia in the UN Security Council would likely oppose any referral of the Syria matter to the ICC, but might be convinced to support an ad hoc proceeding that focuses on war crimes by the government and rebels--one that allows for plea bargaining for witnesses and other legal negotiations to enable such a court to successfully punish at least some of the direct perpetrators of increasingly horrific crimes. And Syria, like the United States, never ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC, which raises legitimate concerns about sovereignty with implications for our country which this panel will also address. There are issues that must be addressed for any Syria war crimes tribunal to be created and to operate successfully. There must be sustained international will for it to happen in a meaningful way. An agreed-upon system of law must be the basis for proceedings. An agreed- upon structure, a funding mechanism and a location for the proceedings must be found. There must be a determination on which and how many targets of justice will be pursued. A timetable and time span of such a tribunal must be devised. And there are even more issues that must be settled before such an ad hoc tribunal can exist. David Crane, one of today's witnesses, has suggested five potential mechanisms for a Syrian war crimes tribunal: An ad hoc court created by the United Nations; a regional court authorized by a treaty with a regional body; an internationalized domestic court; a domestic court comprised by Syrian nationals within a Syrian justice system; or the ICC. Each of these first four models have some benefits--some more than others. The ICC can be ruled out, and a domestic court in the near future seems highly unlikely. However, we are not here today to decide which of these models will be chosen. Rather, our objective in a hearing I held last month was to promote the concept of a Syria war crimes tribunal whatever form it eventually takes. Again, those who are even now perpetrating crimes against humanity must be told that their crimes will not continue with impunity. Syria has been called the world's worst humanitarian crisis. According to the World Health Organization, an epidemic of polio has broken out in northern Syria because of declining vaccination rates. One might reasonably also consider it the worst human rights crisis in the world today. Therefore, the international community owes it to the people of Syria and their neighbors to do all we can to bring to a halt the actions creating these crises for Syria and the region. At last month's hearing, we assembled a distinguished panel to discuss the pros and cons of creating and sustaining a Syrian war crimes tribunal. This was not an academic exercise. We must understand the difficulties of making accountability for war crimes in Syria a reality. Therefore, we must understand the challenges involved so that we can meet and overcome them and give hope to the terrorized people of Syria. Their suffering must end, and the beginning of that end could come through the results of last month's proceeding.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last month I held a hearing that discussed China's detention of writer, activist, and self-trained legal advocate Guo Feixiong. A veteran of China's ``rights defense'' movement, Guo was criminally detained on August 8, 2013. We now know that he wasn't formally arrested until early September 2013. Guo's detention appears to be reprisal for his support of government transparency and calls for accountability. In recent months, Beijing has cracked down harshly on dozens of similar-minded advocates seeking political reforms. Guo is not a newcomer to public advocacy or punishments. A former novelist and businessman, he first became widely known in 2005 for organizing protests of land seizures on the outskirts of Guangzhou city. In 2007, a Chinese court sentenced the outspoken Guo to five years' imprisonment on charges of illegal publishing. He and his supporters maintain the charges were fabricated to silence him and others. In late 2011, he was released. Since that time, he's continued to participate in China's ``rights defense'' movement. He's continued to express himself freely in the hopes of advancing human rights. He has protested along reporters fighting the Southern Weekly's heavy- handed-censorship and vocally supported recent calls for greater government transparency and an end to corruption. Now, Guo is being held on charges of ``assembling a crowd to disrupt order in a public place.'' This alleged crime--along with many others-- is all-too-often used unjustly against the courageous men and women who want accountability or change. For simply asking for transparency, he is suspected of disrupting the harsh ``order'' Beijing enforces. Notwithstanding China's own criminal procedural rules, authorities have denied Guo access to a lawyer and have failed to properly notify his family. Once again, China continues to enforce its legal protections haphazardly when punishing or silencing those who advocate for change. The hearing focused on the heroism and sacrifices of Mr. Guo. Sadly, Guo is one among many. In recent months, Chinese authorities have cracked down on dozens of human rights advocates participating in a so- called ``New Citizens' Movement.'' The movement, which began forming last year, has been described as a loose network of like-minded, academics and lawyers who hold informal gatherings and promote various issues, including transparency and anti-corruption efforts. These detentions signify Chinese citizens' growing resolve and Beijing's growing fears. Guo, and many others throughout China, want change. They want accountability, they want transparency, and they want justice. And, increasingly, they are willing to endure great risks and willing to sacrifice their own personal security to speak freely. We were fortunate to be joined by Ms. Zhang Qing, Guo's courageous wife, and Ms. Yang Tianjiao, his wonderful daughter. We were also blessed to have with us two giants in the human rights field--Pastor Bob Fu and Mr. Chen Guangcheng who addressed the persecution of Guo and others and who also discussed more broadly the recent developments relating to freedom of expression in China. With this current crackdown on Chinese human rights activists, it is important to understand the brave and bold people challenging the Chinese state. Inspiring figures like Guo put another heroic face on these detentions. This face, however, does more than just contextualize the current crackdown or add details to a prisoner file. It causes us to wonder about ourselves, our commitment to human rights, and the risks we are willing to take for those around us. Guo now faces an uncertain punishment, as we must determine our own human rights commitment to him and others. In July 2013, Guo wrote about a 1989 Tiananmen activist now also facing the possibility of more prison time. He wrote, ``[Zhao Changqing] is an important symbol of the 1989 generation, who, in the face of danger, takes action, bears responsibility, persists, pushes forward, and becomes more evolved. This is how one should behave and shoulder his fate!'' Despite the hardships and the odds, Guo reminds us that we must shoulder our responsibilities and our burdens. We are here today to accept our responsibility to Guo and these courageous Chinese human rights advocates. We hope that we can also ``take action, bear responsibility, persist, push forward, and evolve'' like these heroes. He reminds us that this is how we all should behave. We hope that the Chinese Government is listening. We hope the Chinese citizens seeking change are listening. And, we hope Guo is listening. And we hope President Obama and our administration are listening and will do everything in their power to help free Guo and others fighting for human rights in China--so far that has not been the case.