Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights focused on U.S. policy regarding China's evolving role in Africa. China has become America's premier economic competitor in Africa, providing loans and making investments far beyond what the United States is currently prepared to provide. China has been engaged with African governments since the 1950s and has always portrayed itself as a fellow developing nation that was interested in solidarity with its prospective development partners. In reality, the Chinese government always had plans to gain the support they hoped to create among the newly independent African governments. The stadiums, other buildings and roads constructed by the Chinese were intended to build support for China among the African bloc of developing nations in its competition with the then-Soviet Union. Later, the goal was building support for the People's Republic of China replacing Taiwan as the sole China in the United Nations. Now they no longer have to compete with the Soviet Union, and they have their seat on the UN Security Council, from where they protect dictators such as Omar al-Bashir and Robert Mugabe. So what is their aim in their Africa policy? Is China a development partner for Africa? In 2005, the China Development Bank created a $1 billion Africa Trade and Investment Fund, but the trade and investment initiatives funded cannot take place without the significant involvement of Chinese suppliers. It is difficult to quantify Chinese development aid to Africa because they refuse to disclose how much aid and investment goes to specific countries, although we do know that Chinese investment in Africa is estimated to exceed $10 billion. Because the loan details are not open to public scrutiny, it is feared that these loans may pose a danger to the debt sustainability of African governments. Is China an economic competitor to African countries? Many believe that China is engaged in a short-term resource grab, which takes little account of local needs and concerns, whether developmental, environmental or with respect to issues like human rights. Coupled with Chinese manufacturing and trade efficiency, this approach suggests that African development gains are being challenged, if not undermined, by Chinese competitiveness. China, which has increasingly attempted to lock up much of the supply of strategic minerals from African countries, is now the leading producer of what are known as rare earth elements or rare earth metals, which are used in various technological devices, such as superconductors, electronic polishers, refining catalysts and hybrid car components. As time goes on, these minerals will increase in importance in the 21st century economy. South Africa used to be the world's leading source for these minerals, but its production is dwarfed by what China produces, which now represents 95% of rare earth supplies. Chinese production often releases toxic wastes into the general water supply, and that would tend to discourage increased South African production absent what could be expensive environmental safeguards. Is China the new colonizer of Africa? Some would say that label is an exaggeration. However, China exports small businesses and labor to Africa. There are an estimated 800 Chinese corporations doing business in Africa and 750,000 Chinese working or living for extended periods in African countries. When their original assignments are completed, these Chinese workers become entrepreneurs selling subsidized Chinese products to out-compete their African counterparts. An increasing number of Africans are becoming skeptical of Chinese behavior in their countries. For example, the issue of Chinese business practices became an issue in the 2011 elections in Zambia. Some Zambians felt the Chinese were worse than the British colonialists in their behavior toward workers. Following the election there, incoming President Michael Sata said to Chinese investors: ``We welcome your investment, but as we welcome your investment, your investment should benefit Zambians and not Chinese.'' One of the most prevalent charges against China's involvement in Africa is that they don't support international conditionality on aid to African countries. Therefore, Chinese involvement is seen as undermining the concept of tied aid that is intended to promote good governance. Chinese officials counter that they prefer not to interfere in the internal affairs of African governments. While much of the rest of the international community regarded Sudan as having committed genocide, or at least crimes against humanity in its Darfur region, China, a major economic partner with the government in Khartoum, refused at first to join in sanctions against Sudan. China abstained from the vote in September 2004 when the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1564 condemning the mass killing of civilians in the Darfur region, even though the measure stopped short of imposing oil sanctions. China even threatened to veto any further move to impose sanctions. It took concerted international pressure prior to the 2008 Beijing Olympics to force China to move closer to the international position on pressing Sudan to end its human rights abuses. In a 2006 background report entitled, ``China's Influence in Africa: Implications for the United States,'' the Heritage Foundation stated that China has provided weapons that have prolonged African conflicts or entrenched dictatorships. In 2003, several Hong Kong firms were accused of smuggling illegal arms including Chinese-made AK 47s, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers into Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone and Cote d'Ivoire, where rebels and mercenaries were involved in civil wars. In 2004, the report continued, China sold Zimbabwe fighter aircraft and military vehicles for $200 million despite the U.S. and EU arms embargo against Zimbabwe. China also provided a military-strength radio-jamming device, which the Harare government used to block broadcasts of anti-government reports from independent media outlets during the 2005 parliamentary election campaign. So what really are China's goals for its African engagement?