Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. First of all, I want to thank our distinguished Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for her very eloquent defense of the human rights defenders in China, especially for Liu Xiaobo. I also wish to thank her for these many decades, in which we have worked side by side, along with Frank Wolf and others, and I thank her for that and for scheduling this resolution to come to the floor today. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend. Mr. Speaker, just let me close with a statement of Liu Xiaobo himself. Remember, this was stated at his trial in 2009. He said, in pertinent part: I hope that I will be the last victim of China's endless literary inquisitions and that from now on no one will be incriminated because of speech. He went on to say: Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. To strangle freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, stifle humanity, and suppress truth. He went on to say: There is nothing criminal in anything I have done. If charges are brought against me because of this, I have no complaints. Liu Xiaobo had bogus charges leveled against him, and today he endures 11 years in prison. Today, the Congress stands with the oppressed, all of the oppressed in China, but including and especially Liu Xiaobo. We stand with him and we stand against the oppressor. We are united Democrats, Republicans, liberals, moderates, and conservatives in saying that human rights matter, and we thank the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for naming this outstanding moral leader one of the greatest moral leaders of our time as the 2011 laureate.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution honoring the 2500th anniversary of the Battle of Marathon in ancient Greece. This resolution celebrates the victory in the battle--against all odds--by Greek citizens opposing the overwhelming Persian force in the year 450 B.C. The Battle of Marathon has been cited by historians as one of the pivotal events in ancient European history. The victory at Marathon marked the end of the Persian invasion of Greece. The following years of peace allowed the Greek city-states and the Greek nation to create the philosophy of democratic rule and establish the arts and sciences for which classical Greece is renowned to this day. The commitment of the Greek warriors to protect their homeland from Persian invasion summoned within them the strength to withstand the attack through 5 long days of battle, and to finally overcome the invading force. It was that same commitment to victory, Madam Speaker, that propelled a Greek messenger to run over 26 miles without a break in order to deliver the good news of the victory to the people of Athens. That incredible feat has inspired many in the modern age to emulate that runner's achievement--and I have run one marathon, Madam Speaker--with the first marathon races begun in 1896 and following that runner's course from Marathon to Athens. I want to thank Mr. McGovern for sponsoring this very timely resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for providing us with this opportunity to recognize the contributions of the National Council for International Visitors, particularly on its 50th anniversary, and the importance of the citizen diplomacy of the United States. Madam Speaker, the person-to-person contacts that occur when international visitors have the opportunity to live and work alongside ordinary Americans are often more than opinion-changing; they can be life-changing. To experience up-close the diversity, generosity, and industry of our people can shatter stereotypes and prejudices far more effectively than press statements and media campaigns. For these reasons, citizen diplomacy is an important tool for increasing the global understanding of American values. One significant component of our public diplomacy activities has been the International Visitor Leadership Program, a State Department program that brings thousands of current and emerging professional leaders to the U.S. every year for carefully designed short-term visits. Having met with many of those who have come in from abroad, they are very, very useful visits, and they get to see a broad array of America and Americans when they do visit. Numerous International Visitor alumni have gone on to become heads of state, key officials, and industry leaders in their home countries. For the past 50 years, the National Council for International Visitors has been a critical partner in the success of that program. As a nonprofit professional association, the NCIV helps to coordinate the exchange-related activities of community-based groups throughout the country, drawing on the energy of nearly 80,000 American volunteers every year. During its first 50 years, NCIV has organized professional programs, cultural activities and home visits for more than 190,000 foreign visitors. To that we say thank you. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on December 2, as my good friend and colleague pointed out, the worst fire in Israel's history erupted in the forests in the northern region of the country. The fire spread quickly, killing over 40 Israelis, displacing over more than 17,000 and destroying more than 250 homes. The fire also burned over 4 million trees and over 12,000 acres of forest, resulting in damages totaling almost $55 million. After Israel had exhausted its resources to fight the fire, it appealed to the United States and other nations to help, and help we did. U.S. C-130 aircraft from the Department of Defense flying from the U.S. European command at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany delivered 20 tons of fire retardant and 38,000 gallons of fire retardant concentrate. Furthermore, The U.S. Agency for International Development has provided extensive firefighting supplies, including 27 metric tons of fire retardant and 42 metric tons of firefighting foam. USAID also dispatched its 10-member disaster assistance response team to Israel, where it's provided technical assistance and discussed lessons learned. And countless individual Americans provided charitable donations to help Israel fight and recover from the fire. Mr. Speaker, the American people and their government have once again stood with our great friend and ally, Israel, in their time of need, as they have done with us on countless occasions. This is one more example of the rock-solid friendship and alliance between the U.S. and the State of Israel. Thanks to the hard work and perseverance of the people and the Government of Israel, and thanks to the contributions of the U.S., our State and local governments, and over two dozen other countries, Israel was able to fully contain the fires on December 5. Unfortunately, it will be likely many years for Israel to rehabilitate its damaged forests, which have long been a symbol of Israel and the rebirth of the Jewish State in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Again, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Klein, for this very important resolution for authoring it, and for Mr. King and others for cosponsoring it. It's an excellent resolution. I urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 267, congratulating the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the 20th anniversary of their declarations on the restoration of independence from the Soviet Union. It is hard to believe that two decades have passed since the world witnessed the tremendous events that took place in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We saw countries in that region emerge from decades of communist brutality to bravely shake off the shackles of Soviet oppression. Those events forever changed the world. Along with the memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the victory of the trade union Solidarity in the historic election in Poland, of course we recall the inspirational act by 2 million people living in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania who linked hands to form a human chain almost 400 miles long in a peaceful protest against Soviet rule. After decades of oppressive Soviet occupation, the Baltic peoples remained committed to one day regaining independence and living in freedom. That dream, of course, became a reality in 1991 when the three Baltic nations gained full independence from the Soviet Union. But you know, in those final days leading up to independence, I will never forget being in Vilnius with Steny Hoyer and other members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. We were there to stand in