Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations held the second in a series of hearings on the Trafficking in Persons report and U.S. efforts to combat human trafficking. In April, the subcommittee took a close look at the records of 6 countries which had exhausted all of their allotted time on the Tier 2 Watch list and must, by law, be moved to Tier 2 or Tier 3 in this year's Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report. As discussed by experts in the April 18 hearing, the trafficking records of China, Russia, and Uzbekistan were particularly worrisome. An upgrade to Tier 2 would have been completely unmerited and would have damaged the credibility of the TIP Report. The TIP report was released late last month, and I was pleased to see that it is one of the best yet--and that it faithfully reported and graded the records of China, Russia, and Uzbekistan, which had been skirting accountability for far too long. Now, the Administration is faced with next steps including what sanctions might be imposed to press these nations to reform. When I wrote the law--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000--that created not only this report, but also the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons in the U.S. Department of State, and several other provisions to prevent both sex and labor trafficking, protect victims, and prosecute traffickers, it was hoped this report would become the international gold standard and primary means of anti- trafficking accountability around the world. It has. From the halls of parliaments globally to police stations in remote corners of the world, this report is today being used to focus anti-trafficking work in 186 countries. But with the power of this report to improve situations came the risk that it could also be used to whitewash the truth about a country's trafficking record--it could fail to report accurately and inadvertently give cover to negligent or complicit governments. I am happy to say that the 2013 report is one of the best ever produced. Special thanks are especially in order for Ambassador Luis CdeBaca and his dedicated staff for faithfully highlighting the good, while exposing the bad and the ugly. The TIP report is faithful in and reflects the hard, meticulous work and leadership of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. This office not only analyzes whether a country is complying with the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking, but also sets specific recommendations for how a country can move forward. With this report, countries should have no question about where they rank, or how they can improve. Many countries have publically or privately credited the report as the impetus for real improvement in their trafficking laws and policies. Since the TIP report's inception, more than 130 countries have enacted anti-trafficking laws, and many countries have taken other steps required to significantly raise their tier rankings. This year, China, Russia, and Uzbekistan finally have to confront their records. The report tells it like it is. For instance, the TIP report states that: ``The Chinese government's birth limitation policy and a cultural preference for sons, create a skewed sex ratio of 118 boys to 100 girls in China, which served as a key source of demand for the trafficking of foreign women as brides for Chinese men and forced prostitution. Women from Burma, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Mongolia are transported to China after being recruited through marriage brokers or fraudulent employment offers, where they are subsequently subjected to forced prostitution or forced labor . . . Traffickers recruited girls and young women, often rural areas of China, using a combination of fraudulent job offers, imposition of large travel fees, and threats of physical or financial harm to obtain and maintain their service in prostitution.'' Because tens of millions of girls have been systematically killed by sex selection abortion over the past three decades--resulting in an unprecedented number of ``missing'' women and girls--demand for prostitutes and so-called ``brides'' is exploding in China. As a direct consequence of the barbaric one child per couple policy in effect since 1979, China has become the global magnet for sex traffickers. Women and young girls have been and are today still being reduced to commodities and coerced into prostitution. Without serious and sustained action by Beijing, it is only going to get worse. The TIP Report also makes clear that ``Chinese law remains inadequate to combat all forms of trafficking . . . and the Government of China's efforts to protect trafficking victims remained inadequate . . .'' In addition, China's ``government continued to perpetuate human trafficking in at least 320 state-run institutions.'' I, along with Congressman Frank Wolf, visited one of those state-run institutions in the early 1990's--Beijing Prison #1. We were shocked to observe the horrific conditions imposed on inmates including more than 40 Tiananmen Square human rights activists. The report makes clear that state-sponsored forced labor is part of a systemic form of repression known as ``re-education through labor. The government reportedly profits from this forced labor, and many prisoners and detainees . . .'' With this report, we have done right by the millions of trafficking victims in China. With this report, we are holding China to account for its complicity in profits off of modern-day slavery. It is my sincere hope that the truth will turn the tide in China. However, I was disappointed to see that Vietnam was not downgraded to the Tier 2 Watch List or Tier 3. Vietnam's labor export companies-- most of which are owned by or affiliated with the Government of Vietnam--have been engaged in practices that lead to debt bondage and forced labor. The Government of Vietnam has yet to pay millions of dollars in damages to Vietnamese labor trafficking victims found in the United States and its territories, as ordered by U.S. courts. Vietnamese trafficking victims in other countries report that the Government of Vietnam sides with the traffickers to keep them in bondage when the victims seek help. Other reports indicate that the Vietnamese embassy in Russia is actively working with organized crime to enslave Vietnamese nationals in sweatshops and brothels, and the TIP report itself notes reports that officials at border crossings and checkpoints accept bribes from traffickers. Some notable trends in the 2013 include: Tier 1: 30 countries (as compared with 33 in 2012); Tier 2: 92 countries (as compared with 93 in 2012) Tier 2 Watch List: 44 countries (as compared with 42 in 2012); Tier 3: 20 countries (as compared with 17 in 2012). The Africa region increased its prosecutions by 45% (labor prosecutions by 500%), its convictions by 16%, and its victim identification by 13%. Africa is the region with the greatest number of Tier 3 countries, and does not contain any Tier 1 countries. The East Asia and Pacific region saw a 23% decrease in prosecutions, but a 28% increase in convictions and a slight increase in the number of victims identified. The number of victims identified remains alarmingly low (8,521) in a region where the International Labor Organization believes there are nearly 12 million enslaved individuals. The number of labor convictions (103) also remains extremely low in the region of the world most plagued by labor trafficking. The Europe region saw a slight drop in prosecutions, but a 13% increase in convictions and a 17% increase in victims identified. The European region identified the most victims out of all regions in 2013. The Near East region saw a 19% increase in prosecutions in 2012, and more than doubled its conviction rate (largely due to efforts in the United Arab Emirates). The Near East region also more than doubled its number of victims identified. This region has the greatest relative proportion of Tier 3 countries. The South and Central Asia region saw slight, but appreciable increases in its prosecutions (7%), convictions (5%), and number of victims identified (13%). India, one of the first countries to be moved off of the Tier 2 Watch List under the TVPRA of 2008 two-year rule, maintained a questionable Tier 2 ranking for a second year. Out of nearly 2 billion people, only 4,415 victims were identified. The Western Hemisphere region, in which the United States is included, prosecutions increased by 72%, and convictions increased by 44% (including a 650% increase in labor trafficking convictions). However, victim identification decreased by 15% (although there was a significant increase in the number of labor trafficking victims identified). Eight countries in this region improved their anti- trafficking laws in 2012. Cuba is the only country in the region to be Tier 3. Colombia and Nicaragua share Tier 1 status with the United States and Canada.