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 25, Belarusan- Americans commemorated Belarusan Independence Day. On that date in 1918, during World War I, the Belarusan National Republic was declared. Although independence was short-lived and Belarus forcibly subjected to Soviet rule, it did mark an historically significant milestone in the aspirations of the Belarusan people for freedom and their own unique identity. While Belarus became independent in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this independence today is under threat thanks to the dictatorial rule of Alexander Lukashenka, who has relentlessly squelched dissent, strangled democratic institutions and the rule of law, stifled human rights and political liberties, and refused to reform the Soviet-type state-dominated economy. This has made Belarus dangerously vulnerable to Russian influence and has greatly weakened its prospects for integration into the European family of nations. The brutal crackdown that began 15 months ago with the fraudulent December 19, 2010 election persists. Its most recent manifestation is the barring of numerous opposition leaders, human rights activists and independent journalists from traveling abroad--yet another in a litany of violations of Belarus' OSCE commitments. Especially egregious is the continued imprisonment of democratic opposition leaders and activists, and human rights defenders Andrei Sannikau, Mikalai Statekevich, Zmitser Bandarenka, Ales Byalyatski, Syarhei Kavalenka, Zmitser Dashkevich, Pavel Seviarynets, and others, many of whom face inhumane conditions in detention. I'd like to add my voice to those of countless Belarusans and Belarusan-Americans calling for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Belarus. Mr. Speaker, in January the President signed into law the Belarus Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2011, which I authored. This law strengthens, in view of Lukashenka's crackdown, two earlier laws I wrote promoting democracy and supporting the Belarusan people in their struggle to replace the Lukashenka dictatorship with a representative government that will respect human rights and democratic values. But Congress's efforts on behalf of the Belarusan people can't end there-- I'd like to ask my colleagues to continue to raise Belarusan human rights issues with the administration, with foreign parliamentarians, and, whenever we encounter them, with officials of the Lukashenka dictatorship.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Late last month, two bioethicists--Dr. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva--published an outrageous paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, justifying the deliberate, premeditated murder of new- born babies during the first days and even weeks after birth. Giubilini and Minerva wrote: ``When circumstances occur after birth that would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.'' Madam Speaker, they've just coined a brand-new phrase, ``after-birth abortion,'' which is the killing of newborns, the killing of little children--boys and girls--immediately after their births and up to weeks later. These bioethicists argue that if a newly born child poses an economic burden on a family or is disabled or is unwanted that that child can be murdered in cold blood because the baby lacks intrinsic value, and according to Giubilini and Minerva, it is simply not a person. Giubilini and Minerva write: ``Actual people's well-being--'' and you and I, Madam Speaker, are actual people; adults are actual people according to them ``--could be threatened by a new-born, even if healthy child, requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of.'' As any parents--especially moms--will tell you, children in general, and newborns in particular, require an enormous amount of energy, money, and boatloads of love. If any of those things, however, are lacking or pose what Giubilini and Minerva call a ``threat,'' does that justify a death sentence? Are the lives of new-born children and new- born babies so cheap? so expendable? The murder of newly born children is further justified by Giubilini and Minerva in this renowned journal's article--why they carried it is certainly suspect--because new-born infants, like their slightly younger sisters and brothers in the womb, ``cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing.'' In other words, no dreams, no plans for the future, no ``aims'' that can be discerned, recognized or understood by adults equal no life at all. This preposterous, arbitrary, and evil prerequisite for the attainment of legal personhood is not only bizarre; it is inhumane in the extreme. Stripped of its pseudo-intellectual underpinnings, the Giubilini and Minerva rationale for murdering newborns in the nursery is indistinguishable from any other child predator wielding a knife or a gun. Giubilini and Minerva say the devaluation of new-born babies is inextricably linked to the devaluation of unborn children. Let me say that again. The devaluation of new-born babies, even into weeks of their lives outside their mothers' wombs, is inextricably linked to the devaluation of unborn children and is, indeed, the logical extension of the abortion culture. They also write this: that they ``propose to call the practice after-birth abortion rather than infanticide in order to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed--'' that is to say the baby ``--is comparable to that of a fetus . . . Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.'' So let's again get this right because the unborn child has been deemed to be a nonperson and can be killed at will. For the new-born child, who is very, very similar in almost every aspect except dependency and its not being a little bit more mature, the choice is, if it is unwanted, that the parents can order the killing, the execution, of that child. Madam Speaker, these anti-child, pro-murder rationalizations remind me of other equally disturbing rants from highly credentialed individuals over the years. Princeton's Peter Singer suggested a couple of years ago--and I quote him in pertinent part: There are various things you can say that are sufficient to give moral status to a child after a few months, maybe 6 months or something like that, and you get perhaps a full moral status, really, only after 2 years. Break that down. Only after 2 years, Madam Speaker, should we really confer a sense of personhood to a child who is no longer a baby anymore because of this particular intellectual's perspective. Dr. James Watson, the Nobel Laureate for unraveling the mystery of DNA many, many years ago, wrote in Prism Magazine: If a child were not declared alive until 3 days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few have under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have. Compassionate to allow a newborn to die? I think not. In like manner, Dr. Francis Crick, who received the Nobel Prize along with Watson said: No new-born infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live. Madam Speaker, the dehumanization of unborn children has been going on for decades. What is less understood and appreciated is the dehumanization of new-born and very young infants. That too has been going on for years, but it has gotten in the last few years demonstrably worse. Giubilini and Minerva's article must serve as a wake-up call. The lives of young children who are truly the most unprotected class of individuals in our society are under assault. Hard questions need to be asked and answered and defenders of life must be mobilized. I truly believe we have a duty to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable from violence; and now even the hospital nursery is not a place of refuge or sanctuary. Madam Speaker, we must strive for consistency. I have been hearing about it for 32 years, and I've worked every single day of my congressional life on human rights issues, from human trafficking to religious freedom. I've written the Trafficking Victims Protection Act back in 2000 to combat modern-day slavery. I work against torture all over the world, wherever and whenever it rears its horrific head. That is especially