Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska, Jeff Fortenberry, who is the prime sponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act and has combated abortions both at home as well as in foreign nations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you so much for your powerful statement. I'd like to now yield to G.T. Thompson, a good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania who has spoken out so eloquently time and again on behalf of the sanctity of life.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend. Again, a very, very powerful statement. I'd like to yield to Alan Nunnelee from Mississippi. I thank him for being here this evening.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. In conclusion, tomorrow night, the President will call for a return to American values in his State of the Union message. Mr. President, the violent destruction of the child in the womb, of the killing of babies and of the wounding of their moms is not an American value. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and Co-Chairman of the Congressional Poland caucus, to remember the declaration of martial law in Poland 30 years ago this month, and to pay tribute to the men and women of Poland who triumphed against repression, ultimately helping to bring democracy to a whole continent. It is well known that in Poland the resistance to communism was particularly broad and deep--Stalin is reputed to have said that trying to impose communism on Poland was like trying to put a saddle on a cow. And so for several decades, Poles pushed back against the dictatorship that had been imposed on their exhausted country at the end of World War II. They pushed back in 1956 when workers from Poznan marched to Warsaw demanding ``bread and freedom.'' They pushed back through actions by students and intellectuals in 1964 and in 1968. And workers took to the streets again in Gdansk in 1970, including one young man named Lech Walesa. Each time the communist government managed to keep itself in power through a combination of force, threats of force, concessions, and by divisively playing one group of Poles off against another group. But never was the Poles' desire for freedom extinguished or even diminished. Indeed it seemed to grow year by year. In June 1979, when Pope John Paul II made his historic visit to Poland, he urged his countrymen and women: ``Be not afraid.'' A year later, in August 1980, the world stood in awe as shipyard workers struck at the Lenin factory in Gdansk, catapulting an unknown electrician, Lech Walesa, to the world stage. On August 31, Solidarity, the Warsaw Pact's first truly independent trade union was born. Solidarity, of course, was much more than a trade union. Strikers in Gdansk included in their original 21 demands not only improved working conditions, but respect for freedom of speech and the press, religious liberties, and freedom for political prisoners. Over the next year and a half. Solidarity's card-carrying membership would grow to encompass nearly one-third of Poland's working-age population, but its influence was beyond measure. Moreover, Solidarity ultimately brought together diverse segments of the population--workers and peasants, students and intellectuals--that had not previously worked together for a common cause. And in Solidarity, one could see a nation acting for a high moral purpose, informed by church and conscience, and by a tradition of Polish patriotism. Inevitably, Solidarity was seen as a threat not only to the communist authorities in Warsaw, but to their taskmasters in Moscow, who escalated pressure on Warsaw to impose a crackdown that would silence the growing movement. At midnight, on December 13, 1981, martial law was declared, and a military government was established. Poland's borders were sealed and its airspace closed. Phone service throughout the country was suspended. The routine sale of gasoline ceased. A curfew was established. Strikes, demonstrations, meetings, and public gatherings were banned. Solidarity was outlawed. Open censorship of mail was introduced and normal radio and television broadcasting was replaced with a loop of General Jaruzelski intoning that Poland was on the edge of an abyss. Tanks rumbled down Warsaw's broad boulevards, and the whiff of tear gas tinged the air. Approximately 10,000 people were arrested during the Martial Law period, and dozens of people were killed, most notoriously during the ``pacification'' of the Wujek Coal Mine. The harshest controls were eased within weeks or months and martial law was formally lifted on July 22, 1983, but various forms of oppression continued for years. Many political prisoners were not released until the general amnesty in 1986, 5 years later. Nevertheless, throughout the 1980s, and notwithstanding martial law, dissent in Poland burgeoned. By 1988, the ability of Solidarity to mount continuing strikes had forced the communist regime to blink-- roundtable negotiations between the authorities and the opposition began in early 1988, and the Solidarity movement was formally re- legalized on April 7. When Solidarity's official spokesman, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, testified before me at a Helsinki Commission hearing in September 1988, it was the first time that the Helsinki Commission received testimony from a Warsaw Pact dissident who was actually planning to return to his home country. The roundtable talks eventually led to an agreement that 35% of the seats in parliament would be freely and fairly contested in the June 1989 elections, and all of the seats would be contested 4 years after that. The die, of course, was cast: when it came time to form a government, Solidarity put forward their own slate of candidates for prime minister. On August 19, 1989, Tadeusz Mazowiecki was elected Poland's first non-Communist prime minister in 40 years. Poland rightly deserves credit for playing a critical role in advancing human rights and democratic forms throughout the entire Warsaw Pact region. In fact, Poland rightly deserves credit for helping to dissolve the Warsaw Pact. We all remember the fall of the Berlin Wall--one of the greatest moments of the 20th century. Let's not forget that, to a very great extent, the movement that brought down the Wall was ``made in Poland,'' or at least owes an immense debt to the Poles. For 45 years the Poles took the lead, within eastern Europe, in pushing back on communist rule, testing the limits of what the Soviets would tolerate. In other words, taking the risks. The rhythm of Polish uprisings and mass movements against communism is instructive: in 1944, the Nazis, with nearby Soviet forces blocking allied assistance, crushed the Warsaw Uprising; 12 years later, in 1956, the Poles were rioting again, and they wrung concessions out of the communist government; 12 years later, in 1968-1970, the same thing happened; then six later, in 1976; then 3 years later, in 1979 the visit of the new pope saw what amounted to massive demonstration of support for the Polish Catholic tradition which were at the same time demonstrations against communist tyranny; then 1 year later, in 1980, Solidarity was formed. But as the declaration of martial law demonstrated, the communists would only be able to exercise meaningful control through the use of an ultimately unsustainable degree of force. By the summer of 1989, it was clear that the Poles had stood down the Soviet Union. The communist parties of the eastern bloc were on their own, facing their peoples without Soviet military backing, setting the stage for them all to be swept from power. So let's remember that from the 1950s through the 1980s the Polish people, acting for high moral purposes--religious freedom, human rights, liberty, solidarity, patriotism--ran great risks--even the risk of another Russian invasion and they succeeded to the enduring benefit not only of their own citizens, but all those around the globe who share those purposes. At the end of this month, Poland will wrap up its tenure as the president of the European Union. It has come a very long way from the dark days of martial law and I am grateful that, as the United States seeks to promote democracy and human rights around the globe, Poland stands beside us as a leader in this effort.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished chairwoman for yielding and join her first in mourning the passing of Vaclav Havel, the great President and human rights crusader, one of the founders of Charter 77, a magnificent human rights manifesto, that took the Helsinki final act and turned it into a very durable and tangible program of action for the people of Czechoslovakia. Charter 77 has been replicated all over the world, including in Belarus--it's called Charter 97 there--as well as in places like Vietnam, where it's Bloc 8406. I would note parenthetically that, back in the 1980s, I and some members of the Helsinki Commission, including Steny Hoyer, sought to meet with members of Charter 77. All but one, Father Valclav Maly--now Bishop Maly--got through to our meeting. The rest were detained by the secret police, including Vaclav Havel. It's interesting and very important to point out that Vaclav Havel, before he passed away, tragically, sent a strong letter to the people of Belarus encouraging them to hold firm and expressing his overwhelming solidarity with the people of Belarus as they seek their universally recognized human rights. Again, this man never ceased in his promotion of human rights anywhere--from Burma to Belarus-- including to his dying day, sending this very important letter to the Belarusian people. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in strong support and urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 515 again. We passed it last July, but it came back from the Senate with a couple of additions which are very much appreciated. I especially want to thank Chairman John Kerry and Senator Lugar for their cooperation in helping to bring this legislation back to the House; and I want to thank the distinguished gentlelady for her leadership, and Howard Berman, as well as the Speaker and Eric Cantor, for bringing this legislation to the floor. This is a very timely piece of legislation. As was noted, it is exactly 1 year ago today since the bloody December 19, 2010, election- night crackdown in Belarus which swept up more than 700 opposition supporters, many of whom I know personally, who dared to challenge the rule of Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko. On this day of remembrance, we are here in the House to pass legislation that we know President Obama will sign--he supports it-- that demonstrates our country's support for the human rights of the Belarusian people for democracy and the rule of law in Belarus through sanctions targeted against the dictator Lukashenko and his senior officials. This legislation tracks legislation that I authored in 2004 and '06, which is current policy, called the Belarus Democracy Act, and it builds on that framework of trying to target those who are actually inflicting the abuse. It's timely and necessary. As I said, those jailed--and remember, there are many who have been jailed and more that are being jailed as we meet--have been subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment, and some have been tortured. More than 40 were convicted, and about a dozen, including several presidential candidates, remain imprisoned to this day. At a Helsinki Commission hearing that I chaired only last month, we heard shocking, heartbreaking testimony from one of the presidential candidates who had endured torture during his 2-month stay at a KGB prison--and, yes, Mr. Speaker, in Belarus, it is still called the KGB, reminding one how little Belarus has strayed from its dark, Soviet roots. In addition to the arrested, the families, the lawyers, the independent journalists and the democratic activists who are not yet in prison continue to be harassed and intimidated and their homes watched by the KGB. This has been the worst political crackdown in Europe in well over a decade. The postelection crackdown has followed the pattern, however, of repression that has characterized Lukashenko's nearly 17-year rule. Through a series of rigged elections, large-scale intimidation, and the suppression of independent media and civil society, the dictator has long consolidated his control over virtually all national institutions. His dictatorship has the worst record for human rights by far of any government in Europe. Specifically, and significantly, the sanctions outlined in the bill are aimed at the senior leadership of the dictatorship that displays utter contempt for the dignity and the rights of the Belarusan people. With these sanctions we stand with the Belarusan people and against their oppressors. H.R. 515 requires the State Department to issue a new report to Congress on the sale, delivery, or provision of weapons or weapons- related technologies or training; Lukashenko's personal wealth and assets; and cooperation by the Belarusan Government with any foreign government or organizations related to censorship or surveillance of the Internet. H.R. 515 states a U.S. Government policy of strong support for the Belarusan people in their struggle against Lukashenko to live in a free, independent country where their human rights are respected. The bill encourages those struggling despite overwhelming pressures from an anti-democratic regime. It calls for a full accounting of the 1999 to 2000 disappearances. This morning I was with a woman whose husband disappeared, presumed to be dead by this regime, and she continues to this day struggling for human rights on behalf of her people now in exile. It calls for and supports radio, television, and Internet broadcasting to Belarus, specifically Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, Voice of America, European Radio for Belarus, and the satellite television station BelSat. It calls for a release of all of the political prisoners. We can't say that enough. We can't say it one day and forget it the next. We need to redouble our efforts, beginning today, to promote a free Belarus where all can live in peace, freedom and prosperity without that knock in the middle of the night by the KGB.