solidarity with President Landsbergis who was under an ever- present threat that the Black Berets, the Soviet storm troopers, were poised to take over the Parliament building and to take over the executive branch. They killed people at a TV tower. There was actually a gun turret there. There was a tank. We went up and visited and to pay our respects to the people who had been slain just days before. I will never forget as the gun turret moved in the direction of our delegation, and especially Don Ritter, who was a member of that delegation, who had the audacity to get too close to the tank. That is how much of a hair trigger the Soviet troops had in Vilnius in February 1991. Again, I want to thank Mr. Hoyer. He and I and others on that delegation--he was the head of that delegation. We were there like Freedom Riders, being there, physically present, to try to chill any attack on President Landsbergis' government. But it was the people themselves in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the Baltic States, who took it upon themselves to stand up to the tyranny, and they prevailed, as did the others in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. So we rise to congratulate them and to pay our profound respect for their courage in bringing about democracy to those great nations. They are captive nations no more. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of H. Res. 1735, condemning North Korea's unprovoked shelling of the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong on November 23. I want to thank my good friend and colleague Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for introducing the resolution. And I, too, like Mr. Poe and others, am very proud to be a cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, with this resolution, we extend our deep condolences and sympathy to the families of those killed and injured in the attack. It's especially fitting that we as Americans do this since, along with the tremendous sacrifices for freedom made by the people of South Korea, we have lost tens of thousands of Americans in that same cause. Mr. Speaker, since the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island was an act of aggression committed against an ally, the resolution also rightly affirms our alliance with South Korea, supports further cooperation on security matters, and calls on China to use its influence to restrain North Korea. Mr. Speaker, it's important to remember that North Korea's aggression toward South Korea has almost been nonstop since 1950. It has taken the form of either full-scale war or, since 1953, sporadic shelling and shooting and skirmishing near the DMZ, or tunnelling under the DMZ, or seizing the Pueblo, an American vessel, in 1968, or kidnapping South Koreans abroad, or torpedoing the Cheonan, a South Korean vessel, in March of this year. Similarly, since 1950, the North Korean Government has treated its own citizenry with profound disrespect and outright hostility. It makes normal human relations impossible for them by creating a system in which parents and children, friends and relatives are forced to spy and report on each other--an atmosphere of total distrust, total fear, and total social atomization. It terrorizes them into worshipping the Kims, father and son, as if they were gods. Their personality cult is the only religion permitted in North Korea. Economic life is such madness that, about 10 years ago, as many as 2 million North Koreans starved to death. And within this large gulag that is North Korea, the Kim family has created smaller, more severe gulags, Kwan-li-so prison camps, and sent an estimated 200,000 people to live or, better stated, survive in them. Here we move from the nightmare of everyday life into a veritable hell on Earth, where forced labor, near starvation, rape, and the cruelest forms of torture prevail, and forced abortion and chemical experimentation on inmates is commonplace. Mr. Speaker, our government must continue to stand in solidarity with all those threatened and terrorized by the monstrous Government of North Korea, and with the residents of Yeonpyeong Island, and with all the people of both South and North Korea. I urge strong support for the resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, every American has a duty to respect, honor and support our veterans. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the profound respect owed to our veterans is translated into meaningful and tangible action. For generations, Members on both sides of the aisle have sought world class medical care for wounded and ill veterans, compensation for the service connected disabled, funding for higher education and housing, and programs to rescue and re- enfranchise the homeless. And as Lincoln said so eloquently, the Federal Government should care for ``his widow and orphan.'' I am the prime sponsor of numerous veterans laws, including the Homeless Veterans Assistance Act, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act, Veterans Survivor Benefits Improvement Act and numerous health care laws including the Veterans Health Program Improvement Act which, among scores of provisions, made permanent the authority of the Secretary to provide sexual trauma counseling to veterans--especially women. Women who serve in our nation's Armed Forces deserve special gratitude and recognition in law. As veterans, they face unique challenges that both the Executive and Legislative Branch has and is attempting to address. In September, the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans made ten recommendations to improve the quality of care provided to women veterans--to help ensure that the services and benefits we provide keep pace with the fastest growing segment of the veterans' population. They stated that we must bulk up the VA's gender-specific workforce and train and equip qualified staff to handle the unique challenges women face when transitioning to civilian life. They confirmed what many of us know and have been working on for years--that homelessness among veterans, and women in particular, is a plague we must work harder to eliminate. Improvements in outreach and childcare services would allow more women to take advantage of the health care, and mental health care in particular, that are available for them. Today, the House considers a bill to establish a Bill of Rights for women veterans as well as those men and women who have lost limbs to further ensure prompt, comprehensive and effective treatment within the VA. I am especially pleased that Chairman Filner's bill--H.R. 5953--makes absolutely clear that abortion is not health care under this bill and so-called abortion rights are not implied by any of the rights specified in the legislation. In addition to eliminating any legal grounds for implying a right to abortion access, abortion funding or any other abortion-related activity, the newly added Section 4 also neutralizes any legal effort to use the Women Veterans Bill of Rights as a basis to infer a right to other controversial services such as abortion counseling, IVF and gender alteration as well as spa or gym memberships, care for veterans in prison and unapproved drugs and devices. Section 4 of H.R. 5953 states: ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish a right to any service excluded under 38 CFR 17.18, as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.'' Specifically the services listed as exclusions under 38 CFR 17.38 as of the date of enactment of H.R. 5953: (1) Abortions and abortion counseling. (2) In vitro fertilization. (3) Drugs, biologicals, and medical devices not approved by the Food and Drug Administration unless the treating medical facility is conducting formal clinical trials under an Investigational Device Exemption, IDE, or an Investigational New Drug, IND, application, or the drugs, biologicals, or medical devices are prescribed under a compassionate use exemption. (4) Gender alterations. (5) Hospital and outpatient care for a veteran who is either a patient or inmate in an institution of another government agency if that agency has a duty to give the care or services. (6) Membership in spas and health clubs. Mr. Speaker, VA hospitals and Community Based Outpatient Clinics are today extraordinary places of healing, recovery, and recuperation. Abortion is not health care. 