in places like China, North Korea, and elsewhere. But I am left to wonder why so many who claim to be proponents of human rights systematically dehumanize and exclude the weakest and the most vulnerable human beings from legal protection. Why the modern-day surge in prejudice and ugly bias against unborn children and now, by logical extension, new-born children? Why the policy of exclusion rather than inclusion? They are indeed part of the human family. We should embrace them, love them, and protect them. Why is lethal violence against children, abortion, and premeditated killing of new-born infants marketed and sold as somehow benign or progressive, enlightened, and compassionate? Why have so many good people turned a blind eye and looked askance as mothers are wounded by abortion and their babies in the womb pulverized by suction machines 20 to 30 times more powerful than household vacuum cleaners or dismembered with surgical knives or poisoned with chemicals? Looking back, how could anyone in the House or the Senate or President Clinton justify the hideous procedure called ``partial birth abortion''? Madam Speaker, since 1973, well over 54 million babies have had abortion forced upon them. Some of those children have been exterminated in the second and third trimester. These are known as pain-capable babies. Those kids have suffered excruciating pain as the abortionist committed his violence upon him or her. Why are some surprised that now the emerging class of victims, new-born kids, new- born children, are being slaughtered in Holland and elsewhere while a perverse proposal to murder any new-born children, sick or healthy, is advanced in an otherwise serious and respected ethics journal? I urge Members to read this article. It will make you sick. It certainly is the opening salvo in an assault on new-born children. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, children born and unborn are precious. Children sick, disabled, or healthy possess fundamental human rights that no sane or compassionate society can abridge. The premeditated murder of new-born babies, those who are 1 day old after birth, 2 weeks, 3 weeks old is now being justified as being morally equivalent to abortion. I respectfully submit, Madam Speaker, that the Congress, the courts, the President, and society at large have a sacred duty to protect all children from violence, murder, and exploitation. We don't have a moment to lose. The child predators are working overtime to create more victims. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, former Ukrainian Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko was sentenced to four years imprisonment in yet another politically motivated trial. This comes after the imprisonment--also the result of an unfair trial on specious charges--of his ally, former Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, who continues to languish in prison in ill health. The sentencing of Mr. Lutsenko is a further confirmation that the regime of President Viktor Yanukovych is not taking its OSCE human rights and democracy obligations seriously. The imprisonment of opposition leaders Tymoshenko and Lutsenko prohibits their participation in October's parliamentary elections, raising serious questions about whether Ukraine will meet OSCE election standards. This could be especially troubling given Ukraine's assumption of the OSCE Chairmanship in January, 2013, two months after these elections. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, it is also of concern to me and my colleagues, who have long advocated an independent, democratic, and free Ukraine. Mr. Lutsenko's conviction is disconcerting in that it starkly illustrates the deterioration of human rights, democracy and the rule of law under the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, who has pressed the pause button on Ukraine's once-promising advance towards democracy--and increasingly it seems he is switching to the reverse button. Instead, what we now see is something increasingly reminiscent of the kind of authoritarianism that exists in Russia, Belarus and elsewhere in the post-Soviet space. Ukraine's democratic backsliding is harming relations with the EU and the United States, and both have repeatedly made clear that for relations to improve, respect for human rights and the democratic process must improve. Most importantly, this now two-year deterioration negatively affects the Ukrainian people, who, following the Orange Revolution, had tasted the fruits of freedom, and are now increasingly experiencing the burden of its undoing. It is time for President Yanukovych to show respect for the dignity of his own people by putting an end to political prosecutions and other reprisals against those who oppose him and allow their full participation in political life. In order to find credibility with both the Ukrainian people and the international community, he must end restrictions on freedom of speech and association and reverse the debilitating corruption and judicial subservience to the executive which has so eroded the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the Ukrainian authorities to stop their slide to authoritarianism and resulting isolation which will only harm Ukrainians who for so long--and at such great cost--have struggled for freedom, dignity and justice.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sorrow that I inform the House that our dear friend and colleague, Don Payne, has passed. He had colon cancer. In a few moments a privileged resolution will be offered on the floor that recognizes and honors this extraordinary man who dedicated his entire life to public service, a man who made a significant difference in the lives of many in his district, in our State, in the Nation, and in the world. Elected in 1988, after first serving as a Newark city councilman and Essex County freeholder, this high school teacher and coach-turned- politician went on to be the first African American ever to serve in Congress from the State of New Jersey. Don fought tenaciously to combat the HIV AIDS pandemic and mitigate the loss of life and morbidity from TB and malaria on the subcontinent of Africa. He coauthored the Sudan Peace Act and worked tirelessly to end the genocide in both South Sudan and Darfur. As a matter of fact, he even risked his life in Somalia--was shot at--in the pursuit of peace. I know firsthand, Mr. Speaker, how much he truly cared and how hard he worked for peace and reconciliation in war-ravaged nations. I served as the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee when he chaired it, and he served as the ranking member when I chaired it. Finally, let me just say that Don Payne also served as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and until his untimely death today, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. He was predeceased by his wife, Hazel. Don is also the proud father of three, grandfather of four, and great grandfather of one. Donald Payne, Mr. Speaker, will be missed. I yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Pallone.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I do ask for a moment of silence to remember our dearly departed friend, Don Payne.