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2867, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization Act, as amended by the Senate. Religious freedom--the right to worship and practice one's faith according to the dictates of one's own conscience--is a foundational human right. Many have called religious freedom the first freedom. Not only is it the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it is intrinsic to the human dignity of every man and woman on this earth. However, it is a right denied or curtailed for many--and according to some estimates, most--people in the world. For Copts in Egypt, Uighurs in China, Montagnards in Central Vietnam, Jews and Baha'i in Iran, many Buddhist monks in Burma, and countless millions elsewhere, the ability to live their faith without threat of persecution is a distant and unrealized promise. Dr. Brian Grim, a witness at a recent hearing I held on religious freedom, has done significant research in this area. In a study he conducted in 2009, he found that nearly 70 percent of the world's 6.8 billion people live in countries with high or very high restrictions on religion. His study specifically cited Iran, Pakistan, China, and Egypt as among the most repressive of religious expression. This is significant not only because it highlights the number of people denied this most fundamental of human rights, but also because religious freedom is comprised of a ``bundle of rights.'' Religious freedom implies freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly, and even freedom of the press. Absent freedom of religion, all these other rights are in jeopardy. In fact, Dr. Grim's research shows that countries that respect these rights reap a host of socio-economic benefits, including better education, better health care, greater equity of pay between men and women, and higher GDP, and these benefits arguably lead to greater social stability. On the other hand, countries without respect for religious freedom do worse on these socio-economic indicators, have greater societal tension, and are more prone to instability. The importance of promoting all components of religious freedom therefore cannot be overstated. Not only is it a moral imperative, but religious freedom keeps extremism and tyranny at bay. For these reasons, U.S. leadership on religious freedom is desperately needed in many countries around the world, together with a more vigorous utilization of the means provided in the IRF Act for promoting religious human rights. I was pleased to work with my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and to chair the Committee hearings and markup fourteen years ago that led to the enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Act provided our Administration with the tools necessary to make international religious freedom an integral component of the highest priority in U.S. foreign policy. Contrary to assertions that singling out religious freedom would somehow make it seem more important or separated from other fundamental human rights--the Clinton Administration asserted that its strong opposition to the Act was based on its belief that the Act would result in a ``hierarchy of rights''--those of us who championed the bill argued that it was necessary to ensure that religious freedom is given its rightful place within the framework of human rights promotion. The law provided a new and bipartisan focus, which has begun to grant religious freedom its rightful stature in the diplomatic and foreign policy of the United States, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was and is an important part of that effort. It was created as an independent body of experts to review the facts and make policy recommendations from a vantage point outside of our diplomatic corps, where bilateral and other concerns had sometimes resulted in the soft-pedaling of severe, ongoing violations of religious freedom around the world. Even today, when the quality of State Department reporting on religious freedom issues has improved, the Commission continues to serve a critical role as a sounding board and a catalyst. One indicator is the fact that the Commission's list of recommended ``Countries of Particular Concern'' for severe violations of religious remains larger than the number designated by the State Department. In September, Secretary Clinton rightfully designated Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan as CPCs. But the State Department's list does not add any new countries from last year, and glaringly omits Vietnam, whose policies have more than earned that badge of shame. Secretary Clinton also did not designate Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan as recommended by the Commission. We need the Commission more than ever. Already in the Congress, we have had six comprehensive hearings on religious freedom: Two in the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission regarding the religious freedom of minorities in the Middle East, especially Egypt; two on the Committee I chair regarding the prioritization of religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, and two in the Helsinki Commission on the particular plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt. The Commission has been an invaluable resource to Congress as we monitor the protection and promotion of religious freedom around the world--and the response of the Administration on this very important issue. They have also been a resource to governments seeking how to remedy religious freedom abuses within their own borders. For instance, in Indonesia, the Commission worked with members of the Indonesian House of Representatives and civil society groups who introduced measures to strengthen provisions in the criminal code regarding attacks on religious gatherings and amend the law governing the building of religious venues. The Commission also continues to help network human rights and legal advocates in Indonesia working to defend individuals accused of ``blasphemy'' and religious minorities facing intimidation and violence from extremist groups. The Commission's work in Indonesia will have practical impact on the exercise of human rights--and preservation of peace--in Indonesia. Other governments have looked to the Commission as a model for their own religious freedom Commissions. The bill before us includes a number of bipartisan reforms to Commission authorities and operations to make their work even more effective. I want to thank Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for working to bring to the floor this important bill, which deserves unanimous support. And I would like to extend a special thanks to Representative Wolf, whose tireless efforts on this legislation have brought hope to persecuted people across the world.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week I held a hearing on global online freedom. About 2 billion people in the world regularly communicate or get information on the Internet. Well over half a billion people do so in repressive countries. As Internet use has become a vital and even the standard means to disseminate beliefs, ideas and opinions, so we see a growing number of countries that censor or conduct surveillance on the Internet, in conflict with internationally recognized human rights laws and standards. In 2006, I held the first major hearing on Internet freedom, in this very room, in response to Yahoo!'s turning over the personally identifying information of its e-mail account holder, Shi Tao, to the Chinese Government--who tracked him down and sentenced him to 10 years for sending abroad e-mails that revealed the details of Chinese government press controls. At that hearing Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, and Cisco testified as to what we might ruefully call their ``worst practices'' of cooperation with the Internet police of totalitarian governments like China's. That same week I introduced the first Global Online Freedom Act, as a means to help Internet users in repressive states. In 2008 the Global Online Freedom Act was passed by three House committees. In the last half dozen years the Internet, in many countries, has been transformed from a freedom plaza to big brother's best friend. The technologies to track, monitor, block, filter, trace, remove, attack, hack, and remotely take over Internet activity, content and users has exploded. Many of these technologies are made in the U.S.A. Many of them have important and legitimate law-enforcement applications. But, sadly, many of them are also being exported, every day, to some of the most unsavory governments in the world--whose use of them is far from legitimate. Every day we learn about more activists being arrested through the use of newly-developed technologies--much of it American technology--in China, Belarus, Egypt, Syria and many other countries around the world. The stakes are life and death for online democracy activists, and they deserve our support and protection. For example, Belarus is blocking social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook and aggressively shutting down opposition Internet sites. Kazakhstan, which already blocks a number of popular blogs and media sites, is also in the process of creating a ``national Internet,'' where all domestic domain names will have to operate on physical servers within its borders. Syria is using sophisticated tools to limit the ability of the opposition to organize and to track down peaceful protestors. China has created the Great Firewall and wants to create its own sanitized version of the Internet that will essentially isolate China from much of what is happening in the rest of the world. And, when protests break out, it simply shuts down the Internet, as it did in Tibet and Xinjiang in recent years. In Vietnam, Facebook has been blocked for two years and under a new executive decree, a number of bloggers and journalists who write for independent online publications have been arrested. Egypt continues to detain blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah for his online criticisms of the Egyptian army. And today, we just learned that in addition to the already extensive online censorship in Iran, the U.S. ``virtual embassy'' in Iran has been blocked after only one day of operation. Last week, I introduced a bill that responds to the growing use of the Internet as a tool of repression, and to changes in the technologies of repression. The new Global Online Freedom Act of 2011 (GOFA), H.R. 3605, fundamentally updates legislation that I first introduced in 2006 (and which in 2008 advanced through three House committees). The new GOFA requires the State Department to beef up its reporting on Internet freedom in the annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices, and to identify by name Internet-restricting countries. This country designation will be useful not only in a diplomatic context in helping to advance Internet freedom through naming and shaming countries, but will also provide U.S. technology companies with the information they need in deciding how to engage in repressive foreign countries. Second, the bill requires Internet companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission how they conduct their human rights due diligence, including with regard to the collection and sharing of personally identifiable information with repressive countries, and the steps they take to notify users when they remove content or block access to content. This provision of the bill will help democratic activists and human rights defenders hold Internet companies accountable by creating a new transparency standard for Internet companies. This provision will also require foreign Internet service companies that are listed here in the U.S. to report this information as well--this will include such big-name Chinese companies such as Baidu, Sohu and Sina. Finally, in response to many reports that we've all seen in the papers recently of U.S. technology being used to track down or conduct surveillance of activists through the Internet or mobile devices, this bill will prohibit the export of hardware or software that can be used for potentially illicit activities such as surveillance, tracking and blocking to the governments of Internet-restricting countries. Current export control laws do not take into account the human rights impact of these exports and therefore do not create any incentive for U.S. companies to evaluate their role in assisting repressive regimes. This section will not only help stop the sale of these items to repressive governments, but will create an important foreign policy stance for the United States that will help ensure that dissidents abroad know we are on their side, and that U.S. businesses are not profiting from this repression. This export control law is long overdue, and thoroughly consistent with the approach Congress has taken, for example, in restricting exports of certain crime control equipment to China. It makes no sense for us to allow U.S. companies to sell technologies of repression to dictators, and then turn around and have to spend millions of dollars to develop and deploy circumvention tools and other technologies to help protect dissidents from the very technologies that U.S. companies exported to their persecutors. Today's hearing is an important moment to take stock of where we are and how we can move forward to promote and defend Internet freedom around the world. What we do here in the United States is critically important to achieving our goals. We must send a strong message to companies that they have a unique role to play in preserving online freedom; and send an even stronger message to repressive governments that the Internet must not become a tool of repression.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, I would ask that the following opening statements be submitted to the Record for the November 17, 2001 hearing on ``China's Censorship of the Internet and Social Media: The Human Toll and Trade Impact.'' China's Censorship of the Internet and Social Media: The Human Toll and Trade Impact