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 violence. Abortion 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. Recently, the Times of London reported that, ``[S]enior . . . psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.'' They found, ``that women who 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. . .'' In 2006, a comprehensive New Zealand study found that 78.6 percent of the 15-18 year-olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers. The study also found that 27 percent of the 21-25 year-old women who had abortions had suicidal idealizations compared to 8 percent of those who did not have an abortion. At least 28 studies--including three in 2009--show that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer by some 30-40 percent or more yet the abortion industry has largely succeeded in suppressing these facts. Abortion isn't safe for subsequent children born to women who have had an abortion. At least 113 studies show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births. For example a study by researchers Shah and Zoe showed a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93 percent increased risk after two. 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.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today, I had the honor to speak at a briefing on Alzheimer's disease and the important work of the National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institutes of Health, in providing leadership on research and treatments for patients with Alzheimer's. In addition to the NIA, the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Alliance for Aging Research, Leaders Engaged on Alzheimer's Disease, USAgainst Alzheimer's, and the National Collaborative on Aging participated in the briefing. November is National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month, and the briefing today provided an important contribution to increasing awareness in Congress. I fondly recall that President Ronald Reagan designated the first National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness week in 1982, 12 years before he announced that he had been diagnosed with the disease. Alzheimer's disease is now the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. Estimates vary, but it is believed that over 5 million individuals have Alzheimer's and someone new develops the disease every 70 seconds. One in eight persons over 65 and nearly half of those over 85 has Alzheimer's. In my own state of New Jersey, 150,000 residents are suffering from Alzheimer's. With the aging of the 78 million American baby-boomers, by 2050, 16 million will have the disease if advances are not made to prevent it. In 2009, 11 million family caregivers provided the equivalent of $144 billion in care. And Alzheimer's costs to Medicare and Medicaid last year were $123 billion. When I was first elected to Congress in 1980, diagnosis of Alzheimer's was about three million cases, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) invested only $13 million in Alzheimer's research. This year, NIH will invest $469 million in baseline funding for Alzheimer's research. While we have made progress in federal support, we know that much more needs to be done to conquer this terrible disease. In 1999, I joined Congressman Markey in founding the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's to help increase congressional awareness and legislative efforts relative to Alzheimer's. The Task Force which now includes 158 Members of the House of Representatives, hosts briefings and forums for Members of Congress and their staffs and works closely with the Alzheimer's Foundation of America and the Alzheimer's Association, which has a New Jersey affiliate. We are working here in the House and with our colleagues in the Senate to pass this year The National Alzheimer's Project Act ( or NAPA), legislation designed to better coordinate research and clinical programs dealing with Alzheimer's disease all across the federal bureaucratic spectrum. NAPA currently has 109 cosponsors. As I mentioned earlier, by 2050, nearly 16 million Americans will have Alzheimer's, yet there is no national plan to deal with this looming crisis. The National Alzheimer's Project Act (NAPA), which has been modified since its introduction in February of this year, establishes in the Office of the Secretary of HHS a National Alzheimer's Project. It also will establish an inter-agency advisory council to advise the Secretary of HHS and address the government's efforts on Alzheimer's research, care, institutional services, and home- and community-based programs. The Alzheimer's Project will create and maintain an integrated national plan to overcome Alzheimer's; accelerate the development of treatments that would prevent, halt, or reverse the course of Alzheimer's; help to coordinate the health care and treatment of citizens with Alzheimer's; ensure that ethnic and racial populations-- who are at higher risk for Alzheimer's and least likely to receive care--are included in clinical, research, and service efforts; coordinate with international bodies to integrate and inform the fight against Alzheimer's globally; and provide information and coordination of Alzheimer's research and services across all Federal agencies. I would like to commend the Alzheimer's Foundation and the Alzheimer's Association for their work and support to advance this legislation. As you know, such strong advocacy often makes the difference in pushing legislation over the finish line. While I am extremely disappointed that the Senate HELP Committee cancelled their mark-up yesterday that was to include NAPA, we will work with them to try to ensure that it is marked-up and passed this year. In addition to introducing and fighting to pass NAPA, Rep. Markey and I have introduced two other major bills focusing on Alzheimer's: On July 29, 2010, we introduced the HOPE for Alzheimer's: Health Outcomes, Planning and Education Act (H.R. 5926). The bill would provide for Medicare coverage of comprehensive Alzheimer's disease and other dementia diagnoses and services in order to improve care and outcomes for Americans living with the disease. The HOPE Act aims to increase detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias and provide access, information and support for newly diagnosed patients and their families. The Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act (H.R. 3286 which was introduced in July 2009 and has 136 cosponsors, authorizes the necessary resources to restore momentum in the pursuit of better diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Advances and progress in the various areas of Alzheimer research have the potential to save millions of lives and save hundreds of billions of dollars. Also, earlier this year we sent a letter, along with House and Senate colleagues, to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Sebelius to have Alzheimer's and other dementias included in the Healthy People 2020 initiative. The Healthy People initiative provides 10-year national objectives for promoting health and preventing disease. I am gratified to work alongside Congressman Markey and the other members of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease to address this oncoming public health tsunami--and hopefully to see prevention and a cure before it totally overwhelms our nation's health care resources.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today, I want to recognize and honor the life of Dr. Mildred Jefferson, who passed away on October 15, 2010, at the age of 84. Dr. Jefferson was a trailblazer of her time. She was the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, the first female surgical intern at Boston City Hospital and the first woman admitted to membership in the Boston Surgical Society. Dr. Jefferson was born in Pittsburg, Texas, on April 6, 1926, to Gurthie Jefferson, a minister, and Millard Jefferson, a schoolteacher. She graduated from Texas College in Tyler and earned a master's degree from Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts before attending Harvard Medical School. In her lifetime she also was the recipient of 28 honorary degrees. Her life was historic in many ways, yet she will be remembered not only for the lives she saved as a physician but also for the lives she saved as an advocate for the unborn. From the earliest years of the right to life movement, she dedicated herself to the cause, always beautifully articulating the humanity of unborn children. Poised and passionate, always focused and extremely devoted, she made history and inspired an entire generation of pro-life leaders. Dr. Jefferson was among the founders of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and from 1975-1978 she served three terms as President of NRLC. She also served as director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life and a board member