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. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank you very much and appreciate the gentlelady for yielding. Let me join my distinguished colleagues in expressing our deepest condolences to Don Payne's family. He was truly a remarkable man. I had the privilege of sitting next to him for about 15 years as I was the chairman or he was the chairman of the Human Rights Committee, the Africa Committee as well. I was his ranking, he was my chairman, and we always worked in a very cooperative way. We always had mutual respect, and he had such a deep compassion for the people who have suffered so much on the subcontinent of Africa. Don Payne was quiet, but always determined. Extremely thoughtful, a humanitarian in the extreme, and he fought for so many important issues. You know, it was not a slam dunk or in any way a given that PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, would become law. Don was there working in a bipartisan way to ensure that sufficient funding, sufficient authorities were given to the U.S. Agency for International Development to mount a massive effort to combat the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. He did the same thing with malaria and the Malaria Caucus, and he did the same thing with tuberculosis, which sadly is an opportunistic disease that afflicts so many people who have HIV/AIDS. On the Sudan Peace Act, again when we were looking and working so hard to try to stop the slaughter in South Sudan, there was Don Payne working every day of the week to ensure that somehow peace would break out and the genocide would end there, as well as in Darfur. Again, I know that he cared deeply because I was there having those conversations with him day in and day out. You know, very often in my Subcommittee on Human Rights when I chaired that and he was the ranking member, we would go on receiving testimony, debating for hours. There would be two Members left standing in the room, Don Payne and me, because he cared so deeply about human rights globally, as well as in Africa. He will be deeply missed. Again, a great man, a great friend, and his passing is mourned by everyone in this Chamber and everybody in the State of New Jersey. God bless him, God bless his family; and thank you, Don Payne, for the great work you did in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a young Christian pastor sits today in prison in Iran--separated from his wife and young children, facing the death penalty--because he will not lie about his beliefs. He will not lie even to save himself. He will not lie even to spare his family suffering. He is a man of extraordinary conviction. A man of decision. A man who knows what he believes. Youcef Nadarkhani will follow his conscience though it cost him everything. Iranian courts have repeatedly asked him, on pain of death, to reject his Christian faith and say that he believes in Islam. He responds, ``I cannot.'' The resolution (H. Res. 556) on the floor this evening is not an attempt to say which religion is right. Rather, this is a resolution that affirms that Youcef Nadarkhani has the God-given right--even the responsibility--to believe as his conscience directs him. No human government should interfere. Iran is a member of the United Nations and signatory to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both documents affirm that that every individual has ``the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,'' which includes the ``freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance;'' Under international law voluntarily agreed to by Iran, Youcef Nadarkhani has the right to change his religion. He was free to change from Islam to Christianity. He is free to change back. But the government of Iran is NOT free to force him in either direction. Iran has made a commitment to leave men like Youcef Nadarkhani in peace. This resolution calls on Iran to follow international law. Iran sets aside seats in its Parliament for Christians and permits hundreds of churches to function across the country. And yet it also cracks down on religious minorities, falsely seeing them as a security threat. The most recent U.S. State Department Religious Freedom Report lists numerous cases of arrest and detention of Christians, both lay people and leaders. For instance: On April 11, 2010, government agents arrested 19-year-old Daniel Shahri, a Christian, on the basis of insulting Islam. Shahri was able to contact his parents on April 14, 2010, while being held in a prison in Isfahan. He was released on April 24, 2010 on bail and awaits a trial date . . . On January 8, 2010, the Fars Provincial Ministry of Intelligence detained an unknown number of persons who were reportedly Christians. Under interrogation the detainees gave the names of those leading Christian groups in the area leading to further arrest. On December 24, 2009, Pakdasht security forces raided a home-church gathering and arrested the 15 members who were in attendance. All 15 were released in early January with orders to return to sign documents. Upon returning three were rearrested and held until March 17 when they were released . . . The report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom underscores the danger to Muslim converts to Christianity in Iran and a recent increase in arrests. This report, issued in May 2011, indicates that: Since June 2010, more than 250 Christians have been arbitrarily arrested throughout the country. . . . In December 2010 and January 2011 alone, approximately 120 Christians were arrested. . . . During the reporting period, the number of incidents of Iranian authorities raiding church services, harassing and threatening church members, and arresting, convicting, and imprisoning worshippers and church leaders has increased significantly. Christians, particularly Evangelical and other Protestants, are subject to harassment, arrests, close surveillance, and imprisonment; many are reported to have fled the country. (emphasis added) Tragically, Youcef Nadarkhani is not the only believer in prison. He is just the only one we know of who is facing the death penalty for apostasy. Whatever the political conflicts between the United States and Iran, whatever the tensions over weapons--human rights do not change. Iran's signature on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has not changed. All nations, including Iran, must respect the consciences and religious freedom of their citizens--and not practice religious coercion. Youcef Nadarkhani is not a political pawn. He is a person--a person being prayed for by citizens around the world. Tonight, the U.S. Congress stands with him and with all people of conscience, calling on the Government of Iran to release him and ensure his safety.