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, held a hearing on malaria, one of the most serious health issues facing the developing world, and particularly Africa, today. For the last century, America has been a leader in the fight against malaria. While the United States and several other countries have been able to eliminate malaria, this deadly disease still presents a serious challenge to other parts of our world. The World Health Organization estimates that 781,000 people died from malaria in 2009 and that 225 million people suffered from infection. Malaria is the fifth leading cause of death from infectious diseases worldwide. It inflicts a particularly severe toll on the people of sub- Saharan Africa, where ninety percent of deaths are caused by malaria. Moreover, approximately 85 percent of malaria deaths occur in children under 5 years of age. Every 45 seconds, a mother and father in Africa lose their child to malaria. There is also a far-reaching impact on the wealth and development of countries with endemic malaria. Africa may lose up to $12 billion in productivity due to malaria each year due to the disease, while the disease in turn consumes about 40 percent of Africa's public health expenditures. These numbers and statistics are staggering, but they have a greater impact when one has been to Africa and met the individuals who must live with the disease. Anyone who spends any meaningful amount of time in Africa and mingles with the African people will soon notice the prevalence of malaria. When you ask someone whether he or she has ever had malaria, they likely will respond not with a yes but with the time that has passed since they last suffered from it. More astounding than the sad reality that malaria is killing or harming so many millions of people is the reality that malaria is preventable and treatable. The world has the tools to prevent and treat malaria. No one in the twenty-first century should have to suffer from it, let alone die from it. When I last visited Uganda, I visited several homes, including a home in the remote region of Bushenyi. The three-room dwelling of white- washed walls and dirt floors was practically empty, and this made the insecticide-treated mosquito net over the floor mats all the more striking. These nets may seem like insignificant items when listed on paper, but they are noticeably visible in the modest homes of those families who rely on them for protection from this ravaging disease. What began for the United States as an effort to protect our troops abroad and citizens here at home has become for us a larger global health objective. In the last decade we have seen a renewed commitment by the United States, international organizations, and private foundations to eliminate all malaria deaths. The effort received a notable boost in 2007 when Bill and Melinda Gates renewed the challenge of worldwide malaria eradication. While much progress has been made in combating malaria, as we have seen from past eradication efforts, malaria can resurge when treatment becomes ineffective through drug resistance. While the global commitment remains to beat this disease, and to beat it as soon as possible, the stakes are too high to bet it all on doing so before the tools we have lose their impact. At yesterday's hearing the subcommittee received an update on the progress toward malaria elimination in the most endemic countries with a focus on the vitality and effectiveness of the treatment component. The hearing examined the future of anti-malarial drug and vaccine development, and challenges in ensuring an adequate supply of effective medicines. We also heard about the continued availability, affordability, and safe distribution of quality anti-malarial medicines. Our distinguished witnesses explored means for achieving the immediate goal of saving lives, and the ultimate goal of eradicating malaria from our world.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and Co-Chairman of the Congressional Poland Caucus, I rise today to speak about the legacy of Jan Karksi, the Polish resistance fighter who risked his life over and over again to bring first-hand reports of the mass murder of Jews in German-occupied Poland to the allied governments. 2014 will be the centennial of Karski's birth, making this a fitting time to remember and honor the heroism of this man. To that end, a ``Jan Karski U.S. Centennial Campaign'' has been launched. This campaign will shine a spotlight on this historic figure of towering moral authority, and will increase public knowledge about Jan Karski's extraordinary courage and commitment. This American campaign is joined by a similar undertaking by the Polish History Museum in Warsaw, Poland. I would like to have reprinted with my remarks today the eloquent tribute to Jan Karski made recently by David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee. For those who are unfamiliar with Karski's singular effort to sound the alarm regarding the unfolding Holocaust in Europe, I urge them to read David's description, published in the Jerusalem Post, of what Jan Karski did, and why it still matters today. [Oct. 17, 2011] Ode to Jan Karski (By David Harris) He passed away in 2000, at the age of 86. The more time goes by, the more I miss him. Precisely when his voice is needed more than ever, he is no longer among us. In 1914, Jan Karski (ne Kozielewski) was born to a Catholic family in Poland. The youngest of eight children, in 1939 he was mobilized in the Polish army just before the Nazi invasion on September 1. His wartime saga as officer, as Soviet prisoner, as escapee, in the hands of the Gestapo, and as a Polish Underground activist and courier, is beyond remarkable. In a world today where words such as ``courage'' and ``heroism'' have been so overused--applied freely from sports to entertainment to politics--as to be rendered practically meaningless, Jan Karski was the rare human being who embodied both. He put his life on the line repeatedly in defense of higher principles--the struggle against Nazism and the defense of his homeland, Poland. He carried with him all his life the physical scars of his experience, including the wrists he slit in an attempted suicide after prolonged beating by his Nazi captors. The emotional scars never healed, either. Nor did he want them to. After the war, serving on the faculty of Georgetown University for four decades, he would not allow what he had witnessed to fade from memory, though, given his unusual modesty, he refused to make a second career from his past exploits. He had seen the monstrous, indescribable bestiality of the Third Reich unleashed throughout Poland. And Poland was the epicenter of the Nazi grand design. In 1944, he wrote a book, Story of a Secret State: My Report to the World, after he had reached the United States on assignment to recount what he had seen in Poland to American officials. Once here, he was told by his superiors not to return because his underground cover had been blown. The book was an instant bestseller. Over the years, however, it faded into obscurity. Now it has been republished by Penguin in the United Kingdom, with, it is to be hoped, an American edition to follow. It is a gripping account. Indeed, it should be must-reading for an understanding of the Second World War from the ground up. In effect, it tells three stories. The first is of Karski, especially from the years 1939 to 1944. The narrative is straightforward, unadorned, and moving--a sobering reminder of what man is capable of when moral and physical courage meld into one. The second is of wartime Poland, and especially the development of the Polish resistance movement. There is no other story like it in occupied Europe. Not only did local officials refuse to collaborate with the Nazis, unlike the experience in France, Norway, and many other countries, but the combined efforts of the Polish government-in-exile and the elaborately woven underground were beyond anything imaginable at the time. And the third was of the Polish Jewish tragedy. Before the clandestine journey that took him to London and Washington, to meetings with the likes of British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, Karski, wearing a Star of David armband, was smuggled twice into the Warsaw ghetto. Later, disguised as a guard, he spent hours in a Nazi camp that shipped Jews to the Belzec death camp. What he saw in the Warsaw Ghetto and Izbica Lubelska never left him. Here is what he wrote in Story of a Secret State: ``I know history. I have learned a great deal about the evolution of nations, political systems, social doctrines, methods of conquest, persecution, and extermination, and I know, too, that never in the history of mankind, never anywhere in the realm of human relations did anything occur to compare with what was inflicted on the Jewish population of Poland.'' Then he asks: ``Is it still necessary to describe the Warsaw ghetto?'' Fortunately, he answered his own question. Unfortunately, however, not everyone read his response. In the past decade alone, after Karski's death, we have witnessed a flurry of pro-Palestinian activists--from members of the British Parliament like George Galloway, Oona King and Jenny Tonge, to Norwegian diplomat Trine Lelling; from U.N. rapporteur Richard Falk to Portuguese Nobel laureate Jose Saramago; from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Spanish newspaper cartoonists--who superimpose Nazi terminology on Israel with abandon, including obscene comparisons of the Warsaw Ghetto and Gaza Strip. Here's Karski's reply at the time: ``So much has already been written about it, there have been so many accounts by unimpeachable witnesses. A cemetery? No, for these bodies were still moving, were indeed often violently agitated. These were still living people, if you could call them such. For apart from their skin, eyes, and voice there was nothing human left in these palpitating figures. Everywhere there was hunger, misery, the atrocious stench of decomposing bodies, the pitiful moans of dying children, the desperate cries and gasps of a people struggling for life against impossible odds.'' And then, perhaps anticipating what the impact of time and distance might mean for understanding this era, Karski wrote: ``I know that many people will not believe me, will not be able to believe me, will think I exaggerate or invent. But I saw it.'' Until his dying day, Karski stood as a guardian of the past and its relevance to the present. He remained a fierce anti- communist and, fortunately, lived to see his beloved Poland return to the democratic family of nations, including accession to NATO. He served as an early warning system against the recurrence of anti-Semitism. And he understood the central role of Israel in the life of the Jewish people. In 1993, AJC gave Karski its highest award. In his acceptance speech, he memorably declared that he was confident there would never again be a Holocaust against the Jews and said he knew why. He paused for a moment and then, summoning his one-word explanation from the depths of his soul, he pronounced each of the three syllables of ``Israel'' as if they were separate words, allowing the moment to linger. Jan Karski is gone, leaving no immediate family behind. But with his eyewitness account, his recorded words, and his towering example of courage, conviction, and compassion, there is hope the world won't descend into an abyss of moral fog and historical relativism or denial. May Story of a Secret State become required reading, as a source of both information and inspiration, in every 20th century history course. And may copies find their way into the hands of those today who display their shameful ignorance by misrepresenting history.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, several Congressional colleagues and I convened the first House-Senate Conversation between Congress and the African Diplomatic Corps on African issues. This historic event was opened by me, House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights Ranking Member Donald Payne, Senate Africa Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Coons and Senate Africa Subcommittee Ranking Member Johnny Isakson. We were joined during the event by Representative Karen Bass and Representative Bobby Rush. Democratic Republic of the Congo Ambassador Faida Mitifu presented a comprehensive overview of the African diplomatic corps on the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, and trade, agriculture and food security and energy and infrastructure. She also joined us in presiding over this session. Too often, we in Congress have only brief encounters with the African diplomats in Washington, and a fuller, ongoing interaction would be of help to both Members of Congress and diplomats in building U.S.