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, which I chair, held a hearing that examined the neglected diseases that affect a relatively small but significant number of children around the world. These diseases are not only debilitating for their victims but are too often fatal when untreated. Such diseases largely impact poor people in poor countries. They are not only small in numbers, but they are unable to pay market prices for treatments and are unlikely to lead social movements to force action on their diseases. That means that research on detection, vaccines and drug treatment for their ailments does not receive the priority that diseases such as HIV/AIDS, often seen in pandemic levels, are given. The World Health Organization has identified 17 neglected tropical diseases or NTDs. The list ranges from chagas to rabies to leprosy to dengue fever. However, there are others not on this list of 17 diseases that also receive less attention. These include such diseases as polio and smallpox, which have largely been eliminated from the planet, and fatal, fortunately rare NTDs such as kuru and ebola. This hearing will consider the current U.S. government handling of these neglected diseases to determine what more can or should be done to address this situation. Current U.S. law favors research on those diseases threatening the American homeland, but in today's world, diseases can cross borders as easily as those affected by them or the products imported into the United States. For example, chagas is most prevalent in Latin America, but it has been identified in patients in Texas, and cases of dengue fever have recently been reported in Florida. We cannot afford to assume that what may seem to be exotic diseases only happen to people in other countries. Ten years ago, West Nile Virus, another NTD, was not seen in the United States or anywhere else outside the East African nation of Uganda, but in less than a decade, it has spread across this country and much of the rest of the world. Last year, 286 people died from West Nile Virus in the United States alone. As recently as the mid-1990s, this disease was seen only sporadically and was considered a minor risk for human beings. Generally, NTDs affect the health of the poor in developing countries where access to clean water, sanitation, and health care is limited. Roughly 2 billion people are being treated for at least one NTD, although most individuals are infected with several NTDs at once. Several NTDs are difficult to control by drug treatment alone because of their complicated transmission cycles that involve non-human carriers such as insects. Furthermore, some of the drugs have significant side effects (including death) and cannot be used by young children or pregnant women. A study done in 2001 found that research and development of drugs to treat infectious diseases had ground to a near-standstill. From 1975 to 1999, the report stated, 1,393 new drugs were brought to the market globally, but only 16, or 1.1 percent, were for tropical diseases (including malaria) and even tuberculosis, although these diseases represented 12% of the global disease burden. A 2012 update of that study found that the gap between the percentage of research and development on NTDs and their percentage of the global disease burden had narrowed, but there is still a long way to go to reach an adequate balance. Of the 756 new drugs approved between 2000 and 2011, 29 (or 3.8 percent) were for neglected diseases, although the global burden of such diseases was estimated at 10.5 percent. Of these, only four were new chemical creations, three of which were for malaria, but none for tuberculosis or neglected tropical diseases. It is unprofitable for companies to create treatments for diseases with few victims and no certain way to recover research and development costs. Our heart goes out to those who suffer from these neglected diseases, and we want our government to speed up research and development in cooperation with universities and private companies. However, research and development take time and effort and costs money that private companies cannot easily justify to their stockholders, including many of us, without incentives. We should consider such incentives and look at the system in place to forge successful efforts to deal with NTDs. We had with us representatives from the National Institutes of Health, which was established to understand, treat, and ultimately prevent the many infectious, immunologic and allergic diseases that threaten millions of human lives. Their government partner in the system for developing solutions to the problem of NTDs and other diseases is the Food and Drug Administration, which, among other responsibilities, is charged with protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of prescription and over- the-counter pharmaceutical medications, vaccines and biopharmaceuticals. Also joining us yesterday were representatives from a network specializing in providing medicines at the lowest possible cost to those suffering from NTDs, a major pharmaceutical company that develops new drugs for the treatment of diseases rare and otherwise, and a new organization seeking to extend the benefits of proven interventions to improve the lives of the poor in developing countries. If a solution to the gap between existing research and development and successful strategies to meet the challenges of NTDs is to be found, it will take the collaboration of the organizations represented here today, as well as numerous others. What yesterday was a disease affecting a tiny population in a remote area of the world can tomorrow become an unexpected, global epidemic. We must be better prepared to deal with new challenges to public health.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I chaired a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. We turned our attention to an overlooked aspect of the crisis in Syria--the religious minorities caught in the middle of the conflict and apparently targeted by government forces as well as rebel groups. More than 93,000 Syrians have been killed in this horrendous and seemingly endless civil war. More than 4.25 million people are displaced within Syria, with millions more fleeing to safety in the surrounding countries of Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq. It is disturbing to note that one in five of the refugees is Christian although Christians in Syria make-up one in ten of the pre-war population of 22 million people. This would seem to indicate that Christians are even more fearful for their lives and safety than other segments of the Syrian population. Before the war, Syria was a fairly pluralistic society, with Alawites, Shias, Ismailis, Yezidis, Druze, Christians, Jews, and Sunnis living in relative peace, side by side. The situation was far from perfect, as President Bashar al Assad's regime had a vast security apparatus in place with members inside each of the religious communities to monitor their activities. The Assad government was guilty of serious human rights violations, including the summary imprisonment and execution of political opponents. But relations between the various religious groups were generally not violent. That civil co-existence has ended with the war. In February of this year, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic reported that, ``The conflict has become increasingly sectarian, with the conduct of the parties becoming significantly more radicalized and militarized.'' This followed on an earlier Commission report stating that, ``Entire communities are at risk of being forced out of the country or of being killed inside the country. With communities believing--not without cause--that they face an existential threat. . . .'' We know that early in the civil war, Assad came to view the Christian minority with suspicion, accusing churches of laundering money and goods for opposition forces and forbidding banks from transactions for certain churches. There is also evidence that the Assad regime encouraged sectarian tensions in order to maintain power--perhaps believing that if the people were afraid of Islamists commandeering a nominally secular state, the people would be more likely to support Assad over the opposition. In December 2012, Time Magazine reported allegations that the Assad regime was paying individuals to pose as opposition supporters and chant slogans at protests including ``The Christians to Beirut, the Alawites to the grave.'' Our own government has voiced concern about the particular threat posed to Christians in Syria. According to the State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2012, ``The regime continued to frame opposition actions as targeting the Christian population. At the same time, it increased its own targeting of Christian and Alawi anti-regime activists in order to eliminate minority-voices that might counter its narrative of 'Sunni-Sponsored violence'.'' Religious minorities seem to fear the opposition forces. Some prominent opposition groups (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) have a religious basis which has been seen as threatening to Syria's Alawite and Christian minorities. Smaller opposition factions, such as the al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadist al-Nusra Front, take explicitly sectarian positions. There are reports of incidents in which rebel forces engaged in sectarian violence, such as burning Shi'ite mosques. Christians are perceived by many in the opposition to