of American Life League. She was also a founding member of the board and a past president of the Value of Life Committee of Massachusetts and was active in Black Americans for Life. Among all of her accolades and accomplishments, she should be best known for her own eloquent description of why she stood in solidarity with the unborn fighting day in and day out for their first right, the right to life. In her own words, ``I became a physician in order to help save lives. I am at once a physician, a citizen, and a woman, and I am not willing to stand aside and allow the concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged, and the planned have the right to live.'' Dr. Jefferson was always graceful. She embodied compassion. Her life is an example to us of the impact of faithful devotion to the sanctity of human life. Dr. Jefferson knew that you cannot speak of human and civil rights, while precluding virtually all protection to the most persecuted minority in the world today: unborn children. She reminded us all, ``The right-to-life cause is not the concern of only a special few but it should be the cause of all those who care about fairness and justice, love and compassion and liberty with law.'' Dr. Jefferson is correct when she said,--the cause for the right to life concerns all of us. Someday, when our goal of ending abortion is finally realized, future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead permitted, and even promoted, death to children and exploitation of women by abortion. It was an honor to work alongside Dr. Jefferson to fight the injustice of abortion, and I know her legacy and memory will live on in the lives of those who knew her and in the lives of the unborn children she helped save.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the names of the children abducted to Japan whose left-behind American parent has contacted me directly. M.B., abducted to Japan July 21, 1995 E.B., abducted to Japan July 21, 1995 Ezra Lui, abducted to Japan November 13, 1999 Kaira Kelly Litwiller, abducted to Japan June 10, 2003 Takoda Tei Weed, abducted to Japan January 16, 2004 Tiana Kiku Weed, abducted to Japan January 16, 2004 Kento Didier Touboule, abducted to Japan October 15, 2005 Mary Victoria Lake, abducted to Japan August 2005 Kai Hachiya, abducted to Japan December 28, 2006 Masahiro Brown, abducted in Japan since April of 2007 David N. Gessleman, abducted to Japan May 13, 2007 Joshua K. Gessleman, abducted to Japan May 13, 2007 Kaya Summer Xiao-Lian Wong, abducted to Japan August 2007 Wayne Kosaku Sawyer, abducted to Japan December 15, 2008 Yuuki Patrick McCoy (Kojima), abducted in Japan August 17, 2008 Keisuke Christian Collins, abducted to Japan June 16, 2008 Sean Hillman, abducted to Japan July 5, 2008 Kana Sugiyama-Gomez, abducted to Japan April 10, 2008 Joe Yamada, abducted to Japan September 1, 2008 Grace Danielle Starr, abducted to Japan January or February 2009 Brian Senna Starr, abducted to Japan January or February 2009 ``Mochi'' Atomu Imoto Morehouse, abducted to Japan June 23, 2010 Mr. Speaker, the United States is currently seeking the return of at least 136 abducted American children.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, as chair of the congressional Lyme Disease Caucus and a person who has been closely involved in Lyme disease issues for over twenty years, I want to bring to your attention extremely troubling issues regarding Lyme disease. Lyme disease is the most common of all vector-borne infections in the U.S., with approximately 290,000 new cases in 2008. With the increase in Lyme cases, problems due to poor diagnostics and ineffective treatments for Lyme disease have become almost overwhelming--affecting larger numbers of people over longer periods of time. Many patients are angry because progress in addressing Lyme disease has been impeded by entrenched bias and a lack of accountability in the science of tick borne diseases. It is critical that we identify biases and impediments that are constraining the science on Lyme and to open up the dialogue to honest and transparent debate. The scientists who have long been marginalized, the treating physicians who have felt intimidated and threatened, and most importantly the sick patients and their families need our help. My main purpose here today is to introduce for inclusion in the Congressional Record the following statement ``The Patient Perspectives on the Research Gaps in Tick Borne Diseases,'' written by three of the Nation's largest Lyme disease advocacy organizations, who represent tens of thousands of patients. I believe that this statement provides important perspectives that need to be heard and taken to heart. Patient Perspectives on the Research Gaps in Tick Borne Diseases (Submitted by Time for Lyme, the national Lyme Disease Association, and the California Lyme Disease Association on behalf of our patients across the United States) In December 2009, Labor HHS 2010 appropriations language, signed into law by President Obama, encouraged the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to ``sponsor a scientific conference on Lyme and tick-borne diseases . . . the conference should represent the broad spectrum of scientific views . . . and should provide a forum for public participation and input from individuals with Lyme disease.'' The language also requires NIH to identify research gaps to understand the ``mechanisms of persistent infection.'' The passage of this language represents a significant opportunity to summarize and solidify the issues that prevent scientific progress for a disease recognized here for 35 years, if, and only if, this process occurs without bias. Progress can be accomplished if the stewards commit to the elimination of predisposition by key decision makers. It is not clear why the NIH elected to subcontract this issue to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), given that the existing NIH conference structure contains the best process to address the appropriations language requirements. According to the NIH Consensus Development Program, which explains the two relevant types of conferences offered by NIH, ``when the available evidence is weak or contradictory, or when a common practice is not supported by high-quality evidence, the State-of-the-Science label is chosen.'' This conference format would appropriately address the research gaps that exist for Lyme and tick-borne diseases as it provides a ``snapshot in time'' of the state of knowledge on the conference rather than a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. In Lyme disease, there are two distinct disease paradigms, each providing science to support its claims. One paradigm views the disease as ``hard to catch and easy to cure'' and denies the existence of chronic Lyme disease--persistent infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes the disease. Under this paradigm, the state of the science for patients with chronic Lyme disease is closed. Any treatment is considered too risky because practitioners are unable to determine the cause or extent of patient symptoms, or they view the symptoms as insignificant and write off the patients' complaints as psychiatric in nature. This leaves seriously ill patients without any viable therapeutic avenues. It also shuts the door on future research necessary to get patients to a state of wellness. The alternative paradigm says that the science is too unsettled to be definitive and there can be one or more causes of persistent symptoms after initial treatment in an individual who has been infected with the agent of Lyme disease. These causes include the possibility of persistent infection, or a post-infectious process, or a combination of both, with the Lyme bacterium itself driving the autoimmune process. This paradigm allows doctors the ability to exercise their clinical judgment and provide therapies that are helping their patients. Patients with Lyme disease need a research agenda that reflects outcomes that matter to patients, namely effective diagnostic tools and effective treatments that restore them to health. The reason there are two disease paradigms in Lyme disease is because central pieces of the puzzle are missing or are inadequate. The first area of concern involves testing. There are no reliable biomarkers of the disease.