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, and Human Rights and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere to focus on just one aspect--though a deeply troubling one--of the overall abysmal human rights record of the dictatorship in Cuba. The hearing examined the ongoing violations of the human rights of Cuban political prisoners--from the arrest, prosecution, and persecution of political opponents of the Castro regime to the deplorable conditions of their imprisonment--to the terms under which they are released. The announcement of the release of some prisoners in late December, in conjunction with the release over the past two years of more than three dozen political prisoners, has been described as a public relations move designed to portray a loosening of Cuba's political repression of opponents. Those of us who have had the privilege of knowing and working with Cuba's human rights champions for decades, and have heard first-hand of the brutality of the Castro government, are not so easily persuaded or deceived. Cuba has been a totalitarian state with the Cuban Communist Party as the sole legal political party for more than half a century. Upon his seizure of power in Cuba in 1959, Fidel Castro promised a return to constitutional rule and democratic elections with social reforms. However, Castro's control over the military and government structures allowed his regime to crush dissent, marginalize resistance leaders and imprison or execute thousands of opponents. Between 1959 and 1962 alone, it is estimated that the Castro regime executed 3,200 people. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled an increasingly radical government. Those who remained in Cuba faced a repressive regime that denied basic human rights. More than fifty years after Castro's assumption of power in Cuba, the U.S. Department of State human rights report on Cuba describes a government that still denies its citizens the right to change their government; threatens, harasses and beats its opponents through state security forces and government-organized mobs; sentences opponents to harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrarily detains human rights advocates and members of independent organizations, and selectively prosecutes perceived opponents and then denies them a fair trial. Cuba's political prisoners are held, together with the rest of the prison population, in substandard and unhealthy conditions, where they face physical and sexual abuse. Most prisoners suffer from malnutrition and reside in overcrowded cells without appropriate medical attention. In fact, political prisoners face selective denial of medical care. Cuban prisons fail to segregate those held in pre-trial detention from long-term violent inmates, and minors are often mixed in with adults. Such are the conditions opponents of the Castro regime have faced over the years--some of them for decades. Armando Valladares, who unfortunately couldn't join us yesterday, but who will appear at a future hearing, was a Cuban Postal Bank employee who was arrested for refusing to display a sign on his desk that promoted communism. Mr. Valladares was imprisoned in 1960 at age 23, and spent 22 years in prison. Like many freed political prisoners, Mr. Valladares moved to the United States. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan appointed him to serve as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, a position in which he served for two years. I was with Ambassador Valladares in Geneva when he succeeded in bringing Cuba before the commission for human rights violations and authorizing a U.N. fact- finding trip to Cuba to investigate prison conditions. I have read Mr. Valladares' memoir--Against All Hope--a book that chronicles his experiences and that of others in Cuba's gulags. Mr. Valladares systematically describes the torture, cruelty, and degrading treatment by Cuban prison guards. Yet, like so many other heroic Cuban dissidents, he persisted and overcame. Our surprise witness yesterday was the brilliant, humanitarian Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. A medical doctor and courageous human rights advocate, Dr. Biscet was one of more than two dozen dissidents who were arrested and detained by Cuban police in August 1999 for organizing meetings in Havana and Matanzas. He was released after five days but was rearrested three more times. The second time he was arrested, later in 1999, he spent three years in prison. His third arrest in December 2002 resulted in a beating, but not imprisonment. Upon his fourth arrest in March 2003, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Along with more than 50 other dissidents, Dr. Biscet was released in March 2011 with the help of the Catholic Church. He has courageously remained in Cuba, where he continues to advocate for human rights. For his extraordinary bravery and commitment to freedom for the Cuban people, many of us have twice recommended Dr. Biscet for the Nobel Peace Prize. Other political prisoners have not had the ability to choose where they live following their release. Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, an independent writer and journalist, was arrested in March 2003 along with 74 other dissidents in Camaguey and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. As a result of his serious abuse in prison, Mr. Hernandez eventually was diagnosed with several diseases of the digestive system and later tuberculosis. Due to his deteriorating medical condition, Mr. Hernandez was released from prison in July 2010 and taken to the Havana Airport, where he was briefly reunited with his wife and daughter before being forced to board an overnight flight to Spain. He later emigrated to Miami, where he currently resides. I extend the gratitude of the subcommittee to our distinguished witnesses for joining us yesterday. My good friend and colleague Dan Burton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, testified about U.S. policy toward Cuba. In particular, we are deeply appreciative that Dr. Biscet took the serious risk that he will suffer retaliation for speaking with us publicly. The Castro regime should know that there will be a price to pay if that should happen. It is our sincere hope that it does not, and that this hearing and the spotlight that it will shine on Cuban political prisoners will contribute to authentic freedom and respect for the human rights of all the people of Cuba.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my great friend from California for his leadership, former Attorney General of California, one of the most decisive and wonderful debaters in the House of Representatives and a great champion of life. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's slick public relations offensive this past Friday contained neither an accommodation nor a compromise, nor a change in his coercion rule. It was, instead, a pernicious attack on religious freedom. The Obama final rule promulgated on Friday is an unprecedented government attack on the conscience rights of religious entities and anyone else, and I repeat that, anyone else who, for moral reasons, cannot and will not pay for abortion-inducing drugs, such as ella, or contraception and sterilization procedures in their private insurance plans. Mr. Obama is arrogantly using the coercive power of the state to force faith-based charities, hospitals and schools to conform to his will at the expense of conscience. Mr. Obama's means of coercing compliance, ruinous fines of $2,000 per employee when faith-based organizations refuse to comply, and they will refuse to comply, will impose incalculable harm on millions of children educated in faith-based schools. It will also impose harm on the poor, sick, disabled, and frail elderly who are served with such extraordinary compassion and dignity by faith-based entities. For example, Catholic Charities employs 70,000 employees. They will be hit with a fine by the Obama administration of $140 million per year. That's the fine. That's the penalty: $2,000 per employee. Notre Dame has about 5,000 employees. That will be a $10 million fine on Notre Dame. And so it goes for those faith-based organizations. Let me just say to my colleagues that vocal apologists of the Obama coercion rule say over and over again that the IOM, the Institute of Medicine, panel that reportedly researched and did recommend the coercion rule was somehow independent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Journalist Kathryn Jean Lopez reported that the Human Life International organization looked into the members of the panel. You stack the panel, you get a predetermined outcome. They found that it was packed with pro-abortion activists. For example, member Claire Brindis, member of the organization of NARAL Pro-Choice America; Angela Diaz, member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health; Paula Johnson, chairwoman of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts; Magda Peck, also on the board of directors, or was, of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs. She was chair of the board as well as vice chair. If you just stack an IOM or any other panel, you will get a predetermined outcome, and so they did. Mr. Speaker, finally, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act reasserts and restores conscience rights by making absolutely clear that no one can be compelled to subsidize so-called services in private insurance plans contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This legislation must be on the floor soon, and I hope the American people will realize how important this bill offered by Mr. Fortenberry is to conscience rights in America. I thank my good friend for yielding. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, which I chair, examined U.S. policy options for dealing with the ongoing crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, one of the priority countries in the United States' Africa policy as identified by the Administration and as confirmed by Congressional legislation and oversight over the past several years. This country is two-thirds the size of Western Europe and borders nine African countries. Its problems extend well beyond its borders. Prior to yesterday, the Subcommittee last examined the situation in the DRC in a hearing in March of last year, when the storm clouds were gathering in advance of the November elections. The DRC is now struggling with the aftermath of those elections. Opposition political parties and civil society, especially the Catholic Church, appear unwilling to accept the results of the presidential and legislative elections. Opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi received 32 percent of the votes, but he believes he was cheated out of votes that would have made him the winner in the elections. He has staged a presidential swearing-in ceremony and announced that he will form a government. He also has called on supporters to march with him to government headquarters. However, government armed forces have surrounded his home since the presidential results were announced on December 9, and even his aides have been prevented from meeting with him. Suspicion persists that this election was manipulated in favor of incumbent President Joseph Kabila. The Carter Center, which observed the vote, as well as the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) and most of DRC's civil society, all cast serious doubt on the announced outcome of the election. According to the Carter Center, ballots were missing in some areas, while results for Kabila in other areas were deemed ``unrealistic.'' Calls for new elections not only continue, but appear to be growing in intensity. Perhaps government intimidation has minimized any uprising by a discontented population, or perhaps the Congolese have accepted that Kabila will do whatever it takes to ensure his victory. It could be that poverty and a lack of information among the population has restrained the widespread resort to protest. Still, there is significant instability throughout the country. This calls into question the long-term stability of a country that is critical to U.S. interests, which includes the continued flow of strategic minerals. Congolese have reason to be skeptical that they will ever have a stable government that functions on their behalf. There has been one crisis after another since independence in 1960, caused by the selfish actions of predatory leadership. An estimated four million Congolese lost their lives in two wars from which they are still recovering. Most Congolese remain poor, hungry and in danger of violence. Their government cannot provide the most basic necessities for their families. Public administration is virtually non-existent, with civil servants demanding payment from the public for even the most routine services. MONUSCO is handling security, and the World Health Organization is dealing with the country's public health issues. The challenge for the international community is to help build the capacity and political will of Congolese officials to assume the responsibility for caring for and protecting their citizens. Since November, violence attributed to the Congolese military, the Rwandan rebel group the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and local militia has caused more than 100,000 Congolese to become internally displaced persons or refugees. Local vigilante groups have clashed with the Rwandan rebels in North Kivu province and displaced about 75,000 from 30 villages in North Kivu province. Similar clashes in Ituri and northern Katanga have had a serious impact in those areas as well. This raises serious concerns for a potential humanitarian crisis. Women continue to be targeted for abuse in DRC. A study that recently appeared in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that an average of 48 women and girls are raped every hour in this country. So before this hearing has ended, more than 100 females in DRC will have been raped. However, there remains hope for DRC despite the current crisis. Even during the worst stages of the global financial crisis, the World Bank was predicting that DRC's economy would grow by seven percent annually over the next several years, making it one of the world's fastest growing economies. At the local level, Congolese reportedly have developed coping methods for an absent government. Women have developed rotating credit systems to compensate for an inaccessible banking system, and farmers have banded together to rent trucks to jointly take their produce to market. According to the latest election results, the ruling party in DRC has lost 45 seats they previously held to opposition parties, with 17 other elections yet to be rerun after being annulled. This may help in establishing grounds for political reconciliation. Since the early days of Congolese independence, the United States has been involved in the DRC and continues to play a significant role there. In FY2011, Economic Support Funds were targeted to support the Government of Congo's stabilization and recovery program through support to community recovery and reconciliation, conflict mitigation and resolution, and the extension of authority. International Military Education and Training funds focus on training Congolese officers on military justice, human rights and joint operations. The United States also provides significant humanitarian assistance to the DRC. The United States provided bilateral aid to DRC of more than $205 million in FY2008, $296 million in FY2009, $282 million in FY2010, and $215 million in FY2011. The Obama Administration requested more than $262 million for FY2012.