be Assad loyalists, possibly due to Assad's aggressive recruitment of Christians into the regime militias at the start of the civil war. Other reports indicate that the Christians attempted to remain neutral either out of pacifism or concern about their rights under opposition forces. Christian neutrality was perceived by some opposition groups as loyalty to the regime. In December 2012, a rebel force believed to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood released a Youtube video entitled, ``Warning mainly Christian cities in the province of Hama'', and promising attacks if they continue to support and house the pro- Assad forces. Christian leaders have been targeted, such as the April 2013 kidnapping of Mor Gregiorius Yohanna Ibrahim of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Bishop Boulos Yazigi of the Greek Orthodox Church-both men still have not been returned. The Druze community reports being targeted as well. In March 2013, a Druze leader reported to Christian Solidarity International, ``Our people get stopped at checkpoints and are asked which sect they belong to. Once the militias hear that they are from Swaida [a province where 90% of the population is Druze], our men disappear.'' The al-Nursa Front, a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, has been blamed for much of the sectarian rhetoric and violence, but dozens of the opposition groups ascribe to Islamist or Salafist-jihadist ideologies and mingle with the Free Syrian Army-- which the U.S. may now be supporting. Over the last three years, the United States has committed to providing $250 million to various opposition groups in Syria--at least $117 million of which has already been funded, largely to the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces. With the chemical weapon red line crossed, the Administration has also agreed to provide ammunition and small arms. It is not clear whether any of this new lethal assistance will go to the Free Syrian Army and its worrisome opposition groups. The Administration has also committed to send an additional $300 million in humanitarian aid to ``vulnerable groups'' in and surrounding Syria. It is not clear whether distribution of this aid will be informed by the plight of religious minorities. I am very concerned that the Administration may not be taking seriously the targeting of religious minorities. Too often, we have heard from this Administration that they have bigger issues to deal with than the vulnerability of religious minorities. In the last two appropriations cycles, we have directed the Administration to condition aid to Egypt ($1.3 billion dollars) on certification that Egypt is acting to protect the religious freedom of its minorities. The Administration (both Secretaries Clinton and Kerry) refused to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly, the government of Egypt continues to allow attacks on Coptic Christians with impunity. Money talks. The United States should be using assistance to ensure recipient countries and entities have a plan that is implemented to protect vulnerable religious minorities. This is all the more critical in situations like Syria, where we are providing lethal aid in what has become sectarian tinderbox.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, which I chair, held a hearing that examined the human rights and governance situation in Ethiopia, and the status of U.S. relations with Ethiopia. Given Ethiopia's important cooperation in opposing Islamic militants in Somalia, as well as its cooperation in other counter-terrorism and peacekeeping efforts, the administration has been reluctant to seriously hold the Ethiopian government to account for persistent, egregious human rights violations, including the inability of the opposition political parties to function, restrictions on civil society organizations and journalists that prevent them from operating freely and forced removals of citizens from their lands. According to the USAID's Assistant Administrator for Africa Earl Gast, ``USAID believes that open channels of communication with the Ethiopian government create opportunities to influence democracy, rights, and governance issues.'' However, Amnesty International testified last week that ``[s]ince 2005 the human rights situation in the country has deteriorated still further, with significantly increased restrictions placed on freedom of expression, association and other rights. Sadly the Ethiopian authorities have not acted in a vacuum during this period. The United States and others in the international community have failed to raise concerns over the government's systematic violation of human rights and flouting of its international obligations. The failure to speak out and press for change has emboldened the government and also allowed Ethiopia to set a dangerous example for other governments in the region to emulate. It is critical that the United States and other members of the international community press the Ethiopian authorities to address human rights concerns and repeal and reform key legislation and policies.'' Amnesty International also noted in its testimony today that ``[f]or Ethiopians held in detention, conditions continue to be extremely harsh. Torture is regularly reported to take place during interrogation in the initial stages of detention, often before the detainees have access to their families or to legal representatives. Prisoners have been slapped, suspended from the walls and ceiling by their wrists, beaten with various objects, denied sleep, electrocuted, and had weights suspended from their genitalia. Solitary confinement for extended periods is often reported. Within prison facilities, sanitation was often reported to be poor. Amnesty International has received reports of medical resources being withheld, and reports of deaths in custody. Food and water is often in short supply, and is supplemented by visiting family members where access is permitted.'' Ethiopia is Africa's second most populous country, after Nigeria, and the United States considers its government to be an important development and regional security partner. Ethiopia plays a key leadership role in the region, hosts the African Union (AU) headquarters, and is a major troop contributor to U.N. peacekeeping operations. According to the State Department, the three pillars of the bilateral relationship with Ethiopia are economic growth and development; democracy, governance, and human rights; and regional peace and security. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Karen Hanrahan stated in an October 2012 speech that ``advancing democracy and human rights is one of our highest priorities in our engagement with Ethiopia.'' Nevertheless, it has been difficult to get cooperation from the current and previous administrations in confronting the Government of Ethiopia on its shortcomings in observing democratic principles and human rights in that country. In June 2005, following a contentious election in which then-Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and his party seemed to suffer unexpected losses in the legislature, demonstrators, led by college students, took to the streets to protest a delayed release of election results. The government's reaction was to deploy snipers who shot and killed protesters and to jail hundreds of others. An increasingly violent response to protests took place in November of that year. The death toll resulting from both protests was 193, but the numbers arrested has never been confirmed. In the summer of 2005, I travelled to Ethiopia to assess the situation and met with Prime Minister Meles, members of his government, political opposition leaders, including one of our witnesses today-- Berhanu Nega--civil society representatives, the religious community and the diplomatic community. What I found was a government leader who was arrogant in his certainty that he could arrest his political opposition whenever he wanted. I also found a political opposition convinced that they had won a majority in the legislative elections that year. Unfortunately, the government's view won the day. Mr. Nega and other political leaders and human rights officials were arrested and held in jail for more than a year on charges that had to continually be changed due to the repeated failure to convict them. Some of them who managed to be released from jail, found themselves forced to live outside their home country, such as Mr. Nega. The political space for opposition parties continues to be constricted. The imprisonment and prosecution of political leaders has dissolved parties and caused reformulations that also weren't able to continue. Mr. Nega founded Ginbot 7, a new political party in Ethiopia, but two years ago, it was declared a terrorist organization by the Meles government, and not only was it unable to operate openly, but Ethiopian journalists were prevented from reporting on the party or its statements. Similarly, the Government of Ethiopia, according to the State Department's human rights report, continued to imprison more than 400 opposition leaders, activists, and local journalists by the end of 2012, many on vague national security-related charges. As of 2011, the Ethiopian