\1\ Current diagnostic tests commonly used do not detect the spirochete that causes Lyme disease, rather, they detect only whether the patient has developed antibodies to the pathogen. Antibody production, if it registers on the tests at all, takes weeks to appear, thus rendering the current tests ineffective in the earlier and more easily addressed stage. Additionally, the Lyme antibody has been shown to form a ``complex'' with the bacterium itself--and tests cannot detect ``complex'' antibodies. Once triggered, antibody reactions may remain long after an infection has been treated, also clouding the diagnostic and treatment picture. The two-tier testing system endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is very specific for Lyme disease (99%), so it gives few false positives. But the tests have a uniformly low sensitivity (56%)--missing 88 of every 200 patients with Lyme disease. By comparison, AIDS tests have a sensitivity of 99.5%--missing only one of every 200 infected patients.\2\ Sensitive AIDS tests were developed less than 10 years into the disease, while archaic Lyme tests remain unreliable 35 years later. There is a critical need for research exploring newer technologies such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which is used with many other diseases, and cutting-edge proteomics. Strain variations and co- infections with other organisms, often transmitted by the same tick bite, obscure the diagnostic picture further. A vast number of strains of Borrelia burgdorferi have been identified. Variation in strain may cause differing symptoms or severity of symptoms as well as determine the appropriate antibiotics and duration of treatment needed to clear the infection.\3\ Different strains may also express different proteins. Preliminary research shows that proteins need to be examined to find the ones most often expressed, then using microarray technology, doctors may be able to diagnose patients using a chip which contains the proteins. Research is needed concerning the role of mutation on persistence. Some research indicates that bacteria can exchange genetic material, probably contributing to its ability to invade different systems in the body--some may have a proclivity for the heart muscle, others for the brain, and some for muscles and joints. By exchanging genetic material, bacteria may be able to form a symbiotic relationship to avoid detection by the immune response or to further invade the body. To date, every NIH-funded treatment research study has been designed using the inaccurate diagnostic test results as part of the entry criteria. The entry criterion in these studies excluded the vast majority of Lyme patients and created sample sizes too small (less than 220 patients to date) to detect clinically important treatment effects or generalize to the clinical population. Moreover, Lyme has not attracted industry funding for treatment approaches, which places the disease at a considerable research disadvantage. To detect clinically relevant treatment effects requires much larger treatment trials with sample populations that reflect those seen in clinical practice.\4\ One thing that past research has demonstrated is that patients with Lyme are a heterogeneous population. Hence, the course of illness and responsiveness to treatment may vary depending on the duration of onset of the disease to its diagnosis and treatment, the presence of co-infections, comorbid factors, other genetic characteristics of the patients, and the virulence of the strain(s) with which the patient is infected. Research sample populations must reflect those seen in clinical practice to yield clinically relevant results. As advised by the Appropriations language, research on the pathophysiology of Lyme disease is necessary. Research projects need to be designed which determine the course of the disease from inception, and which utilize treatments that effectively interfere with the mechanisms that allow the infection to persist. Little to no government sponsored science has been dedicated to the effects on persistence of the different forms of the Lyme bacterium (cyst vs. flagellar), the role, if any, of biofilms, sequestration of the organism from the immune system, the exchange and mutation of genetic material of the spirochete, and the role that components of the bacterial genome may play in protecting it from eradication by the immune system or antibiotics. Understanding the pathology of the organism can greatly enhance targeted diagnostics and treatment modalities. Patients also need studies that explore a range of treatment options. The ideal antibiotics, route of administration, and duration of treatment for any stage of Lyme disease are not established. No single antibiotic or combination of antibiotics appears to be capable of completely eradicating the infection in all patients, and treatment failures or relapses are reported with all current regimens, although they are less common with early aggressive treatment.\5\ Treatment failure rates suggest the need to re- examine the effectiveness of the currently recommended monotherapy as a treatment approach. Studies need to explore combination treatments and longer term treatment regimens, which have been critical to the successful treatment of AIDS and tuberculosis. Patients need the type of outcomes research advocated by the IOM to examine how well treatments are working in actual clinical practice.\6\ While not all patients with chronic Lyme disease have returned to a state of wellness, many have, and we need to find out how and why. This information can then be applied to other patients and used to establish a research agenda for treatment that has a likelihood of success, rather than abandoning patients based on limited treatment trials. The IOM process does not allow these research ideas to be heard in an unbiased and transparent fashion with balanced divergent viewpoints. While the NIH process precludes bias on the part of panel members, the IOM does not. Four of the six members of the IOM panel that have been selected belong to IDSA, a medical society that has a known bias against chronic Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment. Rather than providing curative treatments that restore health, the IDSA would provide costly and long term palliative treatments, presumably for life. While the NIH requires participation by major stakeholders (including patients and treating physicians), the IOM does not. The summary of the IOM proceedings will reflect this pervasive lack of objectivity, undermining its integrity and credibility. Additionally, much IOM deliberation is done behind closed doors and an anonymous panel will be permitted to comment on the written record. Because of such flaws in the IOM proceedings, the three largest patient interest groups who were offered a brief opportunity to speak (TFL) at the IOM October 2010 meeting and an opportunity to provide a commissioned paper--CALDA, the LDA and TFL--pulled out of the conference in protest. From a research perspective, strongly held paradigms can create a closed loop, and experiments may be designed, implemented and interpreted to support a particular viewpoint.\7\ The antidote to bias is to balance scientific perspectives and to ensure that all scientific viewpoints are being heard and explored. Given the extraordinary stream of federal funding granted to researchers who support the closed paradigm which was created and is supported by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and their vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it is not reasonable to expect this group of researchers to serve as neutral arbiters of scientific debates over competing scientific paradigms. For example, Lyme related panels dominated by IDSA have time and time again excluded opposing viewpoints from participating or controlled the review process to ensure outcomes that reinforce the IDSA paradigm. If past is prologue, it is obvious what the future holds for panels dominated by one group. Worse, the small treatment trials that have been conducted have been given an undue amount of weight by IDSA researchers and in its guidelines and used to apply a degree of certainty on the science that far exceeds the limitations of the small sample sizes of the studies. Further, they claim that the state of the science is sufficient to determine with certainty that chronic Lyme disease does not exist, is not treatable with antibiotics, and that no further research on this topic is needed. Sample size affects the strength of the conclusions that may be drawn from them: ``Providing definitive answers in the face of low event rates and small- to-moderate treatment effects necessitates sample sizes in the thousands or tens of thousands. . . . Funding for such mega-trials is very limited, and is often restricted to industry sources.'' \8\ For that reason, the Connecticut Attorney General antitrust investigation into