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Nigeria is one of the United States' main allies, African trading partners, and a major economic and political force beyond the African continent. Unfortunately, it continues to be plagued by terrorist forces whose reach extends beyond the borders of that country. Last week, I held a hearing is to examine the extent to which the organization known as Boko Haram and its affiliates pose a threat to Nigeria and the region, as well as the United States, and the rest of the international community. Boko Haram is a Nigerian terrorist group whose 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). 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. In the last year alone, Boko Haram terrorists are believed to have killed 1,200 Christians in Nigeria. In fact, it is estimated that more than 60 percent of Christians killed worldwide because of religious intolerance die in Nigeria. This year alone, according to Emmanuel Ogebe, one of today's witnesses, 53 Christian churches have been attacked, and 216 people were murdered by terrorists in them. 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. In the past two years, two subcommittees have sent staff delegations to investigate the Boko Haram threat, and this past September Gregory Simpkins, the Africa subcommittee's staff director, and I visited Abuja and Jos to further look into this matter. We found that the truth of this organization is much more complex than is widely understood. Although exact numbers were not made available to us, Boko Harm is definitely targeting other Muslims who don't agree with their views. Muslim religious leaders who criticize the terrorist violence are themselves made targets. What must be prevented is a growing inability for Christians and Muslims to work together to meet their common threat. 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. The proliferation of voices speaking for Boko Haram and the new faction lead some to believe this is not a coherent organization. We learned that it is actually a very sophisticated organization operating in cells disconnected from each other but coordinating at a high level. While there are those acting in the name of Boko Haram for their own purposes, this terrorist group is organized, albeit in an unconventional manner. 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. 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 is why I have introduced H.R. 3209 to urge the Administration to declare Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This measure would better provide tools for stopping those who currently provide funding or other support for this murderous, terrorist organization, and I welcome the State Department's enactment today of this designation. Our government has provided training and other assistance to the Nigerian government to battle this terrorist threat. Unfortunately, the past brutality demonstrated by the Nigerian security forces, as well as the inability of Nigerian security forces to collaborate with one another, have prevented this effort from being as successful as it should be. In far too many cases, the Nigerian government itself has actually turned local people in the North against its effort to end the terrorist threat. By its ineffectiveness, the Nigerian security forces have pushed Nigerian Christians and Muslims to form their own militias to protect themselves from terrorists and each other. In the long run, this development makes eventual reconciliation of Nigeria's various religious and ethnic communities more difficult. At last week's hearing, we had with us the administration's point person for our government's effort to help end the terrorist threat in Nigeria, a leading Nigerian Muslim spokesman against this terrorism, a Nigerian Christian expert on this terrorist threat, an American-based expert on this violence and a survivor of the Boko Haram threat. The survivor, Mr. Habila Adamu, was challenged to renounce his Christian faith. When he refused, he was shot by terrorists and left for dead. Miraculously, he survived and joined us last week with one of the most inspiring examples of faith any of us will ever hear. I hope last week's hearing will provide a fuller understanding of this terrorist threat and explain why declaring Boko Haram/Ansaru as a Foreign Terrorist Organization as part of our government's effort to end this menace and its ongoing financial support was such a necessary decision.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, some of the many friends of Fr. Frank Pavone are tonight in Staten Island, New York, celebrating a significant milestone in the life of this extraordinarily brave and compassionate priest--his 25th year since ordination and 20 years at the helm of Priests for Life. Fr. Pavone was ordained in 1988 by Cardinal O'Connor. By 1993 he became National Director of Priests for Life. His faith, determination and leadership ever since has been transformational in the cause of defending vulnerable people from violence, hatred and indifference. Fr. Pavone's passionate defense of the child in the womb is rivaled only by his compassion and outreach to post-abortive women--the other victims. His homilies are not only incisive and well composed but extremely sensitive to the pain and agony unleashed by abortion. He is the author of two books: Ending Abortion, Not Just Fighting It and Pro- Life Reflections for Every Day. Fr. Pavone has persistently called on us all to recognize, ask and receive the unfathomable love, reconciliation and divine mercy readily available from God. Priests for Life ministries--Rachel's Vineyard and the Silent No More Awareness Campaign--provide a roadmap for recovery and healing for many. Even Norma McCorvey, the ``Jane Roe'' of the Supreme Court's infamous 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, called Fr. Frank ``the catalyst that brought me into the Catholic Church.'' Underscoring the importance and relevance of Fr. Pavone's Priests for Life, last October twelve bishops and three cardinals, including Cardinals Schonborn, Martino and Keeler wrote: ``His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the Church is called `to advance the common good and to show respect for the persons who are most defenseless, starting with the unborn.' '' The letter continued: ``Throughout the world, one of the ways the Church is responding to that mission is through the work of Priests for Life, which encompasses an entire family of ministries involving both clergy and laity. This ministry, which includes education, parish activation, training in pro- life spirituality, promotion of faithful citizenship and healing of women and men after abortion deserves the support of the entire Church . . . Established in 1991, Priests for Life has enjoyed strong support at every level of the Church . . .'' Fr. Pavone radiates the love of Christ to the weak and disenfranchised yet shows no malice whatsoever to those who oppress and snuff out the lives of the littlest humans. Those in the abortion industry must be encouraged to rethink and reject the horror they do. They too are in need of God's amazing love, forgiveness and reconciliation. Join me today, Mr. Speaker, in giving thanks for the extraordinary commitment, faith and works of this tenacious priest.