government had completed long-term cheap land leases on more than 3.6 million hectares (equivalent to the size of the Netherlands), mainly to large-scale foreign agricultural investors, and an additional 2.1 million hectares of land has since been made available for such leases to foreigners. An estimated 1.5 million Ethiopians in four regions have been displaced, many of them subject to a supposedly voluntary program known as ``villagization.'' Others displaced due to these land leases or because of major dam projects now reside in refugee camps in Kenya. Despite an unacceptable political and human rights environment in Ethiopia, we hold out hope that the post-Meles government may yet change the direction the government has taken for so long. Earlier this month, thousands of Ethiopians protested political repression in the capital city of Addis Ababa. Under the late Prime Minister Meles, such a show of defiance likely would have been met with official violence and mass arrests, but the government of current Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn did not react in that way. This is an encouraging sign that the current Ethiopian government may consider changing its course and allowing its citizens to effectively express themselves-- including at the ballot box. Our witnesses last week included the former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia, the U.S. official in charge of our significant aid portfolio to Ethiopia, the former elected mayor of Addis Ababa, a member of the first U.S. delegation to meet with the current government and a longtime Ethiopian activist on human rights issues.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, pain, we all dread it. We avoid it. We even fear it. And we all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration. Madam Speaker, today, there are Kermit Gosnells all over America inflicting not only violence, cruelty, and death on very young children, but excruciating pain as well. Many Americans, including some who self-identified as pro-choice-- were shocked and dismayed by the Gosnell expose' and trial. Perhaps the decades-long culture of denial and deceptive marketing has made it difficult to see and understand a disturbing reality. Even after 40 years of abortion on demand and over 55 million dead babies and millions of wounded moms, many--until Gosnell--somehow construed abortion as victimless and painless. That has changed. The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies-- euphemistically called ``snipping'' by Gosnell--has finally peeled away the benign facade of a billion-dollar abortion industry. I note parenthetically, and it may come as a shock to many, but according to the Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund, the U.S. is among only four nations in the world that allows for abortions for any reason after viability, and one of only nine nations that allows abortions after 14 weeks. We're in some pretty bad company, Madam Speaker, because that includes China and North Korea. We are far outside the global mainstream. I would note, Madam Speaker, that like Gosnell, abortionists all over America decapitate, they dismember, and they chemically poison babies to death each and every day. That's what they do. Americans are connecting the dots and asking whether what Gosnell did is really different than what other abortionists do. I would note to my colleagues that a D&E abortion, a common method after 14 weeks, is a gruesome, pain-filled act that literally rips and tears to pieces the body parts of a child. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a modest but necessary attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old--and pain capable--from having to suffer and die from abortion. I would note to my colleagues that a majority of Americans are with us trying to protect lives. According to a recent Gallup poll, 64 percent of Americans believe that abortion should not be permitted in the second 3 months of pregnancy; 80 percent say abortion should not be permitted in the last 3 months of pregnancy. The polling company found that 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain. The women get it, and they have so polled when asked if they are against this kind of pain for babies. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recognizes the medical evidence that unborn children feel pain. We are not living in the Dark Ages. One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee stated in his expert report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice: It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children. Surgeons today entering the womb to perform corrective procedures, Madam Speaker, on unborn children, have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. Surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb. We now know that the child ought to be treated as a patient, and there are many anomalies, many sicknesses that can be treated while the child is still in utero. When those interventions are done, anesthesia is given. Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at the Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in May of 2012 said: When we speak of infants at 20 weeks post-fertilization we no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving and reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit. In other words, there are children the same age who, in utero, can be killed by abortion who have been born and are now being given lifesaving assistance. She went on to say: In today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth. She says: I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Fortenberry, thank you for your extraordinary leadership. This has been a very tough fight. You have been walking point, and doing it with great class and with great precision. I think your opening comments for this Special Order which you have sponsored just summed up the issue so eloquently. I want to thank you for your leadership. It is making a difference. And while we may not have success on the short-term, I do believe on the intermediate and long-term we will prevail over time, and I thank you for your leadership, Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Speaker, President Obama today is using the coercive power of the state to force tens of millions of people of faith and people of conscience to violate a fundamental conviction or suffer a severe penalty. What Mr. Obama has done is unconscionable, unprecedented, and violates religious freedom. By coercing all insurance plans, including those offered by faith-based institutions, to pay for drugs and devices that are contrary to their deeply held beliefs, including subsidizing abortion drugs like Ella and Plan B, President Obama demonstrates a reckless disregard for conscience rights. Everyone must comply, regardless of moral convictions or religious tenets, simply because his administration says so. Mr. Obama's means of coercing compliance--absolutely ruinous fines of $100 per day per employee that total up to over $36,000 per year per employee. Just people listening at home, our Members who may be listening to today's important Special Order, $36,500 per employee per year. When faith-based organizations refuse to comply, Obama's mandate will impose incalculable harm on millions of children educated in faith- based schools, as well as the poor, the sick, the disabled, and frail elderly who are served with such compassion and dignity by faith-based entities. Even Notre Dame, which heaped praise and honors and an honorary degree on President Obama in 2009, will be crushed by this cruel mandate. Astonishingly, it was President Obama in his 2009 speech at Notre Dame University, who said: Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause. Mr. Speaker, another promise broken; more empty, misleading rhetoric from the President who has excelled at that. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is approximately 4,600 employees are covered under Notre Dame's self-insured health plan, which means that Notre Dame will face fines of over $100 million a year when they refuse to comply with the Obama mandate. If Mr. Obama's attack on conscience rights isn't reversed, faith- based employers will be discriminated against and fined, and employees who today benefit from health insurance plans provided by their faith- based employer will be dumped into government health exchanges. And even when they do that, the fines to faith-based organizations are also without precedent. If a faith-based entity scraps its own insurance coverage because of the Obama mandate, they are then fined $2,000 per employee. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Obama's attack on conscience rights fits a dangerous emerging pattern. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had a Federal grant to assist human trafficking victims under a law that I wrote, known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and did an absolutely superb job, according to all professional reviews, assisting trafficking victims in this country. In 2011, however, the USCCB, or the Conference of Catholic Bishops, was blatantly discriminated against and thrown out of the program simply because they would not refer for abortions. That was it. Throw it out of the program. The Health Care Conscience Rights Act reasserts and restores conscience rights, Mr. Speaker, by making absolutely clear that no one can be compelled to subsidize certain so-called services in private insurance plans contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Again, I want to thank Mr. Fortenberry. He had introduced the legislation in the last Congress and was the first individual in this House to come out of the blocks to recognize just how damaging the Barack Obama anticonscience initiative really is. We need to move on this. We need to protect those men and women of conscience, those of religious belief who will not bow and will not go in the direction that this administration is demanding.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, last week New Jersey lost its senior Senator, and the Senate lost its last remaining World War II veteran when Senator Frank Lautenberg passed away at the age of 89. He died from complications from viral pneumonia in New York Presbyterian Hospital. Since then, on this floor on multiple occasions, in the United States Senate, throughout the State of New Jersey, and, frankly, across the Nation, all of us have paused to express our deepest respect for Senator Lautenberg and sorrow on his passing. To Senator Lautenberg's family--his wife, Bonnie, his six children, and his 13 grandchildren-- please accept our deepest condolences and our prayers. Senator Lautenberg served five terms in the U.S. Senate on behalf of the people of the State of New Jersey. He was first elected to the Senate in 1982, reelected in 1988 and 1994. After a brief retirement, Senator Lautenberg made an unexpected comeback and won a fourth term in 2002 and was again reelected in 2008. In December 20ll, he cast his 9,000th vote and now holds the record for the most votes ever cast by a New Jersey Senator. While serving in the Senate, Frank Lautenberg became a leader of public health and safety issues. He led the effort to ban smoking on airplanes with the enactment of Public Law 101-164, and will forever be remembered for his efforts to protect individuals and children from secondhand smoke. Frank Lautenberg also fought for transportation improvements and chemical plant safety. As the author of the Lautenberg amendment, he worked to assist members from historically persecuted groups with a credible fear of persecution to qualify for refugee status, including religiously persecuted Soviet Jews. He also fought for relief for the victims of terrorist attacks, including the first responders who experienced health complications after the 9/11 attacks, and for the families and communities across our State recently devastated by Superstorm Sandy. Senator Lautenberg was the last veteran of World War II--part of the Greatest Generation--to serve in the U.S. Senate. The son of poor immigrants, he enlisted in the Army to serve his country in uniform, went to school on the GI Bill, began a successful business, and then ran for the Senate to, in his words, ``pursue a career in public service and to give back to the country that helped give him so much.'' Senator Lautenberg has been a mainstay of New Jersey politics for decades, and with his passing, the Senate and our State has lost a dedicated public servant. I now yield to the former mayor of Paterson, a good friend and colleague, Congressman Bill Pascrell.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pascrell, I want to thank you for your eloquent, very eloquent remembrances of Senator Frank Lautenberg and for your wonderful insights, especially as the former mayor and someone who has known him so intimately and so well for so many years. Thank you very much for that. I'd like to now yield to my friend and colleague, Mr. Payne.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Payne, thank you very much for your moving words and sentiments expressed today. General Leave

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the many distinguished leaders who are joining us in conjunction with the Vietnamese-American Meetup. Many thanks to all of you for taking the time to come to Washington to meet with your representatives here in Congress, and for joining us for the hearing my subcommittee held which looked at some of the many human rights abuses being committed by the Vietnamese Government. The hearing was the second held by my subcommittee this year on human rights in Vietnam. We had a greater, in-depth, examination of some of the fundamental human rights violations that we discussed at our first hearing in April, particularly land confiscations in the context of religious and ethnic persecution. Although the relationship between the United States and Vietnam improved substantially in 1995 when relations were normalized, the human rights situation in Vietnam did not improve. As the U.S. has upgraded Vietnam's trade status, the Vietnamese Government has continued to violate a wide range of fundamental human rights. To cite just one example, despite the State Department's decision in 2006 to remove Vietnam from the list of Countries of Particular Concern as designated pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, Vietnam continues to be among the worst violators of religious freedom in the world. According to the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom's 2012 Annual Report, ``[t]he government of Vietnam continues to control all religious communities, restrict and penalize independent religious practice severely, and repress individuals and groups viewed as challenging its authority.'' USCIRF concludes that Vietnam should be designated a CPC country. It appears the State Department decided to allow political considerations to trump the facts and the brutality of Vietnam's record of religious persecution. In the Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report that was released on May 20th, Vietnam once again was a glaring omission in the list of Countries of Particular Concern. Compared to the disturbing clarity of the USCIRF report, the State Department's description of the state of religious freedom in Vietnam is a whitewash, and an extreme disservice to the truth about the religious persecution that is prevalent in that country. I repeat my past appeals to the Administration to follow the letter as well as the spirit of the International Religious Freedom Act, and hold Vietnam to account as a Country of Particular Concern. I met courageous religious leaders during my last trip to Vietnam who were struggling for fundamental human rights in their country. Unfortunately, many of them, including Father Ly and the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, remain wrongly detained today. There are disturbing reports that Father Ly is suffering poor health. Leaders of religious organizations are not the only ones victimized by the Vietnamese government on account of their faith; individuals and small communities are also targeted by the regime. Witnesses and experts at our past hearings have recounted the brutality suffered in 2010 by Con Dau parishioners at the hands of police in the course of a funeral procession. This persecution continues to this day in response to the villagers' opposition to the illegal and unjust confiscation of their land. Tuesday's hearing closely examined ethnic and religious persecution in Vietnam, particularly through the government's practice of confiscating land. The government has unlawfully taken property belonging to families that include many Vietnamese-Americans. Not only is land forcibly taken, but any compensation provided by the government is far below the fair market value. If the rightful owners do not accept what is offered or show resistance, security forces are dispatched to overwhelm any opposition and brutally suppress them. This arbitrary taking of real property not only violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but even Vietnam's own domestic laws. To address this and the numerous other violations of human rights by the Vietnamese regime, I have re-introduced the Vietnam Human Rights Act, H.R. 1897. This legislation, co-sponsored by the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Mr. Royce, and members of the bipartisan Congressional Vietnam Caucus, has been reported out of this subcommittee and is awaiting consideration, hopefully soon, by the Foreign Affairs Committee. This legislation seeks to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam by stipulating that the United States can increase its nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam above FY2012 levels only when the President certifies that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress in establishing democracy and promoting human rights, including: respecting freedom of religion and releasing all religious prisoners; respecting rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and releasing all political prisoners, independent journalists, and labor activists; repealing and revising laws that criminalize peaceful dissent, independent media, unsanctioned religious activity, and nonviolent demonstrations, in accordance with international human rights standards; respecting the human rights of members of all ethnic groups; and taking all appropriate steps, including prosecution of government officials, to end any government complicity in human trafficking. It also calls on the Administration to re-designate Vietnam as a country of particular concern for religious freedom, to take measures to overcome the Vietnamese Government's jamming of Radio Free Asia, and to oppose Vietnam's membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council, which will be voted on this fall. We were fortunate to have heard from a distinguished panel of witnesses to discuss these critical issues.