the development process of IDSA Lyme guidelines found exclusionary practices and suppression of divergent viewpoints on the part of IDSA panels that crafted IDSA 2000 and the 2006 Lyme disease guidelines. Although IDSA settled the investigation with the Attorney General by agreeing to review its guidelines with a panel without conflicts of interest, the control of the process was in the hands of IDSA, which again selected a panel consisting almost exclusively of IDSA members and excluding treating physicians who held divergent viewpoints. It was patients who pressed for the language in the Appropriations bill that called for a review of the state of the science of Lyme disease. However, patients need that process to occur in a transparent manner, without bias, and with the participation of all stakeholders. Albert Einstein defined insanity as ``doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'' This process is a perfect example of that insanity. Patients want research which will restore their health. Their voice and the voice of the clinicians must be given the necessary weight to legitimize the research agenda and the research process. Truth in science can be achieved through open debate in an independent process free from bias and conflicts of interest. The scientific process fails when one side of a debate controls the arena and sets the rules to ensure that its viewpoint prevails. Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, Chief Executive Officer, California Lyme Disease Association. Patricia V. Smith, President, Lyme Disease Association, Inc. Diane Blanchard/Deb Siciliano, Co-Presidents, Time for Lyme, Inc.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. To Chairman Pallone, thank you. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote to reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, which is the law that I, along with Artur Davis, sponsored back in 2005. That law created a new nationwide umbilical cord blood stem cell program, designed to collect, derive, type, and freeze cord blood units for transplantation into patients to mitigate and to even cure serious disease. Pursuant to the law, it also provided stem cells for research. The new cord blood program was combined in our 2005 law with an expanded bone marrow initiative, which was crafted over several years by our distinguished colleague Bill Young. Since the program was enacted in 2005, 12 cord blood banks have received contracts with the Health Resources and Services Administration. Earlier this year, HRSA reported that there were some 27,493 cord blood units collected and that another 13,000-plus units will be collected with the funds that have already been awarded. The reauthorization before us authorizes $23 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2014 and $20 million for fiscal year 2015 for the national cord blood inventory, and it also authorizes $30 million to be appropriated for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $33 million for fiscal year 2015 for the bone marrow transplant program. It also enhances the studies, demonstration programs and outreach projects related to cord blood donation and collection to include exploring innovative technologies, novel approaches, and expanding the number of collection sites. It also extends the term of initial and contract extensions from 3 to 5 years, making it easier for banks to engage in long-term relationship building with birthing hospitals. It will also require the cord blood banks to establish a plan for increasing cord blood unit collections and/or to expand the number of collection sites with which they work and provide a plan for becoming self-sufficient Mr. Speaker, each year over 4 million babies are born in America. In the past, virtually every placenta and umbilical cord was tossed as medical waste. Today, doctors have turned this medical waste into medical miracles. Not only has God in His wisdom and goodness created a placenta and umbilical cord to nurture and protect the precious life of an unborn child, but now we know that another gift awaits us immediately after birth. Something very special is left behind--cord blood that is teeming with lifesaving stem cells. Indeed, it remains one of the best kept secrets in America that umbilical cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells in general are curing people of a myriad of terrible conditions and diseases--over 70 diseases in adults as well as in children. Cord blood transplants are on the cutting edge of science for the treatment of leukemia. In June, researcher Dr. Mary Eapen of the Medical College of Wisconsin said that, in treating leukemia in adult patients, cord blood is so flexible that it even worked when it's not an exact match. ``What we found is when you look at the outcome of leukemia-free survival, which is the likelihood of a patient being alive without disease, it's the same whether you are transplanting using an adult graft which is from an adult donor or a cord blood unit.'' Very promising results are also being found in children with leukemia who undergo cord blood transplants, with 60 percent of patients alive and leukemia-free at 60 months. In addition to treating blood cancers, clinical trials are underway for the treatment of many other cancers, such as breast and kidney cancer and treating solid tumors. Human clinical trials show promise in treating type 1 diabetes, cerebral palsy, metabolic storage diseases, brain injury and encephalopathy, respiratory distress in newborns, spinal cord injury, and cartilage injuries. Cord blood stem cells transplants can cure sickle cell anemia, one of the most horrific diseases suffered by and affecting one out of every 500 African Americans in America. The legislation that is before us, thankfully, has already cleared the Senate and will soon be down to the President's desk for signature. The legislation before us lays out many important goals and benchmarks so that more patients will be able to receive the treatments that they so desperately need. Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg with Duke University Medical Center recently stated in a review of the successes of cord blood transplantations: ``Cord blood transplantation is now an established field with enormous potential. In the future, it may emerge as a source of cells for cellular therapies focused on tissue repair and regeneration.'' This is a great bill. It is bipartisan and deserves the support of the entire body.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the resolution, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1631, calling for the protection of religious sites and artifacts from and in Turkish-occupied areas of northern Cyprus and calling on the Turkish Government to respect the religious freedom of all the people living in the territory it occupies. I thank my very good friend Mr. Bilirakis for introducing this outstanding resolution and for his faithfulness and effectiveness in exposing human rights violations in Cyprus. Madam Speaker, this resolution reminds us of the ongoing barbarism of the Turkish Government's military occupation of the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus, a sovereign State. The Turkish Government frequently prevents Greek Cypriots from holding divine liturgy, and it has pillaged their sacred churches and holy sites. The Turkish Government currently uses no less than 28 Orthodox churches as army barracks, has converted 80 churches into mosques, and permits others to be used as nightclubs, sheep stalls, and dancing schools. Under Turkish occupation, 500 churches, monasteries, cemeteries, and other religious sites have been desecrated, destroyed, or looted. Madam Speaker, this resolution performs a great service in documenting in painstaking detail the trade in sacred objects looted from these churches, which is extensive, international, and totally illicit. It also points out the legal obligation of the Turkish Government to prevent this trade, to restore looted objects as well as churches, and to respect the human rights of those who live under its occupation. Madam Speaker, I am profoundly disappointed that over the years, including since the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act, that our government has far too often failed to speak out and to speak out vigorously in defense of the religious freedom of Orthodox Christians. This is really shameful. The Turkish Government's persecution of Orthodoxy, whether in Cyprus or Istanbul, the home of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in Syriac Orthodox monasteries, or of the Armenian Orthodoxy, seems to aim at extinguishing Christian Orthodoxy within its borders. As the Secretary General's report on the United Nations operations in Cyprus stated as far back as 1996, the restrictions on basic freedoms of Christians in Turkish-occupied areas of Cyprus have the effect ``of ensuring that with the passage of time, the communities (that is, Greek Cypriots and Maronites) would cease to exist.'' So I am glad that this resolution specifically urges the President, the Secretary of State, and the State Department Office of International Religious Freedom to report and take vigorous action on the traffic of Cypriot Orthodox heritage. The executive branch should take this seriously. Hopefully with the backing of the Congress, they will.