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the Hungarian freedom fighters who rose up against the communist tyranny that was imposed on their country after World War II. Many men and women died in that uprising--a courageous fight against incredible odds, as the Soviets sent in tanks to restore the puppet regime they installed in 1948. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman or Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission I have been on human rights missions to Hungary many times over the years. One of the things that most impresses me about this country is the deeply admirable patriotism of so many Hungarians. By patriotism I mean something very different from nationalism--whereas nationalists resent and are aggressive toward other countries, patriots love and defend their own country and its best traditions, and allow--invite-- other people to love their own countries and traditions. This summer I visited Hungary on a congressional delegation ably led by my colleague on the Helsinki Commission, Senator Roger Wicker. We met with Prime Minister Orban and others, and it is in connection with this anniversary and our meeting with Prime Minister that I'd like to place into the record a recent interview Prime Minister Orban gave to the Telegraph. I commend this to my colleagues as the words of a Prime Minister who thinks seriously and speaks frankly about issues facing his country and Europe as a whole. Viktor Orban Interview: ``Patriotism Is a Good Thing''--The Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, Tells the Telegraph Why His Country Agrees With Britain in Its Campaign Against the ``Creeping'' Power of Brussels (By Charles Moore) 15 Oct 2013 Viktor Orban has just had a good meeting with David Cameron. It was easier than his first with Margaret Thatcher (in 2001). ``I am not satisfied with you,'' were, he recalls, her first words. She was angry that Hungary was not doing more to help protect Nato's soldiers from Serb aggression. Despite this rebuff, Mr Orban is a Thatcher admirer. His political career began in 1988 when he was one of 37 young students and intellectuals founding a party to attack Communist rule in his country. ``Her role was very important: she was always in favour of freedom, always anti-Communist. She said, `There is no such thing as society.' I like that remark very much because in European politics people were always talking in artificial sociological language. Social engineering was very popular.'' When he attended Lady Thatcher's funeral in April, he was pleased that the Bishop of London explained what she really meant by those famous words. ``The funeral was very moving and very British--not tragical, as it would be on the Continent--more of a tribute.'' Young Viktor, a clever boy from a country background, won a George Soros scholarship to Oxford to study civic society as seen by liberal political philosophers such as John Locke. He loved the ``electrifying dance'' of ideas there; but this was the autumn of 1989 and the Berlin Wall was coming down. Here was the chance actually to build a liberal civic society at home. ``I said to myself, `Viktor, what are you doing here?' and I took the occasion of our first free elections in March 1990 to go back.'' He became prime minister for the first time in 1998, until 2002, and then, after wilderness years, returned to power with a landslide in 2010. His time in office has been controversial. He has been accused, often by European Union officials, of too much nationalism, of suppressing media freedom, politicising the judiciary and the central bank, and even of stirring up ethnic tensions. Has the great liberal freedom-fighter narrowed? Is there a risk that he could become an authoritarian strongman, the Vladimir Putin of his country? ``The risk is there,'' Mr Orban rather surprisingly admits, though it is much smaller if Hungary is economically successful. He thinks that circumstances have changed. [Update: The office of the Prime Minister of Hungary has asked the Telegraph to clarify the reference to Vladimir Putin in this interview. Mr Orbin intended to assent to there being a risk that he could come to seem like a Putin of Hungary, not actually to become one.] For 200 years, the ``No. 1 motivation'' for Hungarians was to catch up with more competitive Westerners. Until the credit crisis, Mr Orban believed that this could only be achieved by the ``ever-closer union'' of Europe. Now he has his doubts. The crisis shows that it is not obvious that the EU can do better than independent nations. Unlike the British, he cannot rule out joining the eurozone, because of its centripetal pull for a small country like his, ``but I don't urge it. To stand alone on your own feet is more important than ever.'' Hungary certainly should not join until it reaches 90 per cent of the GDP of those already in, he believes; right now it is in the low sixties. ``As I get older [he is still only 50], I tend to be more sceptical. Values are more important than money. National sovereignty is more and more important in my mind. The question `Who is governing us?' is the key question.'' So he supports David Cameron's efforts to change the European rules: ``We shall need a new basic treaty eventually.'' He wants to join Britain in resisting ``the creeping movement of Brussels to eat up national sovereignty''. The old answer that everything Westerners did was better is now ``stupid''. In the 1980s, the question Hungarians faced was ``how to get rid of things''--Communism, state oppression, overregulation. Now that should stop. There are things which should be upheld in the interests of civilisation, not jettisoned: ``It would be a sad story to get rid of religious belief, national identity, family and even sexual identity. That's not freedom.'' In some schools on the continent, the idea has got about that ``children should not be brought up as girls or guys'', but to choose their sexual identity later. ``Sometimes there is a separate changing room for those who don't know who they are,'' he exclaims. What does he say to accusations that he is stirring up old ethnic, territorial passions in the region? Some blame him for the rise of the fascistic Jobbik party in Hungary. His answer is based on his belief that ``Xenophobia is dangerous; but patriotism is a good thing''. Ethnic disputes, often about land, are ``a part of life in Eastern Europe'', he says. ``How do we live with this?'' he asks, ``The solution is not to lie.'' Radicals of both left and right get about 15 per cent of the vote between them. That is too high for comfort, but ``far away from being a majority''. At the heart of the problem in Europe, Mr Orban believes, is the fact that the Communists were never fully defeated. Communism as an ideology ``has no message for our future'', but, unlike Nazism, it prevailed for so long (40 years in Hungary's case) that its leaders, who ``were not stupid guys'' created a culture which maintained their power. They upheld envy ``as a perception of life'', making people ``disagree with the world as it is and try to destroy it''. They also inculcated a belief in ``entitlements without any personal effort''. In Hungary, Communism brought about what he calls ``a learned helplessness'', a deliberate destruction of personal responsibility, which crushed the middle class. We discuss the row here about Ed Miliband and his Marxist father. Without commenting on the Labour situation, Mr Orban says that there is a family tree passing from Communism through ``the `68 generation'' (such as the former revolutionary, now MEP, Daniel Cohn Bendit) to Brussels bureaucrats and the media today. ``The Communist heritage has a marriage with the radical liberals today. That genealogy exists in Europe.'' He detects it in the doctrine of European human rights and the attempts by the European Commission to impose cultural and constitutional uniformity on member states. For conservatives, he goes on, this is difficult, because ``we find we must argue, and conservatives generally prefer just to live. We are shy to invest the energy, but we must do so at a European level.'' Personally, Vilctor Orban is not shy. He is up for the fight. ``Boxing is a noble sport,'' he declares pugnaciously. In the West, politics is often ``just a career''. For him, he says, it is much more. He remembers the hard times in the late 1980s when Fidesz, his then tiny party, was opposed by the Soviets, by trade unions, militias and the state apparatus. ``We were surrounded, and we won. Compare the risk now--it's nothing. It's just a peanut.