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week, the world remembers the dream that was and is the ``Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989'' and deeply honors the sacrifice endured by an extraordinarily brave group of pro-democracy Chinese women and men who dared to demand fundamental human rights for all Chinese. Twenty-four years ago this week, the world watched in awe and wonder as it had since mid-April of '89 as hundreds of thousands of mostly young people peacefully petitioned the Chinese government to reform and democratize. China seemed to be the next impending triumph for freedom and democracy, especially after the collapse of the dictatorships in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. But when the People's Liberation Army poured into and around the Square on June 3rd, the wonder of Tiananmen turned to shock, tears, fear and helplessness. On June 3rd and 4th and for days, weeks and years after, right up until today, the Chinese dictatorship delivered a barbaric response-- mass murder, torture, incarceration, cover-up and the systematic suppression of fundamental human rights. The Chinese government not only continues to inflict unspeakable pain and suffering on its own people, but the cover--up of the Tiananmen massacre is without precedent in modern history. Even though journalists and live television and radio documented the massacre, the Chinese Communist Party line continues to deny, obfuscate and threaten. In December of 1996 General Chi Haotian, the operational commander who ordered the murder of the Tiananmen protestors, visited Washington, DC as the Chinese Defense Minister. Minister Chi was welcomed by President Clinton at the White House with full honors including a 19- gun salute--a bizarre spectacle I and others strongly protested. Why do I bring this up? Minister Chi addressed the Army War College on that trip and in answer to a question said ``not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square'' and claimed that the People's Liberation Army did nothing more violent than the ``pushing of people'' during 1989 protests. Not a single person lost his life? Are you kidding? That big lie and countless others like it was--and is--the Chinese Communist Party's line. As chair of Foreign Affairs' human rights subcommittee, I put together a congressional hearing within a couple of days--December 18th, 1996--with witnesses who were there on the Square in 1989 including Yang Jianli--a leader and survivor of the massacre--and Time magazine bureau chief David Aikman, two of the witnesses who testified at a hearing I held earlier this week. I also invited Minister Chi or anyone the Chinese Embassy might want to send to the hearing. He-- they--refused. I guess Minister Chi thought he was back in Beijing where the big lie is king and no one ever dares to do a fact check. A few days ago, the U.S. State Department asked the Chinese government to ``end harassment of those who participated in the protests and fully account for those killed, detained or missing.'' The response? The Chinese Foreign Ministry acrimoniously said that the U.S. should ``stop interfering in China's internal affairs so as not to sabotage China-U.S. relations.'' ``Sabotage'' Sino-American relations because our side requests an end to harassment and an accounting? Sounds like they have much to hide. President Obama is scheduled to meet with China's President Xi Jinping on Friday to discuss security and economic issues. A robust discussion of human rights abuses in China must be on the agenda and not in a superfluous or superficial way. It's time to get serious about China's flagrant abuse. Can a government that crushes the rights and freedoms of its own people be trusted on trade and security? China today is the torture capital of the world and victims include religious believers, ethnic minorities, human rights defenders like Chen Guangcheng and Gao Zhisheng and political dissidents. Hundreds of millions of women have been forced to abort their precious babies pursuant to the draconian one-child policy which has led to gendercide, the violent extermination of unborn baby girls simply because they are girls. The slaughter of the girl-child in China is not only a massive gender crime but a ``security'' issue as well. A witness at one of my earlier hearings, Valerie Hudson, author of Bare Branches, testified that the gender imbalance will lead to instability and chaos--even war, ``that the One--Child policy has not enhanced China's security, but demonstrably weakened it.'' As Nick Eberstadt famously phrased it, what are the consequences for a society that has chosen to become, simultaneously, both more gray and more male . . . The other face of the coin from the missing daughters of China, are the excess sons of China . . . the abnormal sex ratios of China do not bode well for its future.'' I hope policymakers pay close attention to the witnesses who testified earlier this week because Tiananmen was a tipping point and the lessons learned and employed ever since by the Chinese government required much better understanding and due diligence and a more effective response from us. One of our witnesses, Dr. Yang Jianli, testified that soon after Tiananmen the Communist Party embraced a ubiquitous code of corruption to enrich the elite at the expense of the general public, believing that ``economic growth means everything'' to the survival and sustainability of the dictatorship. ``All this was made possible thanks to the Tiananmen massacre and the political terror that was imposed on the entire country in the years following. . . .'' Earlier this week, we heard from activists who were in Beijing in June of 1989, another democracy advocate who was serving an 18-year sentence in prison at that time and a former Time Magazine Beijing reporter who was an eyewitness to these events. Dr. Yang Jianli is a former political prisoner and survivor of the massacre. His insights into the repercussions on China from Tiananmen, the ongoing corruption and the unfinished business are elucidating. Chai Ling was one of the most effective--and most wanted--leaders of the protest movement in Tiananmen Square. Her courage and fight for democracy and remarkable escape is the stuff of legend. As a strong woman of faith, her testimony is a message of remembering the lessons of the past but also giving hope for the future. Wei Jingsheng has been advocating for democracy in China for decades and has paid a heavy price in serving over 18 years in prison for his activities in fighting for freedom of the Chinese people. His perceptive and frequent analyses of the Chinese Communist system and the changing views of the population offer a profound view today of the events surrounding Tiananmen. And we are also grateful to have heard from Dr. Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch who for many years has been an expert and advocate of political reform and democratization and human rights in China. Dr. David Aikman, former Beijing Bureau Chief for Time Magazine, was also present during the Tiananmen massacre and covered the student protests prior to the conflict. He has also studied extensively on the status of religious freedom in China and the situation of Christianity in China today and the historical influences on its development. And we appreciated his insights and testimony. We will not forget what took place in Tiananmen Square 24 years ago. The struggle for freedom in China continues. Someday the people of China will enjoy all of their God-given rights. And a nation of free Chinese women and men will someday honor and applaud and thank the heroes of Tiananmen and all those who sacrificed so much for so long for freedom.