-Africa relations that are mutually beneficial. In our Subcommittee hearings, we conduct oversight on issues of concern involving U.S. policy--often regarding individual countries. For troubled countries such as Sudan, Somalia, Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe, such U.S. policy oversight is critical. However, the issues we are covering today require interactions that are more detailed and more sustained. Trade, agriculture and energy are important matters that call for the kind of discussions that go beyond an office visit or even today's dialogue. It is the hope of our members and the diplomatic corps that we can use this initial event as the beginning of ongoing discussions on how to make AGOA more broadly beneficial for the nearly 6,400 covered items, for example. We need to better understand how to overcome the obstacles to successful U.S.-Africa agricultural trade. One comment was repeated by several diplomats: further delay in passing legislation to extend AGOA's third-party fabric provision will send damaging mixed signals to investors. Africa's population of approximately 1 billion people has a growing consumer base that is capable of being a larger player in global trade. One out of every three Africans is now considered to be in the middle class. This rising middle class will enable both economic and political development in Africa. For the United States and other developed nations, these developments benefit us as well by providing an enhanced market for our products and allowing African countries a larger tax base that will lessen the need for foreign aid. More robust African economies are beneficial to the entire global economy. We also have to work more effectively to help African nations produce more energy for themselves and developed world consumers such as the United States. As Ambassador Mitifu pointed out in her opening statement, current trends indicate that less than half of Africa's population will have access to electricity by 2050. She and her colleagues called on our government to support such projects as the Grand Inga Dam project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which would contribute 39,000 megawatts for a continent-wide electricity grid. A major theme among the comments and questions by the diplomats who participated in this event was concern about security and a desire to partner with the United States in combating terrorism, trafficking in persons, the international drug trade, piracy and other criminal activity that affects the continent. As we all know, the United States faces a reduced ability to fund programs at previous levels. Consequently, we are working to ensure that the funds we do have are used as efficiently and effectively as possible. In order to maximize these goals, we must have a better idea of the actual needs of African societies. In everything we do together, there must be collaboration and the goal of mutual benefit. A win-win situation is sustainable, but programs aimed at only one beneficiary are not. Deciding for Africans what their needs may be is not an appropriate strategy. We need African governments to be stakeholders in whatever programs we fund, and that will not be likely if they are not consulted in advance. Better program targeting requires partnership, and we hope this session is part of the creation of an enhanced partnership between us.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on November 2, our Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the current U.S. government policy toward the Republic of Zimbabwe and to consider how our policy toward this southern African nation may develop in the years ahead. Zimbabwe is considering a new constitution that will lead to the elections in 2012 that had been postponed from this year. There has been mutual hostility between the United States government and the Zimbabwe government of Robert Mugabe since that country became independent in 1980, although Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson said in his testimony that the relationship worsened with the extra-legal seizures of white-owned land in the 1990s. Mugabe and his supporters blame America for not supporting its liberation struggle, while the United States has criticized Mugabe's government consistently for human rights abuses, especially against its political opponents. With U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Charles Ray encouraging U.S. businesses to invest in Zimbabwe last month, it would seem that U.S. policy is in the midst of a transformation. Following independence from Great Britain in 1980, Prime Minister Robert Mugabe's policy of political reconciliation was generally successful during the next two years, as the former political and military competitors within ruling Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Front and the rival Patriotic Front-Zimbabwe African Peoples Union began to work together. Splits soon developed, however, and PF- ZAPU's leader, Joshua Nkomo was removed from government. When PF-ZAPU was accused of initiating a rebellion due to the removal of Nkomo from the cabinet, government military forces began a pacification campaign primarily in his base in the Matabeleland area, which resulted in as many as 20,000 civilian deaths. In part through its control of the media, the huge parastatal sector of the economy and the security forces, the Mugabe government managed to keep organized political opposition to a minimum through most of the 1990s. Beginning in 1999, however, Zimbabwe experienced a period of considerable political and economic upheaval. Opposition to President Mugabe and the ZANU-PF government had grown, in part due to the worsening economic governance issues. At one point, one U.S. dollar was worth more than 2.6 billion Zimbabwe dollars. Following the seizure of white-owned commercial farms beginning in the 1990s, food output capacity fell 45 percent, manufacturing output dropped by 29 percent and unemployment rose to 80 percent. The opposition was led by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which was established in September 1999. The MDC led the campaign to handily defeat a referendum that would have permitted President Mugabe to seek two additional terms in office. Parliamentary elections held in June 2000 were marred by localized violence and claims of electoral irregularities and government intimidation of opposition supporters. Still, the MDC succeeded in capturing 57 of 120 seats in the National Assembly. The last four national elections--the presidential election in 2002, parliamentary elections in 2005, harmonized presidential and parliamentary elections in March 2008, and the presidential run-off in June 2008--were judged to be not free and fair by observers. In the March 2008 elections, two factions of the opposition MDC, known as MDC- T to denote Morgan Tsvangirai's faction and MDC-M for the group led by Arthur Mutambara, gained a combined parliamentary majority. Mugabe was declared the winner of the June 2008 run-off election after opposing candidate Tsvangirai withdrew due to ZANU-PF-directed violence that made a free and fair election impossible. Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President for the International Crisis Group, told the Subcommittee that as many as a third of MDC Parliamentarians have been arrested since the 2008 election. Negotiations subsequently took place, and in September 2008 the three parties signed the Global Political Agreement (GPA), a power-sharing agreement under which Mugabe would retain the presidency and Tsvangirai would become prime minister. In February 2009 Tsvangirai was sworn in as prime minister, and new cabinet ministers and deputy ministers from the two IvIDC factions and the ruling party also were sworn in. According to Dewa Mavhinga, Regional Information and Advocacy Coordinator for the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, stated that key state institutions remain unreformed despite the change in the composition of the government. There is serious contention within the ruling party for the right to succeed President Mugabe once he leaves office, and added to the division within the opposition, politics in Zimbabwe is in flux to say the least. Paul Fagan, Regional Director for Africa for the International Republican Institute, testified that the ``imminent constitutional referendum and national elections have the potential to graduate the crisis in Zimbabwe from a steady but manageable simmer to boiling over.'' It is in this environment that the United States faces the challenge of examining our current policy and determining how it might best be adjusted. I appreciated hearing from our witnesses on how the U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe may change to help that nation reach the desired goals of democracy and good governance. Sharon Cromer, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Africa Bureau, told us that her agency is finalizing a democracy and governance assessment that ``highlights impediments and opportunities for us to promote democratic institutions in Zimbabwe.'' We eagerly await the release of that assessment for its impact on U.S. policy in Zimbabwe.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on October 27 of this year, I held a hearing to examine the State Department's 2011 Trafficking in Persons Report. This annual report to Congress was first mandated by legislation that I sponsored, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, known as the TVPA. In 1998, when I first introduced the TVPA, the legislation was met with a wall of skepticism and opposition. People both inside of government and out thought the issue of human trafficking was merely a solution in search of a problem. For most people at that time, the term trafficking applied almost exclusively to illicit drugs or weapons. Reports of vulnerable persons--especially women and children--being reduced to commodities for sale were often met with surprise, incredulity or indifference. One major objection to the bill, especially from the Clinton administration, was the naming and ranking of countries based on compliance with the establishment of common-sense minimum standards-- clearly articulated prevention, protection, and prosecution benchmarks--enforced by sanctions and penalties against egregious violators. Fortunately, reality won out over ignorance. Although it took two years to overcome opponents and muster the votes for passage, the TVPA was finally signed into law with strong bipartisan support. This support from both sides of the aisles has continued through subsequent reauthorizations, and has been essential to the ongoing successes by the United States Government in combating modern day slavery both at home and abroad. However, the battle is far from over. According to the State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking--created by the TPVA--more than 12 million people worldwide are trafficking victims. Other estimates put the number of victims as high as 27 million. Today we know that human trafficking is the third most lucrative criminal activity in the world. According to the International Labor Organization, ILO, human traffickers make profits in excess of $31 billion a year. At the hearing, we were fortunate to receive testimony from three State Department witnesses to examine both the substance and the diplomatic activity that is behind the Trafficking in Persons Report. The Report, which is written by the Trafficking in Persons Office currently headed by Ambassador Luis CdeBaca, summarizes the rankings and performance of each country and provides detailed recommendations as to how each country can improve its efforts. But more than a source of comprehensive, concise knowledge about the fight against human trafficking around the world, the TIP Report has been an incredibly effective diplomatic tool. The Report has been a catalyst for improvement--often dramatic improvements--in the efforts of governments to address human trafficking within their borders and regions. With a combination of encouragement, persuasion, and sustained pressure via sanctions imposed by the United States, countries around the world have created or amended over 120 laws to combat human trafficking, and, in the past three years alone, an estimated 113,000 victims have been identified and assisted worldwide. Individuals within each country can use the Report to assess their government's commitment and to lobby their government to take specific measures. The G/TIP Office also coordinates technical assistance and aid for many of the countries wishing to improve their anti-trafficking response. The result has been a worldwide anti-trafficking surge, largely dependent on the credibility, accuracy, and faithful implementation of the Report, including the Tier framework. We turned our attention to ensuring that the Report retains these essential attributes and to assess whether it is fulfilling its purpose. In 2003, Congress added a special watch list to the Tier rankings to allow countries an opportunity to address serious shortcomings in their anti-trafficking efforts before being placed in Tier III and subject to sanctions. When it became apparent that this Tier II Watch List was becoming a permanent parking spot for some countries, Congress added a requirement to the 2008 reauthorization that the President either downgrade or upgrade any country that had been on the Tier II Watch List for two consecutive years. Obviously, the direction in which the country is moved is to be based on whether requisite measures were taken to meet the minimum standards. The President can waive the requirement to move a country off of the Tier II Watch List for up to two years if the country has a plan to bring itself into compliance with the minimum standards and designates sufficient resources to carry it out. But this waiver should only be applied in the most extreme cases as countries have had since 2009 to undertake this effort. Consequently, it is with concern that I note the President has determined 12 countries need yet another year on the Tier II Watch List. Some of these countries--China and Russia--have been on the Watch List for 7 and 8 years, respectively. Uzbekistan has been on the list for four years. I look forward to discussing with our witnesses today exactly why the Administration is convinced these countries need yet another year to get their acts together. The Report shows that, of the 23 countries on Tier III, the full sanctions envisioned by the TVPA will be applied to only three countries--Eritrea, Madagascar, and North Korea. Partial sanctions will be imposed on seven countries, and thirteen countries will have no trafficking sanctions imposed whatsoever. Some may argue that being on Tier III is punishment enough, but Congress envisioned tangible repercussion for countries on Tier III. Those who work on the front lines of human trafficking know all too well that a law is useless unless faithfully implemented.