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, first of all, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel for drafting this extraordinarily timely and important legislation. This is an essential bill, and it must be passed and signed into law. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, my subcommittee staff director, Greg Simpkins, and I returned from a 4-day trip to Nigeria, including the city of Jos, the scene of recent fire bombings of Christian churches by Boko Haram, a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of Nigerian Christians and some Muslims as well. Boko Haram-- like al-Shabaab, the cowards who slaughtered Kenyans in a shopping center in Nairobi last week--poses serious and escalating threats to indigenous Africans and American personnel overseas. The Embassy Security Act, like the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, a law that I authored, is designed to significantly enhance protection at our missions abroad. Significantly, more than a dozen years ago that law came to the floor on the heels of al Qaeda bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam at our embassies in 1998. I chaired the hearings following that tragic loss of life. Admiral Crowe, who led the Accountability Review Boards at that time, testified. But it is clear that the promised action following those earlier attacks has not been fully implemented. There are serious, significant security gaps that must be remedied more than a decade later. The Royce bill does that. We seem not to have adequately learned the lessons from the terror attacks against our distinguished ambassador and three extraordinarily brave individuals in Benghazi. The Royce-Engel bill before us today contains a number of significant provisions, including necessary security upgrades for our embassies and consulates abroad. Our embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, was constructed with the upgrades recommended by earlier legislation. Greg and I saw that firsthand this week. But so many older facilities do not meet those high standards, including lifesaving setbacks from roads and thoroughfares. Chairman Royce's bill will address those gaps in essential security features at our overseas posts. I'm especially appreciative that the Foreign Affairs committee accepted my amendment that originally passed as a provision of my International Megan's Law 3 years ago--it passed the House, never got through the Senate, we all know that drill--which limits to 1 year or such time as the Secretary of State shall determine appropriate the period of validity of a passport issued to a convicted sex offender. In 2008, the General Accountability Office found that some 4,500 convicted pedophiles got passports. That's every year. That's almost 50,000 over a 10-year period--the life of a passport. And the evidence suggests some may travel to places with impunity in Bangkok and all over the world and abuse children. Poverty worldwide has made this exploitation even more prevalent--more kids now are at risk. This provision will empower the Secretary of State and the President to mitigate their travel to abuse children. This is an excellent bill. Again, I commend Chairman Royce and Eliot Engel for working in such a constructive, bipartisan way.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 1507, a bill originally introduced by Representative Markey of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a hearing that my subcommittee held last week examined the problem of ``India's Missing Girls.'' While for most of us today our attention was drawn to the unfolding crisis in Syria--I was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal Program call-in program and introduced a resolution calling for establishing a Syrian War Crimes Tribunal--other atrocities continue unabated around the world. We cannot ignore these atrocities, among the most egregious of which is violation of the human rights of the girl child and women in India. Women in India are confronted with a compounding crisis. By most estimates, there are tens of millions of women missing in India due to the devaluing of female life beginning in the womb. Sex-selective abortion and female infanticide have led to lopsided sex ratios. In parts of India, for example, 126 boys are born for every 100 girls. This in turn leads to a shortage of marriageable women, which then leads to trafficking in persons, bride selling and prostitution. Perhaps the best figures we have concerning the magnitude of the problem come from India's 2011 census figures, which find that there are approximately 37 million more men than women in India. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has addressed this issue head on, stating ``the falling child sex ratio is an indictment of our social values. Improving this ratio is not merely a question of stricter compliance with the existing laws. What is more important is how we view and value the girl child in our society . . . It is a national shame for us that despite this, female feticide and infanticide continue in many parts of our country.'' Even when they are not killed outright either in the womb or just after birth, this bias against girl children manifests itself in situations where family resources are limited and little food is available, in boys being fed before girls, leading to greater incidents of malnutrition among girls and a mortality rate that is 75% higher for girls below age 5 than for boys. The desire for a male child can be so great that there is a trend towards sex change operations for girls between ages 1 to 5, a process known as ``genitoplasty.'' Each year, hundreds of girls reportedly are pumped with hormones and surgically altered to turn them into facsimile boys. India's National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has correctly stated that this ``highly unethical'' procedure is a violation of children's rights as well as a ``perpetuation of the age old preferences for boys and biases against the girl child.'' But the roots of the present problem lie not only with cultural factors, but also misbegotten policy decisions--including population control policies that were hatched in the United States--which have had a disproportionately negative impact on India's women. We learned from our witnesses that this includes policies advanced by the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, and funded by foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, and abetted by non- governmental organizations such as the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. During the debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on