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, there are Kermit Gosnells all over American today inflicting not only violence, cruelty, and death on very young children but excruciating pain as well. Many Americans, including some who self-identify as pro-choice, were shocked and dismayed by the Gosnell expose and trial. Perhaps the decades-long culture of denial and deceptive marketing has made it difficult to see and understand a disturbing reality. Even after 40 years of abortion-on-demand and over 55 million dead babies and millions of wounded mothers, many--until Gosnell--somehow construed abortion as victimless. That has changed. There are two victims, Mr. Speaker, in every abortion: the mother and her unborn child--three, if twins are involved. The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies, euphemistically called ``snipping'' by Dr. Gosnell, has finally peeled away the benign facade of the billion-dollar abortion industry. Like Gosnell, abortionists all over America decapitate, dismember, and chemically poison babies to death each and every year. That's what they do. Americans are connecting the dots and asking whether what Gosnell did is really any different than what all the other abortionists do. And the answer is, no, it's not different. A D&E abortion, which is described here as a common method after 14 months, is a gruesome, pain- filled act of violence that literally rips and tears to pieces the body parts of a child. And that's what they call ``choice.'' That is what they call safe and legal abortion. Mr. Speaker, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by Congressman Trent Franks and cosponsored by several Congresswomen and -men, including me, is a modest but absolutely necessary attempt to at least protect some babies, that is to say, those who are 20 weeks old and pain-capable, from having to suffer and die a painful death from abortion. On May 23, Chairman Trent Franks convened a hearing in the Judiciary Committee's Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee on his legislation. The bill, H.R. 1797, entitled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, was approved by the subcommittee on June 4 and now moves to the full committee and, hopefully, soon to the full House. The testimony of several witnesses, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit is a must-read for anyone who cares about human rights, for anyone who cares about women and children. One witness, Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist, testified that he performed approximately 1,200 abortions. Over 100 of them were second trimester abortions like this D&E procedure that is described here in this graph. He said: Imagine, if you can, you are a pro-choice obstetrician/ gynecologist like I once was. Your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant. If you could see her baby, which is quite easy on an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand plus half from the top of her head to the bottom of her rump, not counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling her baby kick for at least a month or more. But now she is asleep on an operating table. He continued: With suction of the amniotic fluid, after that is completed, you look for what he called a Sopher clamp. This instrument is about 13 inches long and made of stainless steel. At the business end are located jaws about 2\1/2\ inches long and about three-quarters of an initial inch. This is what he is talking about right here. This instrument is for grasping and crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does not let go. A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation, he goes on, or position inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything that you can. At 24 weeks' gestation, the uterus is thin and soft, so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you've grasped something inside--this doctor, former abortionist, goes on to say--squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard. Pull really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can, set the jaw, and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, the intestines, the heart, and the lungs. The doctor goes on to say that, the toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free floating inside of the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and you see a white gelatinous material coming through the cervix. That is the baby's brains, this abortionist goes on to say. You can then extract the skull in pieces. Many times, he went on in his testimony before Trent Franks' subcommittee, many times a little face will come out and stare back at you. Congratulations; you have just successfully performed a second trimester D&E abortion. You just affirmed the right to choose. If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again. It does. Another witness, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jill Stanek, a registered nurse, spoke of appalling stories of abortion survivors and the pain--the pain--the excruciating pain that they suffer when they are being aborted. She pointed out that when she testified before the committee back in 2001: it was to tell of her experience as a registered nurse in the labor and delivery department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where she discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved, put on a shelf to die in the department's soiled utility closet. Indeed, this nurse went on to say at the hearing: I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died--a 21- to 22-week-old baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome. Since then, other appalling stories of abortion survivors either being abandoned or killed have trickled out. In 2005, a mother delivered a 23-week-old baby in a toilet at an EPOC clinic in Orlando, Florida, and was shocked to see this little guy move. Abortion staff not only refused to help, but turned away paramedics, who her friend had notified by calling 911. Angele, the woman, could do no more than helplessly sit on the floor rocking and singing to her baby for 11 minutes until that infant died. In 2006, Sycloria Williams delivered her 23-week-old baby born on a recliner at a GYN diagnostic center in Hialeah, Florida. When he began breathing and moving, abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord and zipped him into a biohazard bag, still alive. The Kermit Gosnell case provides further evidence that the lines between infanticide and legal feticide, both via abortion, have become blurred. This abortionist was convicted only last week--that's when she was talking, when she testified--of three counts of first degree murder. And also last week, as she went on to say, in yet another revelation and photos from three former employees who alleged that abortionist Douglas Karpen in Houston, Texas, routinely kills babies after they are born by puncturing the soft spot at the top of the head, or impaling the stomach with a sharp instrument, twisting off the head, or puncturing the throat with his finger. Mr. Speaker, if that's not child abuse in its most extreme form, I don't know what is. It is easy to be horrified, she went on in her testimony to say, this nurse, by heart-wrenching stories such as these and to imagine the torture abortion survivors endure as they are being killed. But it is somehow not so easy for some to envision preborn babies the same age being tortured as they are killed by similar methods. Today, premature babies are routinely given pain relief who are born at the same age as babies who are torn limb from limb or injected in the heart during abortions. Even the World Health Organization goes so far as to recommend analgesia for premies getting simple heel pricks for a couple of drops of blood. Likewise, prenatal surgery is commonplace, and along with it, anesthesia for babies being operated on even in the middle of pregnancy. Meanwhile, babies of identical age are being torn apart by D&E abortions with no pain relief whatsoever. Again, they suffer, and they suffer horribly. It must be that some people inexplicably think that the uterus provides a firewall against fetal pain, or that babies marked for abortion are somehow numb while their wanted counterparts aren't. They're not numb. They feel every single bit of killing, whether it's the Sopher clamp or any other instrument is being used to dismember or to decapitate. She concludes by saying: This thinking is better suited for the Middle Ages than for modern medicine. Mr. Speaker, today there is ample documentation that unborn children experience serious pain from at least the 20th week--and most likely even before that. When it comes to pain, all of us go through great lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration. None of us ever want to die a painful death. Unborn children deserve no less. I yield to the prime sponsor of this very important legislation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the committee and, like I said, the author of the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Stutzman, for your eloquent remarks as well as those of Chairman Franks', who is compassionate and courageous like you and like our next speaker, who is also eloquent in the defense of the most defenseless. I would like to yield to Dr. Andy Harris, who is a board-certified anesthesiologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Center.