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week I held the first oversight hearing on the IRF Report since I chaired a hearing on the 2006 Report in December of that year. It is one of a series being held by this subcommittee that is examining this critically important issue. In June of this year, we held a hearing on prioritizing international religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy in the context of amending the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, known as IRFA. We have also examined freedom of conscience and religion in the context of China's and North Korea's overall abysmal human rights records. A study conducted by Dr. Brian Grim of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, who testified before this Subcommittee in June, found that almost 70 percent of the world's population lives in countries with high or very high restrictions on religion. Although this study was conducted between 2006 and 2009, it was apparent back in the late 1990s that the fundamental human right of religious freedom was under severe attack around the world. Congress gave expression to our commitment to international religious freedom with the passage in 1998 of IRFA, which concretely established the promotion and protection of religious liberties as a foreign policy goal. I was shocked at the time when IRFA was strongly opposed on the record by the Clinton Administration. John Shattuck, the former Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, claimed during his testimony in this very room that it would establish a hierarchy of human rights, under U.S. law. I chaired the hearings on the legislation, and I as well as others pointed out that, for example, when we fought against apartheid and enacted laws to mitigate the abomination of racism in South Africa, we certainly did not detract from other human rights policies, it was always value added. Similarly, when we took up the cause of Soviet Jewry, and the Jackson-Vanik amendment was employed with such effectiveness, even though we risked superpower confrontation in order to effectuate the release of Jews who were being harassed and persecuted in the former Soviet Union, it did not detract. It was not a ``hierarchy of human rights''; it was all value added. In like manner, the International Religious Freedom Act was an important addition to the overall effort to defend and promote human rights, by focusing the spotlight on one of the most fundamental human rights. We persisted, and eventually the bill, authored by my good friend and colleague Frank Wolf, was signed into law. A critical component of the law is the requirement that the State Department review foreign countries each year and submit a report on the status of religious freedom to Congress. Those countries found to be engaged in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom during the preceding 12 months are to be designated as ``Countries of Particular Concern'', CPCs. In September, the Department of State issued its report for the last 6 months of 2010. The reason for the abbreviated report is to introduce a new reporting cycle that will be based on the calendar year instead of the previous July to June reporting period. The State Department also notified Congress in September that eight countries had been redesignated as CPCs: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. These are the same eight countries that previously had been designated by the Bush Administration on January 16, 2009. Pursuant to the IRF Act, the Secretary must impose new presidential actions, issue waivers, or authorize an additional 90-day extension for such actions against these eight countries by December 12. I and other Members of Congress are strongly urging the Administration not to double-hat sanctions against these countries as has been done previously, but to impose measures that have some teeth and that are likely to produce the desired effect. Any thoughts from our witnesses about what actions should be taken would be both timely and most appreciated. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended several additional countries be added to that list. They include Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam. I also will be interested in hearing from our witnesses as to whether they agree with the Commission that any or all of these countries should be CPCs. Last week, I chaired a hearing of the Helsinki Commission on the horrendous plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt. In July, the Foreign Affairs Committee accepted two religious freedom amendments that I proposed to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 2583. One calls on the Administration to include the protection of the Coptic Christian communities as a priority in our diplomatic engagements with the Government of Egypt, and the other prohibits increased non- humanitarian assistance to Vietnam until its government makes substantial progress toward respecting the right to freedom of religion, among other requirements. I was also deeply disturbed by the assassination of Pakistan's Federal Minister of Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti on March 2 of this year. I met personally with Minister Bhatti when he visited Washington, D.C. and was extremely appreciative of his courage and commitment to promote the rights of religious minorities and harmony among all faith communities in his country. His killing was a tragic loss for all Pakistanis, and the ongoing failure of the Pakistani Government to identify his assassins and bring them to justice is a blatant and ongoing severe violation of respect for religious freedom. In closing, I would like to note that the State Department's Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, was invited to testify at our hearing and present the report written by her office. Unfortunately, the State Department refused to allow her to appear without another State Department official on her panel. Given the important responsibilities assigned to the Ambassador-at-Large pursuant to the IRF Act, including advancing the right to religious freedom abroad through diplomatic representations on behalf of the United States, our Subcommittee looks forward to the opportunity to hear from Ambassador Johnson Cook when she is allowed to testify on her own. I thank the distinguished witnesses who have joined us last week.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, the Protect Life Act offered by Chairman Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski ensures that all the elements of the Hyde amendment apply to all the programs that are authorized and appropriated in ObamaCare. By now I trust that all Members fully understand that because programs in ObamaCare are both authorized and appropriated in the law on a parallel track but not subject to appropriations under HHS, the actual Hyde amendment therefore has no legal effect whatsoever. Hyde only affects Labor-HHS programs including Medicaid, not the massive expansion of government-funded health care. Thus, ObamaCare, when phased in fully in 2014, will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in the ``exchanges'', resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than would otherwise have been the case. Because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, or starve to death or induce premature labor, pro-life Members of Congress and, according to every reputable poll, majorities of Americans want no complicity whatsoever in the destruction of human life. ObamaCare forces us to be complicit. Despite breathtaking advances in recent years, and respecting and treating unborn children as patients in need of diagnosis and care and treatment for any number of diseases just like any other patient, far too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona non grata. I respectfully submit: How can violence against children by abortion be construed as benign or compassionate or caring? The dangerous myth of ``safe abortion'' must be exposed--and absolutely not subsidized by taxpayers. So-called safe abortion is the ultimate oxymoron, an Orwellian manipulation of language designed to convey bogus respectability to a lethal act. Abortion is, by any reasonable definition, child mortality. Its sole purpose is to kill a baby. I would also suggest that presumptuous talk that brands any child as ``unwanted'' or an ``unwanted child'' reduces that child to a mere object bereft of inherent dignity or value. We should not be paying for abortion. I support the Protect Life Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, abortion not only dismembers and chemically poisons unborn children to death, and my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) used to know that. He used to be very pro-life, as some other Members who have reversed themselves. But it also hurts women's health and puts future children subsequently born to women who aborted at significant risk. At least 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression, and elevated suicide risk in women who abort. Published just last month in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a meta-analysis comprised of 22 studies and over 887,000 participants, the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risk associated with abortion in world literature ever, revealed that women who have undergone an abortion experience an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems. You never hear that from the abortion side. The Times of London has also found the clear link that women had twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression, and subsequent risk to children born to women who have had a previous abortion. This is all about no taxpayer funding for abortion. Nothing less than a comprehensive prohibition on public funding, promotion and facilitation of elective abortion in any federal health program, satisfies the demands of social justice. The Protect Life Act, authored by Chairman Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski, ensures that all the elements of the Hyde amendment applies to all the programs that are both authorized and appropriated in Obamacare. By now, I trust that all members fully understand that because programs in Obamacare are both authorized and appropriated in the law, the actual Hyde Amendment has no legal affect whatsoever. Hyde only affects Labor HHS programs not this massive expansion of government funded health care. Thus Obamacare when phased in fully in 2014 will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs resulting in more dead babies and wounded moms than would otherwise have been the case. Because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, starve to death and induce premature labor, pro-life Members of Congress, and according to every reputable poll, significant majorities of Americans want no complicity whatsoever in this evil. Obamacare forces us to be complicit. Despite breathtaking advances in recent years in respecting and treating the unborn child as a patient--in need of diagnosis and treatment for any number of diseases or conditions, just like any other patient--far too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona non grata. I respectfully but firmly asked how violence against children by abortion--dismemberment, chemical poisoning, lethal pills euphemistically marketed as medical abortion--can be construed as benign or compassionate or caring. The dangerous myth of ``safe abortion'' must be exposed. So-called ``safe abortion'' is the ultimate oxymoron, an Orwellian manipulation of language, designed to convey bogus respectability to a lethal act. Abortion is never safe for the child and is antithetical to UN Development Goal 4--which rallies the world to reduce child mortality. Abortion is, by any reasonable definition, child mortality. It sole purpose is to kill a baby. Arrogant and presumptuous talk that brands any child as an ``unwanted child'' reduces that child to a mere object, bereft of inherent dignity or value. Abortion, not only dismembers and chemically poisons unborn children to death, but hurts women's health and puts future children subsequently born to women who, aborted at significant risk. At least 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risk in women who abort. Published last month in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a meta analysis, comprised of 22 studies and 887,181 participants, the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion in world literature revealed ``women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.'' Recently, the Times of London reported ``that women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have never been pregnant . . .'' Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth weight increases by 35 percent after one and 72 percent after two or more abortions. Another study shows the risk increases 9 times after a woman has had three abortions. What does this mean for her children? Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering from chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments and behavior problems. Low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity. Obamacare authorizes health care plans and policies funded with tax credits to pay for abortion, so long as the issuer of the federally subsided plan collects a new congressionally mandated fee from every enrollee in that plan to pay for other peoples abortions. Requiring the segregation of funds into allocation accounts--a mere bookkeeping exercise touted by some as an improvement to the new pro-abortion funding scheme--does absolutely nothing to protect any victims--baby or mother--from publically funded abortion. Also billions for new Community Health Centers are outside the scope of the Hyde amendment as well. Obamacare also contains a little known provision that creates a devastating loophole for conscience rights. Section 1303(d) allows any state or federal law involving emergency services to override any conscience protections added to PPACA. Contrary to the claims of H.R. 358 opponents, Section 1303(d) is NOT uniquely about the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The section references EMTALA but the operative language is much broader, giving authority to override conscience laws to any federal or state law that employs the term emergency services. The ``Nondiscrimination on Abortion'' (new subsection 1303 (g)) portion of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act applies to Obamacare the language of the Hyde/Weldon amendment, which has been in the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bills every year since 2004 without any effort to change or remove it. This subsection is needed because Obamacare creates many new funding streams that bypass the Labor/HHS appropriations act, and therefore bypass the protections of the Hyde/ Weldon amendment in that act. Also, Obamacare creates a huge new program administered by OPM that would manage two or more new multi-state or national health plans. The new law stipulates that at least one plan not pay for abortion. Which only begs to question: what about the other new multi-state plans administered by OPM? Why can those federally administered plans include funding abortion on demand? This represents a radical departure from current policy. Additionally, other appropriated funds under Obamacare that have no Hyde-type protections include billions for a temporary high risk health insurance pools and billions in grants and loans for health care co- ops. In testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee on February, 9, 2011, Douglas Johnson, Federal Legislative Director for the National Right to Life Committee said: The first major component of the PPACA to be implemented, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program, a 100% federally funded program, provided a graphic demonstration of the problem: The Department of Health and Human Services approved plans from multiple states that would have covered elective abortions. NRLC documented this and blew the whistle in July, 2010, which produced a public outcry, after which DHHS announced a discretionary decision that the PCIP plans would not cover elective abortions. Commentators on all sides of the issue were in agreement about one thing: Coverage of elective abortions within this new, 100% federally funded program was not impeded by any provision of the PPACA, and was not even addressed in Executive Order 13535. On the same day that DHHS issued its decision to exclude abortion from this program--July 29, 2010--the head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, issued a statement on the White House blog explaining that the discretionary decision to exclude abortion from the PCIP ``is not a precedent for other programs or policies [under the PPACA] given the unique, temporary nature of the program . . .'' Laura Murphy, director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, ``The White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. . . . What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama Administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban.'' (''ACLU steps into healthcare reform fray over abortion,'' The Hill, July 17, 2010.)'' Then there's the Mikulski Amendment, Sec. 2713, which empowers the HHS Secretary with broad new authority to force private health care plans in America to cover ``preventable'' services. When Senator Ben Nelson suggested that abortion not be included in the so-called preventative services mandate, Ms. Mikulski said no--raising a serious red flag that abortion is being postured as ``preventable abortion service in the future''-- after all, abortion prevents a live birth, by exterminating the child. Killing unborn children and calling it preventative health care isn't new. And as far back as 1976, Dr. Willard Cates, Jr. and Dr. David Grimes then with CDC presented a paper to a Planned Parenthood meeting, entitled: Abortion as a Treatment for Unintended Pregnancy: The Number Two Sexually Transmitted ``Disease''. To designate pregnancy a sexually transmitted disease; and call abortion a treatment or a means of prevention for this ``disease'' is barbaric. Abortion isn't health care--preventative or otherwise. Madam Speaker, we live in an age of ultrasound imaging--the ultimate window to the womb and it's occupant. We are in the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign innovative interventions designed to diagnose, treat and cure disease or illness any unborn child may be suffering. Unborn children are society's youngest and most vulnerable patients. Obamacare should do them no harm. Tragically, it does the worst harm of all. It kills them.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, which I chair, held a hearing that examined a wide range of issues involving U.S. policy toward Sudan, including the ongoing attacks on Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states, the continuing negotiations with the Republic of South Sudan on challenges such as the demarcation of the border, the fate of the Abyei region, citizenship in both countries and oil revenue sharing. Additionally, this hearing provided opportunities to receive an update on the U.S. response to the enduring stalemate on Darfur and to examine U.S. policy on the release of Sudanese still held in bondage throughout Sudan. Two months ago, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights held an emergency hearing on the attacks by the Republic of the Sudan on its own Southern Kordofan state. The crisis first arose in June, shortly after the military forces of the Khartoum government attacked the disputed Abyei area. This was apparently a provocation to the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, or SPLM, government in what is now South Sudan just before that new country's independence. This vicious attack didn't provoke the SPLM into retaliation, which could have derailed its independence. Nevertheless, dozens of people were killed and more than 200,000 were displaced in the immediate aftermath of the northern attack on its own territory. This violence was a tragic resumption of a prior war by the Khartoum government on the Nuba of Southern Kordofan. Beginning in the 1980s, Islamist elements in the North began an eradication campaign against the Nuba-- pitting Northern Arabs against Africans to the South. Earlier this month, the Sudanese military bombed its own Blue Nile state, including attacks on the governor's residence. Nearly half a million people were affected by the air and ground assault on Blue Nile. It seems the so-called cease-fire in Southern Kordofan was only a pretext to facilitate preparations for the assault on Blue Nile. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the North-South civil war was supposed to provide for consultations for both states so residents could determine their political future. However, Khartoum didn't want to risk their desire to break away and lose them as it has South Sudan. The promised consultations were held in Blue Nile, but postponed in Southern Kordofan. When the SPLM-North members in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile didn't lay down their arms in advance of South Sudan's independence, Khartoum used that as an excuse to eliminate those who had supported the South in the long civil war. A preemptive strike in Southern Kordofan evidently was meant to chase out those who had opposed Khartoum. Members of SPLM-North were stalked by the Sudanese military, who went door-to-door to eliminate them. The similar attack in Blue Nile was intended to purge that state of the supposed opponents of the Khartoum government living there as well. In fact, the Sudan People's Liberation Army--North governor of Blue Nile has been chased out of the capital by northern military forces. As the world was focused on the January referendum in which Southerners voted for an independent South Sudan, human right organizations reported rising violence in Darfur. There was a resumption of conflict in several locations in North and South Darfur between Sudanese government military forces and Sudan Liberation Army rebels loyal to Mini Minawi, a signatory of the now-defunct 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement. Recently, the Sudanese army clashed with the rebel Justice and Equality Movement in the remote area of North Darfur near Sudan's triangle border with Chad and Libya. Darfur rebels had attacked Omdurman and Khartoum in northern Sudan in 2008, which resulted in a massive crackdown on dissidents. The brutality by the Sudanese military will not crush the desire for freedom in Abyei, Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile or Darfur. In seeking to prevent the secession of these states and the special administrative area of Abyei, Bashir's government may be sowing the seeds for Sudan's eventual dissolution. Until that time, however, the international community must continue to press for an end to the attacks on Sudanese, using all of our available diplomatic and economic resources. The human rights of people in the North must be every bit as important to us as the rights of those in the South have been. Meanwhile, we have known that raiders from the North were killing southern men and taking women and children into slavery for decades. Reports from human rights groups and the U.S. Department of State on Sudanese slavery gained the attention of Members of Congress such as myself as early as the 1980s because of the serious human rights implications of modern-day slavery. I chaired the first Congressional hearing on slavery in Sudan on March 13, 1996. Our witnesses included then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs William Twadell; Samuel Cotton of the Coalition Against Slavery in Mauritania and Sudan; Dr. Charles Jacobs of the American Anti-Slavery Group; Baroness Caroline Cox, the Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords, testifying on behalf of Christian Solidarity International, and Dr. Gaspar Biro, Human Rights Rapporteur of the United Nations. Fifteen years ago, these witnesses cited the gross human rights violations committed by the Government of the Sudan and their failure to cooperate in addressing slavery. Special Rapporteur Biro referred to it as the ``manifest passivity of the government of Sudan.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary Twadell said the Clinton Administration acknowledged then that slavery was an ugly reality in Sudan. Following a visit to the Sudan People's Liberation Army-held portion of Sudan in November 2000, then-Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice said that neither the Clinton Administration nor its successor would cease working to end slavery in Sudan. Why have we not kept that promise? When former Assistant Secretary Rice made that pledge, the United Nations estimated that there were as many as 15,000 southern Sudanese held in bondage after being abducted in raids by Arab militiamen on southern villages. While the current exact number of Sudanese slaves is unknown, too many people remain in slavery in Sudan and more continue to join them each day. The State Department's 2011 Trafficking in Persons report lists Sudan as a Tier III country that is a continuing source, transit and destination country for men, women and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking. Slavery remains a pervasive and deeply disturbing reality in Sudan, and we cannot in good conscience allow this to continue. We have had active campaigns to end Sudanese slavery, to end genocide in Darfur, to end the north-South civil war and now to end to the attacks on Abyei, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Unfortunately, these campaigns have been conducted in isolation from one another. If we are to have a successful policy to stop the suffering of Sudan's people, our government must devise a comprehensive policy for addressing all of Sudan's challenges. To facilitate such a policy consolidation, civil society also must support a coordinated policy no matter their particular area of concern. Therefore, I call on our civil society organizations concerned about the people of Sudan to work together and demonstrate to our government the wisdom and effectiveness of a coordinated American policy on Sudan.