a bill to ban sex selective abortion, I noted that for most of us, ``it's a girl'' is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration. But in many countries--including our own--it can be a death sentence. Today, the three most dangerous words in China and India are: it's a girl. We can't let that happen here. Our witness today, Dr. Matthew Connelly, in his book Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population traces the sordid history of sex-selection abortion as a means of population control. In her book, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, Mara Hvistendahl, elaborates ``[b]y August 1969, when the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Population Council convened another workshop on population control, sex selection had become a pet scheme . . . Sex selection, moreover, had the added advantage of reducing the number of potential mothers . . . if a reliable sex determination technology could be made available to a mass market,'' there was ``rough consensus'' that sex selection abortion ``would be an effective, uncontroversial and ethical way of reducing the global population.'' Fewer women, fewer mothers, fewer future children. At the conference, one abortion zealot, Christopher Tietze co- presented sex selection abortion as one of twelve new strategies representing the future of global birth control. Planned Parenthood honored Tietze four years later with the Margaret Sanger Award. Hvistendahl writes that today ``there are over 160 million females 'missing' from Asia's population. That's more than the entire female population of the United States. And gender imbalance--which is mainly the result of sex selective abortion--is no longer strictly an Asian problem. In Azerbaijan and Armenia, in Eastern Europe, and even among some groups in the United States, couples are making sure at least one of their children is a son. So many parents now select for boys that they have skewed the sex ratio at birth of the entire world.'' In the Global War Against Baby Girls renowned AEI demographer Nicholas Eberstadt wrote in The New Atlantis; ``over the past three decades the world has come to witness an ominous and entirely new form of gender discrimination: sex-selective feticide, implemented through the practice of surgical abortion with the assistance of information gained through prenatal gender determination technology. All around the world, the victims of this new practice are overwhelmingly female--in fact, almost universally female. The practice has become so ruthlessly routine in many contemporary societies that it has impacted their very population structures, warping the balance between male and female births and consequently skewing the sex ratios for the rising generation toward a biologically unnatural excess of males.'' Many European nations including the UK as well as several Asian countries ban sex selection abortion. Only four US states--Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania--proscribe it. Sex-selection abortion is cruel and discriminatory and legal. It is violence against women. Most people in and out of government remain woefully unaware of the fact that sex-selection abortion was--a violent, nefarious and deliberate policy imposed on the world by the pro-abortion population control movement--it's not an accident. The Congress can--and must--defend women from this vicious assault today. While India has taken steps to curb these practices, passing laws to ban sex selective abortion and temper cultural facts such as the need for brides to provide a high dowry that contribute to parents looking at their daughters as a liability, these laws are irregularly enforced. Moreover, there are laws at the state level which exacerbate the problem, mandating that parents only have two children, penalizing those who exceed this number and denying benefits. This leads inevitably to sex-selective abortion and, particularly in poorer areas, female infanticide, as parents will opt to have a son over a daughter, especially when their first child is a daughter. We hope that this hearing will better understand how we can play a role in curbing such horrific abuses. What, for example, can we do to help ensure that companies based in the US, such as General Electric, whose ultrasound equipment is used to determine the sex of the child in utero, take steps to prevent what should be a tool to promote life of both mother and child from being used as an instrument of death? Given the past role of US agencies such as USAID in coercive population control policies, what oversight do we need to conduct to make sure such abuses do not creep their way into existing programs? Similarly, to what extent are organizations that receive funding from the United States government implicated in such practices? What role can our State Department play, beyond compiling information regarding what is occurring in India with respect to what some have labeled ``gendercide,'' to influence positively the Indian government, so that it reforms laws and policies that exacerbate skewed sex ratios, such as two-child laws? By shining a light on what is happening in India with its missing girls, we hope to move toward a world where every woman is valued and respected because of her intrinsic dignity, and where every child is welcomed regardless of his or her sex.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, despite more than a decade of targeted sanctions, Zimbabwe has continued to be a major U.S. trading partner through the Generalized System of Preferences, even though it has been excluded from the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Chromium, platinum and diamonds have enriched Zimbabwe's leaders, but not its people. Zimbabwe had been one of Africa's leading industrial powers and agricultural producers until its government diminished the ability of the country to sustain its industrial or agricultural production. Illegal and disruptive land seizures resulted in political cronies gaining control of productive agricultural land rather than the black farm workers as promised. Agricultural production suffered, dragging down manufacturers of agricultural equipment--the base of the country's industry. The reduction in tax revenues led to a desperate search for foreign funding to stabilize an economy whose inflation rate reached globally historic levels. Nevertheless, Zimbabwe is a major player in southern Africa, even more so now that newly reelected President Robert Mugabe has been chosen as Vice Chairman of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the organization's anticipated Chairman next year. Facing international appeals for an end to sanctions on Zimbabwe and threats from the Mugabe government of economic retaliation, the U.S. must devise a policy that safeguards American interests while maintaining our support for democracy, human rights, good governance and economic development. Today's hearing will examine how the process of policy formation is going now and discuss what that policy should look like at the conclusion of that process. The United States has experienced a troubled relationship with Zimbabwe since this southern African nation achieved majority rule in 1980. Robert Mugabe, the liberation leader who has led his country since 1980, has always resented that our government did not support his war against the previous white minority government. Despite our efforts to establish a mutually beneficial relationship with Mugabe's government over the past couple of decades, his regime has spurned our hand of friendship and flouted international