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank my good friend and very distinguished colleague, Dr. Andy Harris, for his very eloquent and very incisive remarks and for his leadership on behalf of human rights in general, including here in the United States. We've been discussing human rights abuse here in the United States in trying to defend at least pain-capable unborn children from the violence of abortion. I would like to focus for a few moments on human rights abuse that is occurring halfway around the world in China. Tomorrow, President Obama will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in California to discuss security and economic issues. A robust discussion of human rights abuses in China, however, must be on the agenda and not in a superfluous or superficial way. It is time to get serious about China's flagrant abuse of human rights. It's time for this President, this administration to end its manifest indifference towards human rights abuse in the People's Republic of China. It's time for President Obama to cease his numbing indifference towards the victims of Beijing's abuse. Mr. Speaker, can a dictatorship that crushes the rights and freedoms of its own people be trusted on trade and security? China today is the torture capital of the world, and victims include religious believers, ethnic minorities, human rights defenders like Chen Guancheng and Gao Zhisheng and hundreds and thousands of political dissidents. If you are a political or religious dissident or believer of the Underground Christian Church, Falun Gong, a part of the Uyghur Muslim minority or Tibetan Buddhist, if you are arrested, you will be tortured, and in some cases you will be tortured to death. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions of women have been forced to abort their precious babies pursuant to China's draconian one-child policy which has led to gendercide, the violent extermination of unborn baby girls simply because they are girls. The slaughter of the girl child in China is not only a massive gender crime, but a security issue, as well. A witness at one of my hearings that I chaired--I chair the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations. Over the years, I have chaired over 46 congressional hearings focused exclusively on China's human rights issues. One of the witnesses at one of my earlier hearings, Valerie Hudson, author of a book called ``Bare Branches,'' testified that gender imbalance will lead to instability and chaos and even to war because of the domestic chaos and instability that will occur. And that the one child has not enhanced China's security, but it has demonstrably weakened it. Nick Eberstadt, the world-renowned AEI demographer, has famously phrased it and asked the question: What are the consequences for a society that has chosen to become simultaneously more gray and more male--the missing daughters, by the tens of millions in China--as a direct result of sex-selection abortion? In 2000, Mr. Speaker, I authored a law known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. It is our landmark law in combating the hideous crime of modern-day slavery, sex, and labor trafficking. China has now become the magnet for the traffickers, buying and selling women as commodities, selling them in China against their will, of course, through coercion, because of the missing girls, the missing daughters, and the missing young women. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the world remembered the dream that was and is the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989 and deeply honored the sacrifice endured by an extraordinarily brave group of pro-democracy Chinese women and men who dared to demand fundamental human rights for all Chinese. Twenty-four years ago this week, the world watched in awe and wonder, as it has since mid-April of 1989, as hundreds of thousands of mostly young people peacefully petitioned the Chinese Government to reform and to democratize. China seemed to be the next impending triumph for freedom and democracy, especially after the collapse of the dictatorships of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. But when the People's Liberation Army poured in and around the square on June 3, the wonder of Tiananmen turned to shock, tears, fear, and helplessness. On June 3 and 4, and for days, weeks, and years, right up until today, the Chinese dictatorship delivered a barbaric response--mass murder, torture, incarceration, the systematic suppression of fundamental human rights, and coverup. The Chinese Government not only continues to inflict unspeakable pain and suffering on its own people, but the coverup of the Tiananmen Square massacre is without precedent in modern history. Even though journalists and live television and radio documented the massacre, the Chinese Communist Party lies and continues to deny it, that it even occurred, to obfuscate, and to threaten anyone who dares speak out in China about the massacre and all of the terrible barbarity that followed. In December of 1996, Mr. Speaker, General Chi Haotian, the operational commander who ordered the murder of the Tiananmen protesters, visited Washington, D.C., as the Chinese Defense Minister. You see, he was promoted after he killed all of those innocent people. Minister Chi was welcomed by President Clinton at the White House with full military honors, including a 19-gun salute--a bizarre spectacle that I and many others on both sides of the aisle protested. But why do I bring this up now? General Chi addressed the Army War College on that trip and in answer to a question said: Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square. He claimed that the People's Liberation Army did nothing more violent than the ``pushing of people'' during the 1989 protest. Not a single person lost his or her life? Are you kidding? That big lie and countless others like it, however, is, and it was then, the Communist Party's line about Tiananmen. As chair of the Foreign Affairs Human Rights Committee then, I put together a congressional hearing within 2 days--December 8, 1996--and witnesses who were there on Tiananmen Square in 1989, including Dr. Yang Jianli, a leader and survivor of the massacre, and Time magazine Bureau Chief David Aikman, who were actually witnesses at my hearing this past Monday. We also invited Minister Chi, or anyone the Chinese Embassy might want to send to the hearing to give an accounting of that blatant lie. I guess Minister Chi thought he was back in Beijing when he was at the Army War College where the big lie is king and no one ever dares to do a fact check. Last week, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State asked the Chinese Government to ``end harassment of those who participated in the protest of 1989 and fully account for those killed, detained, or missing.'' What was the response from the Chinese Government? The Chinese Foreign Ministry acrimoniously said that the United States should ``stop interfering in China's internal affairs so as not to sabotage China-U.S. relations.'' We have heard that line from the Soviet Union. We heard it from those who supported apartheid in South Africa: Don't interfere. Human rights are universal, and we need to speak out boldly and without fear when they are violated, wherever and whenever they occur. ``Sabotage'' Sino-American relations because our side requests an end to harassment and an accounting? It sounds to me like they have much to hide. Therefore, Mr. President, tomorrow when you meet with the unelected President of China, and Saturday when you meet with him as well, please be informed, be bold, be tenacious, and seriously raise human rights with Chinese President Xi. No superficial intervention. No checking off on the box, Yes, I raised human rights. Raise real names. Ask for their release. Raise real issues, like the horrific one child per couple policy or the endemic use of torture by the Chinese dictatorship. Raise the 16 cases that are being raised and given to you to raise of individuals, people who in China are like the modern-day Natan Sharansky or others who have suffered so much for freedom for all these years--like Gao Zhisheng and others. Mr. Speaker, we will not forget what took place in Tiananmen Square 24 years ago this past Monday and Tuesday. The struggle for freedom in China continues. Some day the people of China will enjoy all of their God-given fundamental human rights; and as a nation of free Chinese women and men, they will some day honor and applaud all those who suffered so much in the Laogai, the Chinese gulags, and sacrificed so much for so long. Mr. President, the ball is in your court. President Obama, raise these issues and do it in a robust, sincere, yes, diplomatic, but very powerful way. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, it is my sad duty to inform you that Senator Frank Lautenberg has passed away. He died from complications from viral pneumonia this morning at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. Frank Lautenberg was 89 years old. I join with my friends and colleagues from our delegation--and, I know, with the entire House--in expressing our profound sorrow to his family--his wife, Bonnie, his six children, and his 13 grandchildren. Senator Lautenberg will be deeply missed. We will have a Special Order to honor this wonderful man, but just one point: that with his passing he is the last of World War II--of the Greatest Generation--to serve in the United States Senate, and I want everyone to know he will be deeply missed. I, personally, worked very closely with him on a number of issues, in particular on combating anti-Semitism, so I just want to say that we are all in sorrow for his passing. We pray for him and for his family. I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for any comments he might have.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).