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week I held an extremely important hearing that examined the consequences of thirty-three years of China's implementation of its one child per couple policy. China's one child policy is state sponsored cruelty and constitutes massive crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg Nazi war crimes tribunal properly construed forced abortion as a crime against humanity--nothing in human history compares to the magnitude of China's 33 year assault on women and children. Today in China, rather than being given maternal care, pregnant women without birth allowed permits are hunted down and forcibly aborted. They are mocked, belittled and humiliated. There are no single moms in China--except those who somehow evade the family planning cadres and conceal their pregnancy. For over three decades, brothers and sisters have been illegal; a mother has absolutely no right to protect her unborn baby from state sponsored violence. Over the years I have chaired 29 congressional human rights hearings focused in whole or in part on China's one child policy. At one, the principal witness, Wuijan, a Chinese student attending a U.S. university, testified about how her child was forcibly murdered by the government. She said, ``[T]he room was full of moms who had just gone through a forced abortion. Some moms were crying. Some moms were mourning. Some moms were screaming. And one mom was rolling on the floor with unbearable pain.'' Then Wuijan said it was her turn, and through her tears she described what she called her ``journey in hell.'' Last week we heard the testimony of other victims of forced abortion, and we are extremely grateful that they joined us. Not only did it take a great deal of courage to share what must be some of the most painful experiences of their lives, but they are also spoke truth to power, a Chinese Government that may well retaliate not only against them, if given the opportunity, but also family members who may still be in China. Again, I thank them for sharing their stories. Women bare the major brunt of the one child policy not only as mothers. Due to the male preference in China's society and the limitation of the family size to one child, the policy has directly contributed to what is accurately described as gendercide--the deliberate extermination of a girl--born or unborn--simply because she happens to be female. As a result of the Chinese government's barbaric attack on mothers and their children, there are some 100 million more males than females in China today. It has been noted that the three most dangerous words in China today are: ``it's a girl!'' In July, I offered an amendment demanding the release and an end of the torture of Chinese defense attorney Chen Guangcheng, who bravely defended forced abortion victims in China. Both Chen and his wife Yuan Weijing are at risk of dying from repeated beatings by the Chinese secret police and refused access to critically-needed medical care. In the latter part of August when Vice President Joe Biden was visiting China, he stated that he ``fully understood'' the one child policy, and that he's not ``second guessing.'' Can you imagine what the public reaction would be if the Vice President had said that he ``fully understands'' and is not ``second guessing'' copyright infringement and gross violations of intellectual property rights? The one child per couple policy is the most egregious systematic attack on mothers ever. For my Vice President to publicly state that he fully understands the one child policy and then say he won't second guess it is unconscionable, and sells out every mom in the PRC who has suffered this abuse. Instead of defending the one child policy, Vice President Biden should have asked for the release of Chen and Yuan, or at least made a formal request to see them. Although Vice President Biden attempted to backtrack on his extraordinarily callous comment about the policy, his voting record as a Senator shines a spotlight on his long-held disregard for the severity of this human rights violation. On September 13, 2000, he joined 52 other senators in defeating an amendment by then-Senator Jesse Helms condemning the one child policy. Then-Senator Biden reportedly did so because he was concerned that condemning China on fundamental human rights would interfere with the normalization of trade relations. I invited the Vice President to to a hearing I held last week to explain his ``full understanding'' of the one child policy. I was informed that he was not in D.C. and could not attend. Given the grave importance of this issue, and the literally millions of lives at stake, I extend to the Vice President an open invitation to testify at a hearing at his convenience to share his ``understanding'' with the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, and what actions, if any, the Obama Administration is taking to end this barbaric policy. I also asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a hearing on March 1st of this year whether she or President Obama raised the issue of forced abortion in China directly in a face-to-face manner with President Hu when he was in Washington. She refused to answer it then, and I have yet to receive a response. Not only is the current Administration turning a blind eye to the atrocities being committed under the one child policy, but it is even contributing financial support--contrary to U.S. law--through the UNFPA. Twenty seven years ago--on May 9, 1984--I authored the first amendment ever to a foreign aid bill to deny funding to organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) that are complicit with China's forced abortion and involuntary sterilization policy. After all these years, it is amazing and disheartening to me that most policy makers--including and especially the Obama Administration-- remain indifferent or worse, supportive, of these massive crimes against women and children. The Obama Administration has long enabled this cruel policy by its silence and financial support to the tune of $50 million a year to the UNFPA, an organization that supports, plans, implements, defends and whitewashes the Chinese government's brutal program. U.S. funding for the UNFPA was withheld in accordance with what is known as the Kemp-Kasten provision, which prohibits any monies for an organization that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization, for Fiscal Years 1986-1993, 1999, and 2002-2008. In June 2008, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte notified Members of Congress that he had determined that UNFPA had provided ``financial and technical resources through its sixth cycle China Country Program to the National Population and Family Planning Commission and related entities,'' and therefore provided support for and participated in the management of the Chinese government's program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. It was on this basis that no funding was provided to the UNFPA that year. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Seventh Country Programme, 2011-2015, clearly indicates that UNFPA's support and participation in China's coercive policies continue, the Obama Administration is allowing money to flow to UNFPA in violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment. On one of several trips to Beijing, I challenged Peng Peiyun--then China's director of the nation's population control program--to end the coercion, we had quite a debate. Madame Peng told me that the UNFPA was very supportive of the one child per couple program and that the UNFPA adamantly agrees with her that the program is voluntary and that coercion doesn't exist. In other words, I--we--are simply making it all up. For over 30 years, the UNFPA has consistently heaped praise on China's population control program and repeatedly urged other countries to embrace similar policies. A few years ago this fall, the UNFPA and the Chinese government rolled out the red carpet and hosted high level diplomats from Africa including health ministers to sell ``child limitation'' policies. Despite the fact that China's enforcement mechanism relies on heavy coercion and its aging population will soon implode its economy, many African leaders seem to have taken the bait. Limitations on the number of children a mother may carry to term are under active consideration throughout the continent. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda for example wants a limit of three children per woman. I spoke to him directly about it and heard the same arguments I heard from family planning officials on trips to Beijing. Last week, we heard about the broader social implications of the one child policy and the extreme disparity between the numbers of men and women in China, particularly in terms of security. Therefore, the negative ramifications of the policy for the Chinese people that we will be examining have implications also for numerous other countries and the world in general. I appreciated hearing from all of our distinguished witnesses, and wish to extent my sincere gratitude for them joining us last week.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is known to be the world's most isolated country, as its citizens are prohibited from traveling either internally or internationally without permission. Communications with the outside world also are tightly regulated in attempts by the dictatorship regime to filter all information accessible by the North Korean people. Therefore, the testimony provided last week by our distinguished panel, and in particular our two defector witnesses, was particularly welcome and appreciated. Mrs. Kim Young Soon and Mrs. Kim Hye Sook, who both have survived the extreme deprivations of the North Korean prison camps, travelled all the way from South Korea to share their experiences with us. On behalf of the subcommittee, I wish to convey to them our sincere gratitude. They spoke on behalf of the estimated 150,000 to 200,000 prisoners currently held in North Korea's penal-labor camps. It is our hope that their testimony will help to galvanize the international community to take action to secure the freedom of those who are needlessly suffering and dying under truly horrific conditions. Those living in the prison camps are not the only ones suffering in North Korea. As one of our witnesses, Suzanne Scholte, testified, in North Korea every single human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is violated. North Korea is listed by the State Department as a ``Tier 3'' country with respect to human trafficking. It was just re-designated this month as one of eight ``Countries of Particular Concern'' for its egregious violations of religious freedom. But not all the testimony during the hearing was bleak. We heard about new potential for communication to and with the North Korean people, and explored possibilities for peaceful change given upcoming political events in North Korea and changes in other countries in the region. We look forward to discussing this potential to improve the lives of all North Koreans. Once again, I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us last week.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, the chair, Mr. Pitts, for yielding and for his leadership on all issues relating to health, and in particular on autism. I do want to thank Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor for bringing the bill to the floor. Without them, it wouldn't be on the floor today. And I also thank Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton. And of course, again, Chairman Pitts. And I want to thank my good friend Mr. Doyle. We have worked on this for well over a decade. We formed the Autism Caucus. It has over 100 members. It is totally bipartisan. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I thank him for his leadership as well. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this bill, H.R. 2005, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011. This legislation is critically important to continue without interruption the progress that has been achieved to date in understanding autism and in developing interventions that will have the greatest impact in helping individuals affected by autism or other developmental disabilities. When I first got elected to Congress in 1980, the autism community accepted that autism prevalence rates in the United States were something on the order of 3 in 10,000. Today it is estimated to be 1 in 110, and in some places like New Jersey, the data suggests 1 in 94, for a total of about 1.5 million individuals in the U.S. who are suffering from autism. On May 31 of this year, I chaired a hearing as chairman of the Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee, a hearing entitled, ``Global Autism: A Developmental Disability Pandemic.'' My committee received testimony that some 67 million people worldwide suffer from ASD in the world. There are tens of millions in Africa, according to the World Health Organization. It is an epidemic, and this legislation, the Combating Autism Act, is a very responsible and, I would suggest, modest effort to combat this pandemic that's occurring. In 1998, Mr. Speaker, the wonderful parents of two autistic children in my district, Bobby and Billy Gallagher, asked me to look into what appeared at the time to be an autism prevalence spike in Brick Township, New Jersey. I invited CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, and others to investigate. Not only did their probe show what appeared to be elevated numbers of children with the disorder in Brick Township, but the data strongly suggested a much wider problem than anticipated in other parts of my State because they weren't doing comparisons, and the data calls produced information which said, we have a problem not just in Brick, but elsewhere. In direct response to that, in 1999 I introduced the Autism Statistics, Surveillance, Research, and Epidemiology, or ASSURE, Act to establish centers of excellence and create a Federal advisory committee which became Title I of the Children's Health Act of 2000. I always want to thank Chairman Bilirakis for including it in his bill. It made all the difference in the world. Five years later, the initiative was reauthorized and expanded in the Combating Autism Act, the law we respectfully ask Members to renew today. According to the NIH, autism spectrum disorder--and just for the record, again, autism is defined as impaired verbal or nonverbal communication skills and social interactions, and restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior ranging in impact from mild to significantly disabling--it ought to be noted that the Combating Autism Act of 2011 will continue the success of the CAA of 2006 by authorizing funding for programs at NIH, CDC, and HRSA for 3 additional years. I would point out, and this is important, autism spectrum disorder is very expensive and, again, efforts made to mitigate its prevalence and to treat with early intervention those who show or manifest signs of it are not only humane, and that should be our driving force, but they are also very cost effective. It's estimated that ASD costs per year are between $35 billion and $90 billion dollars, with a ``b.'' So the costs are very, very large. H.R. 2005, as my colleagues I know have said, would also reauthorize the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, or the IACC, a panel of government and public members tasked with coordinating all ASD-related activities within HHS, as well as developing and annually updating a strategic plan for ASD research in order to enhance the quality, efficacy, and applicability of research grants. In other words, let's spend the money wisely. To avoid waste and duplication, the IACC has crafted three strategic research plans: one in 2009, one in 2010, and another for this year. For example, in 2009, the strategic plan included 40 research objectives, including development of new diagnostic tools, identification of genetic and environmental risk factors, and assessments of services for people with ASD in all ages in a community setting. It should be noted that the aging-out issue is becoming increasingly a concern. What does a parent whose son or daughter or sons or daughters turn 21 and the full array of those services are no longer available? What do they do? Recently I met with Chuck Colson's daughter, who wrote a book called ``Dancing with Max,'' a wonderful story of love between a mother and son. Her son now is aging out, and she is frightened by the prospect of what happens if she gets elderly and those services are not there. We need to be focusing on that. The 2010 strategic plan had 32 new objectives, including health disparities in early diagnosis and treatment of co-concurring conditions, such as epilepsy, sleep, and gastrointestinal disorders. The 2011 strategic plan added another 16 objectives, including studies on the use and accessibility of alternative and augmentative communication tools for nonverbal individuals. I just want to say to my colleagues, and I have much more that I will put into the Record of how important it is, but all these different agencies of government are surging to try to combat autism. We need to reauthorize this legislation. The CDC has its ``learn the signs, act early campaign.'' My friend, Mr. Butterfield, earlier mentioned the fact that minority communities have been left out or diagnoses are often not done in a timely way. That is absolutely true. And more needs to be done. The programs are in place. The policies are in place. We need to continue what is truly a very, very effective use of taxpayer dollars to help these autistic children. There is also the problem, as the information has shown, that early detection is key to mitigating the impact of autism. But still, even with 10 years' experience educating doctors, parents, and educators, there is still about a 2-year lag when there's a detection of something is wrong with my son or daughter before that diagnosis is actually made. The earlier we start the intervention strategies, the greater chance that child will have a quality of life and a life where they can then achieve their goals and their dreams, but if we don't catch it early and begin taking action, very often, the life of that child is more seriously impaired. This legislation, like I said, is a modest step, but a very crucial step. I want to thank all the organizations for the work that they have done--they have been tremendous--the NGOs that are in the community, Autism Speaks, the Autism Society, the AUCD, all of the groups, for the work that they have done in educating Members. And again, thank you Chairman Pitts for bringing this bill to the floor, and to Eric Cantor for scheduling it and ensuring that we can act on this in a timely way, and again my good friend on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Doyle, for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2005, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011. This legislation is critically important to continue without interruption the progress achieved to date in understanding autism and in developing interventions that will have the greatest impact in helping individuals affected by autism or another developmental disability. When I first got elected to Congress in 1980, the community accepted that autism prevalence rates in the United States were 3 in 10,000. Today, it is estimated to be 1 in 110, and in some places like New Jersey, 1 in 94--for a total of 1.5 million individuals in the United States. On May 31 of this year, I chaired a hearing entitled, ``Global Autism: `A Developmental Disability Pandemic,' '' and my committee received testimony that some 67 million people suffer from ASD worldwide. In 1998, the wonderful parents of two autistic children in my district, Bobbie and Billy Gallagher, asked me to look into what appeared to be an autism prevalence spike in Brick Township, New Jersey. I asked CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and others to investigate, and not only did their probe show what appeared to be elevated numbers of children with the disorder in Brick, but the data strongly suggested a much wider problem than anticipated in other parts of the State. In 1999, I introduced the Autism Statistics, Surveillance, Research and Epidemiology (ASSURE) Act to establish centers of excellence and create a Federal advisory committee, which became Title I of the Children's Health Act of 2000. Five years later, the initiative was reauthorized and expanded in the Combating Autism Act--the law we respectfully ask members to renew today. According to the National Institutes of Health, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is ``characterized by impaired verbal and nonverbal communication skills and social interactions and restricted, repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, ranging in impact from mild to significantly disabling.'' The total cost to society of ASD has been estimated from 35 to 90 billion dollars annually. The Harvard School of Public Health calculated that it can cost $3.2 million to take care of one autistic person over his or her lifetime. Looking at medical expenses alone, a CD study of employer-based health insurance showed that individuals with an ASD had average medical expenditures that exceeded those without an ASD by $4,100 to $6,200 per year. A decade of research, surveillance, treatment and education has had a significant positive impact on the ASD affected person, as well as his or her family--who, as we all know, face huge financial and emotional challenges of their own. The Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011 will continue the success of the CAA of 2006 by authorizing funding for programs at NIH, CDC, and HRSA for three additional years. Total funding for the legislation will be at the fiscal year 2011 appropriated level of $231 million for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014. The Reauthorization Act will authorize appropriations of $22 million for surveillance; $48 million for education, early detection, and intervention; and $161 million for NIH research and operation of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. This is not considered ``new'' money, but rather a straight-line reauthorization of total funds for the legislation, in compliance with the ``cut-go'' requirements of the 112th Congress. The Combating Autism Reauthorization Act also retains sunset and reporting provisions that ensure appropriate review and accountability. H.R. 2005 reauthorizes the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC)--a panel of government and public members, tasked with coordinating all ASD-related activities within HHS, as well as developing and annually updating a strategic plan for ASD research. In order to enhance the quality, efficacy and applicability of research grants and to avoid waste and duplication, the IACC has crafted 3 strategic research plans in 2009, 2010, and 2011. For example, in 2009, the strategic plan included 40 research objectives, including the development of new diagnostic tools, identification of genetic and environmental risk factors, and assessments of services for people with ASD of all ages in a community setting. The 2010 IACC strategic plan has 32 new objectives, including health disparities in early diagnosis and treatment of co-occurring conditions, such as epilepsy and sleep and gastrointestinal disorders. And the 2011 strategic plan added another 16 objectives, including studies on the use and accessibility of alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) tools for nonverbal individuals. The IACC also summarizes advances in ASD research identified as having the greatest impact on the field of autism, which has included the association between family history of autoimmune disease and ASD, genetic risk factors, racial disparities, and novel ways to diagnose ASD using speech patterns. Just for fiscal year 2010, NIH awarded 528 grants from baseline funding to pursue promising research related to autism. This reauthorization bill also continues support of the critical surveillance and epidemiology programs that were established by the Children's Health Act and strengthened by the Combating Autism Act. The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Network (ADDM) has published the most comprehensive and highest quality estimates to date of the prevalence of ASD in multiple areas of the U.S. The Centers for Autism Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology has implemented the Study to Explore Early Development (SEED), which is the largest study planned to date of the causes of autism, including genetic and environmental risk factors. The study has enrolled 2700 families and initial findings are due next year. The CAA also focuses on programs in education, early detection and interventions that have already impacted the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities and their families. CDC's health communication campaign, ``Learn the Signs. Act Early,'' educates parents, health care professionals, and early childhood educators about the importance of monitoring a child's developmental milestones, seeking further evaluation where there is a concern, and seeking early intervention services as soon as possible. The Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration developed and implemented the Combating Autism Act Initiative, which is conducting research on and providing training to health professionals in the use of valid, reliable screening and diagnostic tools and in the provision of evidence-based interventions for children with ASD or another developmental disability. As a result of increased awareness of the public, of educators, and of health care professionals, the median age for diagnosis of autism-- which currently is about 4.5 years--appears to be on the decline. However, it is important to continue our efforts, as there is still on average a 2 year time gap from developmental concerns to actual diagnosis, research has demonstrated the positive impact of implementing behavioral intervention before age 3, and Applied Behavioral analysis has shown significant improvement for children as young as 18 months. In summary, under the Children's Health Act and the Combating Autism Act, our scientific infrastructure for addressing autism and other developmental disorders has developed and we have made major advances in our understanding of ASD. For the first time, we have high quality data on prevalence and data to support analysis of causes of autism, and a clearer picture of promising paths and gaps in research. Health professionals have a level of knowledge for greatly improved diagnostics and interventions to provide meaningful medical and behavioral benefits. There is optimism that a sustained focus on genetic and environmental triggers will lead to efficacious treatments and prevention strategies. Importantly, the infrastructure and programs are in place to continue our progress. I want to thank our Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, as well as Energy and Commerce Chairman Upton, Health Subcommittee Chairman Pitts for the leadership that have shown in moving this legislation forward. I also would like to thank my friend and autism caucus co-chair, Congressman Mike Doyle, for his work in developing and supporting this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.