law and convention. Using colonial-era laws as models, Mugabe's government has eliminated the possibility that the political opposition can credibly challenge his rule. It has limited the ability of the media to effectively report on the news of the day. It has restricted civil society advocates from documenting and verifying the many human rights violations that have taken place in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. When Congress passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, or ZDERA, it set out a range of aid restrictions requiring U.S. representatives on the boards of international financial institutions to vote against loans or debt cancellations benefitting the Zimbabwean government, pending fulfillment of a range of conditions based on repeal of the limitations on the freedom of Zimbabweans. Recent annual appropriations laws also have barred U.S. support for international loans or grants to the government, except to meet basic human needs or to promote democracy. Generally, bilateral aid is prohibited, except that pertaining to health, humanitarian needs, education, or macroeconomic growth. Such prohibitions are maintained unless the Secretary of State certifies that ``the rule of law has been restored . . . including respect for ownership and title to property, freedom of speech and association.'' However, Mugabe's August 22, 2013 inauguration marked the end of a five-year period of often uneasy political power sharing with the opposition and partially fulfilled reforms pursued by the Government of National Unity under the Global Political Agreement. The end of the unity government means that unless a deal is struck with the ruling ZANU-PF party, its former partner in government, the opposition MDC-T party will likely no longer play a role in executive branch policy- making. Past patterns of ZANU-PF governance, along with recent actions by ruling party officials and the MDC-T's new marginalization, indicate that Zimbabwe may be entering a period characterized by a pattern of unilateral exercise of state power potentially accompanied by manipulation of the rule of law in its favor; a lack of national political consensus and the absence of vehicles for alternatives to ZANU-PF policies; continued restrictions on the activities of civil society organizations and opposition activists, including legal and extralegal harassment and violence both by the police and by ZANU-PF supporters, and weak economic growth due to ZANU-PF's pursuit of a nationalist economic agenda focusing on state interventions in the economy. The Mugabe government has long blamed the United States and Great Britain for hampering its economic growth due to sanctions, but aside from direct aid limitations, most sanctions are targeted toward Mugabe and his government's leadership. SADC is now calling for a removal of sanctions against Zimbabwe and is being joined by a growing international chorus that includes a few voices from within the Congress of the United States. Meanwhile, President Mugabe has threatened to punish Western firms operating in Zimbabwe unless sanctions are lifted. But questions remain about the willingness of the Mugabe government to take the steps necessary to rescind U.S. sanctions. If Zimbabwe takes a defiant stand, where does that leave U.S.-Zimbabwe relations? The Administration has tried limited relaxation of sanctions only to be met with continued refusal to accept reform. Where does this leave U.S. policy? However problematic our relationship with Zimbabwe has been, we need to devise a policy that fulfills our national interests, protects the human rights of Zimbabweans and enables this former industrial power to resume its rightful role in Africa's economy and the global economy as a whole.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a dozen years after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the scars from the heinous attack on our country remain. We continue to mourn the loss of the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children, including more than 50 men and women from my own district, the 4th District of New Jersey. The scars remain, obviously, in the painful void in the lives of the families who have sought in vain to make sense of their tragic loss. And the scars remain embedded in the fabric of our society, which has had to learn to cope with the reality of a world where indiscriminate, vicious attacks on human life are a constant threat. While recognizing the extraordinary efforts and courage of America's first responders--the firefighters, police officers, and other emergency response personnel, the heroes--it was also apparent from the terrorist attacks that our Nation had much to learn. We had to craft policies to better protect our people. While progress has been made--we are safer, but still not safe--some lessons have still not been effectively learned by some in our government. One year ago today, unfortunately--on the very anniversary of the original 9/11 tragedy--we lost four Americans in a sustained attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, including the U.S. ambassador to that country. I was one of those, among so many others, who advocated early and consistently for a commission to chronicle the facts, missteps, and opportunities lost leading up to the original 9/11 tragedy and to develop a well-informed, thoughtful strategy to reduce the risk of an attack. The 9/11 Commission--that was chaired so ably by Governor Tom Kean, the former Governor of New Jersey, and former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Lee Hamilton--issued an historic, incisive report, a comprehensive report which, together with subsequent legislation, was thoroughly examined by House and Senate committees. Virtually all of the recommendations were enacted into law. The whole thrust, post 9/11, has been to mitigate and, God willing, prevent such a tragedy from ever occurring again on our homeland. We have largely succeeded as several terrorist bomb plots have been prevented, except for the dreadful bombing at this year's Boston Marathon on April 15. Still, the perpetrators of that attack have been captured--one is now deceased fatally wounded in a shoot out with police and the other arrested and facing trial for his part in the bombing. I wish I could say the Benghazi murderers of the four Americans have met swift justice, but one year later, no one has been arrested, there are no credible leads on the perpetrators, and those deemed by the subsequent Accountability Review Board (ARB) report to be at fault received months of paid leave and are now back at work at the State Department. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed to be responsible, but even though she was directly involved in decisions made during the hours of attacks on the Americans in Benghazi, the ARB didn't even question her and never explained why. A year later, we still don't know who gave the order to our military to stand down from rescue operations while there presumably was still time to save the four Americans who died. Despite House and Senate hearings on the matter, a shroud of silence has descended to withhold the answers to the mysteries still surrounding the events of one year ago today. Our enemies are constantly searching for our vulnerabilities, and our ability to remain ahead of them is critical to our very survival. However, when Americans lose their lives and no one is culpable for their deaths, our safety in the homeland or abroad cannot be assured. Our enemies must know that justice will surely find them, and our officials must be certain that unjustifiable errors in judgment are not without cost. This is a very solemn day for America. There are now two tragedies associated with this day, and the most recent one remains painfully unresolved.