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 13, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' when I intended to vote ``no.'' Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I chaired a hearing to examine the ongoing human rights situation in Vietnam. The Vietnamese Government continues to be an egregious violator of a broad array of human rights. Our distinguished witnesses who testified before me yesterday provided detailed accounts; I would like to highlight just a few areas of grave concern. Despite the State Department's decision in 2006 to remove Vietnam from the list of Countries of Particular Concern as designated pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, Vietnam, in fact, continues to be among the worst violators of religious freedom in the world. According to the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom's 2011 Annual Report, ``[t]he government of Vietnam continues to control religious communities, severely restrict and penalize independent religious practice, and brutally repress individuals and groups viewed as challenging its authority.'' I agree with USCIRF's conclusion that Vietnam should be designated a CPC country. The State Department's designation of Vietnam as a Tier 2 Watch List country with respect to the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking also needs to be critically examined. The Department's 2011 Trafficking in Persons Report states not only that Vietnamese women and children are being sexually exploited, but that there are severe labor abuses occurring as well--with the government's complicity. The Report acknowledges that state-affiliated and state- licensed labor export companies engage in numerous trafficking-related violations, including fraud and the charging of illegal commissions for overseas employment. There also are documented cases of recruitment companies ignoring pleas for help from workers in exploitative situations. As the sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I am deeply disturbed that the Tier Rankings are not being better utilized by our State Department to pressure Vietnam to correct the trafficking abuses occurring within its government, not to mention those in the private sector. We were particularly privileged to have Ms. Phong-Anh Vu with us to testify about the horrific suffering she endured when she was trafficked from Vietnam to Jordan. It is also troubling to hear about the abuse that she and others have continued to endure at the hands of the Vietnamese Government even after their escape from their traffickers. I greatly admire her courage and the Subcommittee is most appreciative the testimony she presented yesterday. I met other courageous individuals during my last trip to Vietnam who were struggling for fundamental human rights in their country. Unfortunately, many of them continue to be persecuted by the government. Father Ly is in prison and is suffering from very poor health, and Attorney Nguyen Van Dai remains under house arrest. Despite this dismal status for human rights in Vietnam, there are new opportunities for the United States to exert pressure on the government to cease these abuses. H.R. 1410, the Vietnam Human Rights Act which I introduced last year--and which passed the House previously in 2007--would provide significant motivation to the government of Vietnam to respect its international human rights obligations. It would prohibit any annual increase in the amount of non-humanitarian assistance that the United States provides to Vietnam unless there is an equal or greater increase in the amount of assistance for human rights and democracy promotion programming in Vietnam. An increase in non-humanitarian assistance would also be prohibited unless Vietnam satisfies certain requirements, including substantial progress toward respect for the freedom of religion and freedom of expression and assembly, respect for ethnic and minority rights, and allowing Vietnamese nationals free and open access to United States refugee programs. The government would also have to end its complicity in severe forms of human trafficking. In addition, this legislation would reaffirm the United States' commitments: to overcoming the jamming of Radio Free Asia by the Vietnamese Government; to engaging in cultural exchanges in a manner that promotes freedom and democracy in Vietnam; and to offer refugee resettlement to Vietnamese nationals who have been deemed ineligible solely due to administrative errors or for other reasons beyond their control. I thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee yesterday.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for her excellent statement. I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the right-to-life movement is the greatest human rights movement on Earth, a remarkable decades-long struggle embraced by millions of selfless women and men of all ages, races, colors and creed and made up in recent years, I'm happy to say, disproportionately of young people. We defend and seek to protect all the weak and vulnerable persons from the violence of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. We believe in the politics and policies of inclusion, regardless of race, age, sex, disability or condition of dependence. Yesterday, January 22, marked the 39th year since the infamous holdings of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the pair of Supreme Court decisions that nullified fundamental pro-life protections throughout the United States. The catastrophic loss of children's lives since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton has been absolutely numbing. Over 54 million children have been killed by dismemberment, chemical poisoning, lethal pills, suction and starvation. Let's not forget that RU-486 is a chemical compound. It's two chemicals, and one of the effects of one of those chemicals is to literally starve the baby in the womb to death. The second chemical brings on delivery of a dead baby. Women have been harmed by abortion as well. Over 100 studies showed significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risk in women who abort. The Times of London wrote, senior psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems. They found that women who had abortions had twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who give birth or who have never been pregnant. Younger women are also harmed by abortion psychologically. A comprehensive New Zealand study found that almost 80 percent of 15- to 18-year-olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers. Abortion also has a deleterious effect on subsequent children born to women who have aborted. At least 113 studies showed significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births. One study by Shah and Zoe showed a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93 percent increased risk after two. What does this mean for subsequent children born to women who have had abortions? Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital abnormalities or anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering from common lung disease, sensory deficit, cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment and behavioral problems. Low birth weight, which is also one of the consequences, is associated with neo-natal mortality and motility. Finally, Mr. Speaker, at the March for Life today, there were large, large numbers of people, tens of thousands of people. As cochair of the Pro-Life Caucus, I was proud to stay with so many of our lawmakers here, many of whom are on the floor tonight, and also with our leadership, Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Jeb Hensarling, among the most profoundly important speeches made about the sanctity and the dignity of human life. And they have produced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, which not only would be a government-wide prohibition on government funding for abortion, it also had a robust, very significant conscience clause as part of that legislation. The Protect Life Act and, of course, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, a group that aborts in its clinics some 330,000 abortions, 330,000 dead babies in its clinics each and every year. It was a great march and we had women from Silent No More campaign, post-abortive women who eloquently speak to all women not to have abortions because they are the ones who have been victimized by it, but also as a pathway to healing and reconciliation for those who have. This movement is all about forgiveness and all about reconciliation and reaching out to those who are on the other side, especially post-abortive women. I would like to now yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank my friend, Mrs. Blackburn, for her very eloquent comments, and thank her for her leadership. I would now like to yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), who has led both in Ohio when she was there in the legislature as well as here in Washington.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Walberg, thank you very much for that very eloquent and God-centered testimony on behalf of life. I would point out that throughout the Capitol and throughout the country there were religious services on behalf of the unborn seeking reconciliation and wisdom from above and healing. One of those was the National Memorial for the Preborn and Their Mothers and Fathers right here in the Capitol. Clergy from various denominations gathered together to pray and to hear readings from the Gospels, Old and New Testaments, and to hear the preaching of Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-Life Religious Council, and so many others of all denominations and faiths pleading before the Lord for reconciliation and, frankly, for forgiveness for this terrible tragedy of abortion on demand. I would like to now yield to the gentlelady from New York, Ann Marie Buerkle. Mr. Walberg talked about the lawyers. Well, she is a lawyer and a nurse and brings a unique perspective to this fight, the struggle for the human rights of the unborn and for their mothers.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Ms. Buerkle. I would like to now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe. We have, in this Congress, a number of medical doctors, most of whom are profoundly pro-life. And in the case of Dr. Roe, I believe he has delivered at least 5,000 babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. James Lankford.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. Roe, thank you so very much for your kind remarks, and you have been a leader, as have the Members that have been speaking. There's no single leader, except for maybe Henry Hyde when he was the leader here in the House. But this is a group leadership of men and women who are just passionately in favor of life. I mentioned doctors who are strongly members of this Pro-Life Caucus. Well, one of those is Dr. Fleming from Louisiana, and I would like to yield to him. And I just point out that the Obama administration has declared war on conscious protections. He has done it in a repeated fashion, most recently in ordering all health insurers, including faith-based institutions, to pay for all means of preventing pregnancy, including subsidizing abortifacients like Ella and Plan B. Everyone must comply regardless of moral objection or religious tenets simply because Obama says so. The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops recently had a grant to assist human trafficking victims under a law I wrote called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. They did a great job. The reviewers said so and gave it very high marks. But that wasn't enough for the Obama administration. This past fall, the USCCB was blatantly discriminated against and thrown out of the program simply because they would not refer for abortions. And Mr. Lankford, who will speak shortly as well, did a wonderful job in a hearing in bringing out, as did Chairman Issa, how discriminatory this really is. Leading the effort on conscience protection, prime sponsor of the Abortion Nondiscrimination Act, is Dr. Fleming.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama, Congresswoman Martha Roby. One of the blessings of this Congress is that we have so many articulate and brave women who speak out in defense of life. I have been here for 32 years and I think we have now more pro-life women than ever.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentlewoman. I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Marlin Stutzman, who before coming to the House, fought for life in the legislature. And he did a wonderful job.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much and thank you for reminding all of us that Planned Parenthood really is Child Abuse, Incorporated, 329,000, 332,000 the year before that of innocent children decimated, killed in their clinics. I would like to now yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Stevan Pearce, who is back to us having served in the House. He came back after a different run. He is a stalwart for life and a great friend of the unborn.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you so much for that very, very eloquent statement. I would like to now yield to Vicky Hartzler from Missouri, a new Member of Congress who has already made a serious impact, particularly on the life issue. So glad to have you here.