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the subcommittee that I chair held a hearing on U.S. Africa programs and found that the unitary water budget line item had been ``zeroed out.'' Needless to say, members of our subcommittee were astonished that such an important segment of our foreign policy was seemingly being abandoned. We were assured that the money for international water programs did not disappear, but was merely redistributed among several programs. The hearing that we held yesterday was intended to look at how effective this strategy has been and to look at how our government's international water programs will be implemented in the future. Water is undeniably important to health and the very survival of human beings. Water comprises more than two thirds of human body weight, and without water, we would die in a few days. The human brain is 95% water, blood is 82% and lungs 90%. A mere 2% drop in our body's water supply can trigger signs of dehydration: fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on smaller print, such as a computer screen. Water is important to the mechanics of the human body. The body cannot work without it, just as a car cannot run without gas and oil. It is, therefore, troubling that so many people in the world do not have ready access to water. According to a 2012 report released by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund, roughly 780 million people around the world lack access to clean drinking water, and an estimated 2.5 billion people (roughly 40% of the world's population) are without access to safe sanitation facilities. Tainted water and unsanitary practices are at the root of many health problems in the developing world and are hindering U.S. and international global health efforts. In a June 27th hearing on neglected diseases, the subcommittee heard testimony on the WHO list of 17 neglected tropical diseases--three of which are primarily water-borne. However, there are dozens of other diseases transmitted through contaminated water, including botulism, cholera, dysentery, hepatitis A, polio and SARS. WHO estimates that more than 14,000 people die daily from water- borne illnesses, which cause: More than 1 billion cases of intestinal worms, 1.4 million child diarrheal deaths and 500,000 deaths from malaria. Moreover, water is at the root of international conflict. A growing number of conflicts are exacerbated by limited access to water. Increasing demand and greater variability in rainfall can inflame tensions, such as the concern Egypt has expressed about the impact of the Nile's flow due to Ethiopia's proposed Grand Renaissance Dam. Although water circulates, returning to availability through various natural processes as evaporation, clouds and rain, only about 2.5 percent of the planet's water is fresh rather than salty, and less than half that amount is available in rivers, lakes and underground aquifers. Pollution consumes some of the available water from industrial or agricultural runoff. An estimated 40 percent of U.S. rivers and 46 percent of U.S. lakes are considered unfit for fishing, swimming or drinking, and we are a developed country with significant resources. Developing countries too often don't keep adequate track of the extent of pollution nor have the ability to adequately do something about it. Other constraints on the global supply of water include efforts to privatize water systems in the developing world and the encroachment of salt water into fresh water systems. The challenges to ensuring that clean water is available to people in developing countries are serious. That is why new legislation is being developed--The Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2013--intended to support the original 2005 act by strengthening and refining its implementation. The new bill calls on USAID to continue to observe the Water for the Poor Act of 2005 in the implementation of its Water and Development Strategy. The bill would elevate the positions of our first two witnesses today--the USAID Global Water Coordinator and the State Department Special Advisor for Water Resources to report directly to the Administrator of USAID and Secretary of State respectively. Among other provisions, the bill requires local consultation on water management and usage and encourages local contracting on water, sanitation and hygiene projects. I am co- sponsoring this legislation because water is life, and we must be as efficient as possible in our efforts to provide clean water to those in need worldwide.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank Chairman Royce for offering this urgent and necessary bill, and Eliot Engel for his good cooperation on this important bill. The Iranian government is estimated to be a little more than a year away from developing nuclear weapons, an unprecedented and absolutely unacceptable threat. Iran's repeated threats to annihilate Israel are unconscionable and constitute a direct and public incitement to commit genocide in violation of article III of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei speaks of Israel as a cancerous tumor, calls for the annihilation and destruction of the Jewish state, and the leveling of Tel Aviv and Haifa. These are not idle threats. President- elect Rouhani, the past master of using negotiations as a cover to move Iran's nuclear program forward, is now being presented as a moderate, yet last year referred to Israel as the ``Great Zionist Satan.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill dramatically ramps up sanctions pushed so effectively by Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen last Congress not only to pressure Iran to negotiate, but also to mitigate Iran's emerging capability to launch the genocidal war against Israel it has been threatening for years. This is a bipartisan bill, and it sends a clear, unmistakable message to Iran that we mean business. Those loopholes need to be closed, and Iran needs to be told that we want the sanctions to work. This tightens those loopholes and moves us in that direction.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to thank, first of all, you for your very kind remarks, but also for moving this legislation very swiftly through the full committee, along with Eliot Engel's full support, and the chairwoman emeritus, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you for your steadfast support for human rights, now presiding over this session. And, Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you for being a champion on behalf of the dissidents, the bloggers, the religious dissidents, political and religious in Vietnam, who suffer daily beatings at the hands of an increasingly absurd and worsening dictatorship. Vietnam is in a race to the bottom with some of the dictatorships around the world, including Cuba, including China, Somalia, and other places where people's human rights are systematically trashed by the regimes. I do rise to ask, respectfully, that Members support the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2013. The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is simple: to send a clear, strong, and compelling message to the increasingly repressive communist regime in power in Vietnam that says that the United States is serious about combating human rights abuse in Vietnam. Underscoring the worsening situation in Vietnam, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch testified at a June 4 hearing that I chaired, and he noted that ``in the first few months of 2013, more people have been convicted in political trials as in the whole of the last year.'' And that has only gotten worse as each week passes in Vietnam. Reporters Without Borders have put out their numbers, and there's at least 35 netizens, bloggers, journalists who write online who have been incarcerated by this dictatorship. I'll never forget, on one particular trip to Vietnam, I met with Dr. Pham Son; I met with his wife. He was in prison. And what was his crime? He went on U.S. Embassy Hanoi, took an essay entitled, ``What is Democracy?'' translated it, and rebroadcast, resent it out online, and for that he got a multi-year sentence in jail. I met with his wife, who lived in great fear that they would go after her as well. And certainly, when I had dinner with her one night, sitting as far away as Chairman Royce, at the next table at a hotel were three bully boys from the--three thugs from the secret police of Vietnam, very, very visibly standing up and taking pictures to let us know that they were watching. Of course, I took their picture as well. But that's the kind of intimidation campaign this wonderful wife of a dissident was experiencing. Boat People at the SOS suggest that there are well over 625 political prisoners and religious prisoners, as we meet here tonight, who are suffering. And of course that number often goes up. One might be let out, two more incarcerated by this dictatorship. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1897 is designed to promote the development of freedom of democracy in Vietnam. The bill will bring much-needed scrutiny to a seriously deteriorating situation. It stipulates that the United States can increase nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam above the 2012 levels only if the President is able to certify that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress in establishing a democracy and promoting human rights, including respecting religious freedom and the release of political prisoners and religious prisoners, repealing and revising laws that criminalize peaceful dissent, respecting human rights of members of all ethnic groups--there's an enormous amount of racism in Vietnam, particularly directed at people who happen to be Montagnard, and others--taking all appropriate steps, including the prosecution of government officials to end government complicity in that nefarious practice called human trafficking. There are also very clear benchmarks articulated in the legislation. Madam Speaker, in the last 4 months alone, on April 11 and June 4, I've held two more congressional hearings on this deteriorating situation. We heard stories about individuals and groups who are being persecuted in a variety of ways. Their testimony confirmed that religious, political, and ethnic persecution has worsened, and that there is complicity by leadership, by the people who are in the Government of Vietnam, in human trafficking. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, in 2013, in their report, noted: The Government of Vietnam continues to expand control over all religious activities, severely restricting independent religious practice and to repress individuals and religious groups it views as challenging their authority. The Commission says very candidly that Vietnam ought to be a country of particular concern--a CPC designation--pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Unfortunately, that was removed by President Bush--a misguided move on his part--in 2006, when it was thought that the bilateral trade agreement and the permanent normal trading relations might lead to a matriculation from a dictatorship to a democracy. Things actually have gotten worse since this government got this trade benefit. Rights have suffered and people--real casualties--have endured unspeakable hardships. Mr. Speaker, on several human rights trips to Vietnam, I have met, as has Chairman Royce and other Members--and I know when you meet these people you are forever moved--courageous leaders who struggle, sacrifice and endure numbing hardships, including torture, to promote fundamental human rights in their beloved country. Many of these remarkable individuals hale from virtually every denomination of faith, whether it be Christian, Falun Gong, or Buddhists, and suffer, again, horrifically because of their faith. I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do, under pagoda arrest--a great Buddhist leader who has been relegated to his pagoda. He couldn't step one foot outside of that pagoda without the secret police rushing in. He told me if he took one step out with me to say good-bye, there would be an onslaught of these bully boys who would push and shove or mistreat him. I met with Father Ly when he was under house arrest before being re- arrested. He was a great democracy activist who was being so callously mistreated by this dictatorship. And he is only one of many. It is not just the religious leaders in particular or individuals who are victimized by the government. Entire communities are also targeted by the regime. Mr. Tien Tran testified at our April 11 meeting and told my subcommittee of the brutality experienced by the Con Dau Catholic Parish, which has been repressed like you can't believe, Mr. Speaker. Individuals have been beaten to a pulp. Some have died. And they have confiscated their property. So they're kleptomaniacs as well. Also, at the April 11 meeting we heard from the sister of a Vietnamese woman who was forced to work in a brothel in Russia with 14 other Vietnamese women. When there was an effort made by the Russian Government to liberate those women, it was the Embassy of Vietnam in Moscow that tipped off the traffickers--because they were complicit with them--to ensure that these women were not liberated but continued to be hurt by the traffickers. There was another one dealing with women who were trafficked to Jordan. Those officials of the Vietnamese Government were complicit in that as well. Again, that's only the tip of the iceberg of this terrible complicity with heinous crimes against women. I think the State Department report on trafficking was a good one, but they made a gross exception when it came to Vietnam, and actually improved their grade, when the information even in the narrative about Vietnam and the TIP report would have suggested otherwise. I'm the prime author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and worked to create those minimum standards. It's appalling that Vietnam is not where it ought to be, a Tier 3 country, an egregious violator subject to sanctions. This will be the fourth time, if this bill passes, Mr. Speaker, that we've been able to get the Vietnam Human Rights Act passed. In 2004, 2007, and last year, 2012, iterations of this bill have gotten over to the Senate, only to die through holds and other very non-democratic means of suppressing the will of the Senate in working on this bill. I hope that changes. We have seen a deterioration, as my colleagues and I have all pointed out tonight, in the human rights situation in Vietnam. It is time to stand with the oppressed people who are yearning to be free in Vietnam and to stand up against this dictatorship. It's time to meet with them, talk with them, and talk to President Sang, who was here last week to meet with President Obama, and lay down very specific benchmarks on simple respect for the fundamental liberties of people in Vietnam who just yearn to be free and to experience their God-given rights.