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H. Res. 1588, of which I am the original cosponsor. Madam Speaker, we are all too familiar with the famous quote by the American philosopher George Santayana, who said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' The truth of this saying is tragically realized in the case of war and genocide. General Romeo Dallaire, the commander of the former United Nations mission in Rwanda, tried unsuccessfully in 1994 to warn the United Nations that huge massacres were imminent in that country. Even he miscalculated the magnitude of the threat. Within a few months, Rwanda was engulfed in genocide, leading to the deaths of nearly 800,000 people. Larry Eagleburger, a former ambassador to Yugoslavia who served as Deputy Secretary of State and then Secretary of State, never suspected that the hostilities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina would escalate to the slaughter of more than 8,000 people that took place in Srebrenica in 1995. Sadly, we have too many indications about what could happen if the two referenda scheduled to take place in Sudan in January do not take place fairly and peacefully. The 20-year war between the north and the south of Sudan that ended in 1995 took the lives of over 2 million people and displaced a further 4 million. Peace in Darfur is inextricably linked to peace throughout the rest of Sudan. And the genocide there in 2003 unleashed the slaughter of over 300,000 women, men, and children. Almost 3 million have been displaced and are still consigned to the misery of camps for internally displaced persons. Like many of my colleagues, I have visited Sudan. I have been to Mukjar and Kalma camp, and I have actually had a face-to-face meeting with General Bashir, the dictator in Khartoum, pushing for peace, pushing for an end to this slaughter. Unfortunately, he was obsessed only with trying to convince me that the sanctions against his government needed to be lifted. The fact that the sanctions were based on the senseless killing and displacement sponsored by his government was dismissed by him as of no consequence. This signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in 2005 marked a potential turning point for the Sudanese people. It calls for elections leading to a referendum in January of 2011 to determine whether the south will remain united to the north or secede as an independent state. The region of Abyei is also to hold a referendum to determine whether it will remain in the north or possibly secede with the south should the south choose that course. Specific conditions were to be met in anticipation of these major events, to ensure that they would be conducted credibly and peacefully. Madam Speaker, these interim 5 years have yielded signs of hope that the country could settle into a stable, lasting peace. The United States has devoted substantial resources, nearly $9 billion in humanitarian, development, and peacekeeping assistance since 1994 to support the CPA's implementation. But numerous incidents have also exposed the extreme lack of trustworthiness of the Khartoum government and the urgent need for the government of southern Sudan to increase its capacity and accountability. The Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, on which I serve as ranking member, and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission have held several hearings over the last 14 months. The testimony we have heard at those hearings sounded a major alarm about the ominous storm clouds gathering over Sudan. In fact, the issues raised at the two hearings in July of 2009 and the proposed solutions to those issues were so compelling that I and several other Members forwarded the expert testimony to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Scott Gration, our Special Envoy, asking them to take this incredibly compelling information into account as the administration engaged in peace efforts in Sudan. Unfortunately, the administration took little or know account of that advice. Furthermore, it seemed to ignore its own strategy that was publicized in October of last year. Key members of the National Security Council deputies committee, which was supposed to meet quarterly, met only once in January with no noticeable outcome. The administration claimed it was taking the advice of numerous experts to establish specific benchmarks to be met by the respective parties according to a set time frame. The achievement of those benchmarks, created to ensure the timely implementation of the CPA, would be tied to incentives and disincentives to motivate their achievement. There is no evidence that these benchmarks were ever created, much less enforced with discernible consequences. Madam Speaker, the President and the State Department have taken some action during the past few weeks, apparently recognizing that the time remaining until the North-South referendum is extremely short. One most hope that the adage ``better late than never'' will apply in this case. The challenges to be addressed in the next few weeks, particularly the demarcation of the North-South border and the post-referendum agreement on wealth sharing and citizenship can be met if the United States plays a leadership role in gathering the influence and cooperation of the African Union and other international players. Herculean measures must also be undertaken to ensure that the January 9 referendum is conducted in a manner that ensures the credibility of the outcome as well as the peaceful acceptance of that outcome by the parties. With H. Res. 1588, I join my colleagues in pressing upon the administration the urgent need to assist the Sudanese people in their long-sought-after quest for peace. The effort will be great, but the price of another even more catastrophic war would be even greater. No one, particularly the Sudanese people, can afford to pay that price. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important national security measure. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is comprised of three components. First, it authorizes the transfer of certain naval vessels to U.S. friends and allies abroad, including India, Greece and Taiwan. It also includes language previously adopted by the House that strengthens the U.S. commitment to the security of the Jewish state of Israel by expediting the process for approving foreign military sales to that country and by extending the dates and the amounts of U.S. excess equipment that can be transferred to Israel from regional stockpiles. Thirdly, it provides a statutory basis for the President to implement defense trade cooperation treaties signed between the government of the United States and the governments of the U.K. and Australia respectively. These treaties represent a fundamental shift in the way the United States conducts defense trade with its closest allies. Rather than reviewing export licenses, the treaties will establish a structure in which trade in defense articles, technology, and services can take place more freely between approved communities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia where such trade is in support of combined military and counterterrorism operations, joint research and development, production and support programs, and mutually agreed upon projects where the end user is the U.K., the Australian Government, or U.S. Government end users. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank Chairman Berman and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, our Ranking Member, for their leadership in helping to shepherd this legislation to the floor today, and I want to thank my good friend and colleague Mr. Moran for his sponsorship. I am very proud to join him as the original cosponsor of this very important and very timely resolution. You know, Mr. Speaker, last year we learned and really the country learned a great deal about this growing problem of international child abduction with the case of David Goldman, whose son was abducted for 5 years at the time, to Brazil. Thankfully, after a full court press, he was not only reunited, but he is now safe, father and son, in New Jersey. But what we learned, the lessons learned from that, was that far too little has been done to help the other 2,800 American children who have been abducted to foreign countries, often in defiance of court orders that had said you cannot leave. This resolution that we are considering today, H. Res. 1326, is an urgent appeal to the government of Japan to end its complicity and/or its indifference to international child abduction. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, American patience has finally run out. At present, at least 136 American children are being held in Japan against the wishes of their American parent, and in many cases, in violation of valid U.S. court orders. According to the Department of Defense, in 2009 alone--and we just got this by way of a report--10 American children were abducted to Japan from members of the U.S. Armed Forces. That's in 2009 alone. It is simply unacceptable and unconscionable that today Japan still has no mechanism to equitably issue and enforce a return or visitation order for children. It is intolerable that the lawless and damaging act of child abduction goes unpunished in a civilized nation. When an American parent who has taken every legal precaution to ensure their child is not abducted realizes that his or her child has disappeared, their heart breaks and a lifetime of waiting and pleading for action by both the U.S. and the Japanese Government begins. Patrick Braden is one such father. Mr. Braden took every possible legal precaution to protect his daughter from abduction and to maintain his presence in her life as her father. However, in 2006, Mr. Braden's infant daughter, Melissa, was abducted from her home by her mother, in violation of a Los Angeles Superior Court order giving both parents access to the child and prohibiting international travel with the child by either parent. Mr. Braden has been unjustly cut off from his daughter by the covert illegal actions of the mom and daily worries that his daughter is being abused by a grandparent who has a history of such abuse. Likewise, Sergeant Michael Elias hopes and waits and pleads with two governments, the U.S. Government and the Japanese Government, because we haven't done enough to work out some way of reuniting his family. While stationed in Japan, he met the woman who would become his wife. She came to the United States and they were married in New Jersey in 2005. Jade was born in 2006 and Michael in 2007. Sadly, his wife started an affair while Michael was on active duty in Iraq. Their marriage came to an end in 2008, with a judge granting both parents custody and requiring the surrender of the children's American and Japanese passports because their mother had threatened to abduct the children. Tragically, the Japanese consulate reissued Japanese passports for the children in violation of the valid U.S. court orders restricting travel and in violation of U.S. federal criminal parental kidnapping statutes. Sergeant Elias has not seen his children since 2008. And the Japanese Government has done nothing to assist in their return or in the return of Patrick Braden's daughter. And the list goes on. Chris Savoie's children, Isaac and Rebecca Savoie, were abducted in 2009 to Japan by their mother, in violation of a Tennessee State order of joint custody and in violation of Tennessee statutes. As a result of the mother's selfish actions, Mr. Savoie has been awarded sole custody of the children, but Japan will not recognize either the joint custody or the sole custody award. Although Chris is the children's father, the Japanese Government will not enforce any access or communication with his children. Mr. Speaker, for 50 years we have seen all talk and no action on the part of the Japanese Government. Japan has never issued and enforced a legal decision to return a single American child. The circumstances of each particular abduction seem not to matter. Once in Japan, the abducting parent is untouchable and the children are bereft of their American parent for the rest of their childhood. France, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, and the United Kingdom have all repeatedly asked Japan to work with them on returning their abducted children. Japan's inaction on the issue is a thorn in the side of their relations with the entire international community. Japan's current inaction violates its duties under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 23, completely and unjustly ignoring the equal rights of one parent. H. Res. 1326 calls upon Japan to immediately and urgently establish a process for the resolution of abduction and wrongful retention of American children. Japan must find the will to establish today a process that would justly and equitably end the cruel separation currently endured by parents and children alike. H. Res. 1326 also calls on Japan to join the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Convention sets out the international norms for resolution of abduction and wrongful retention cases and would create a framework to quickly resolve future cases--and would act as a deterrent to parents who now feel that they can abduct their child to Japan and never be caught. In light of the misuse of Japanese consulates in the Elias case, H. Res. 1326 also calls on Japan to ensure that its consulates are not accessories to parental kidnapping. Japan must put into place a system that stops the issuing or reissuing of passports without the explicit and verifiable consent of the American parent. Finally, Japan must recognize the terrible damage to children and families caused by international child abduction. Children who have suffered an abduction are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems and have been found to experience anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness, and as adults may struggle with identity issues, their own personal relationships, and parenting. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1326, calling on Japan to end the child abuse of international child abduction. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, after all of the publicity surrounding David Goldman, several people, including Patrick Braden, walked into my office and said that they had been totally frustrated not just by the Japanese Government but, to some extent, by our own. We need the tools at the State Department, at the Office of Children's Issues, to more effectively promote the interests of American parents and of American abducted children. I've introduced legislation, and my good friend Jim Moran is one of the cosponsors. It is legislation which would comprehensively give the Administration real tools to make this a government-to-government fight rather than a David versus Goliath fight, where it is one individual fighting a court system and a government in a faraway land. Paul Toland walked into my office, who is Jim Moran's constituent--he walked into his office as well--and we have both been trying to help him. Here is a man who served honorably as a commander in the United States Navy; and for over 6 years, close to 7 years, he has not seen his daughter. As my good friend and colleague pointed out, the grandmother has custody. Just like David Goldman, his wife had passed away, the man whose son was abducted to Brazil, and somebody else had custody of his child. Paul Toland's case is similar. Patrick Braden invited me down to the Japanese Embassy. I have to tell you, as a father of four, I was moved to tears when a group of left-behind parents and people concerned about left-behind parents and abducted children gathered in front of the Japanese Embassy. So what did Patrick do? In a very dignified and very respectful way, he requested that he at least get to see his child. It was her birthday that day. There was a birthday cake to Melissa, who was halfway around the world. We all sang Happy Birthday, and he blew out the candles. He was missing her again for another year. It goes on and on. This has to be resolved, Mr. Speaker. We need our President, our Secretary of State and the Congress to get behind these left-behind parents and to get behind bringing back our abducted children. If there is a custody issue, resolve it in the courts of habitual residence. That's where those custody issues need to be fought out, not in a land like Japan where abduction is treated with kid gloves and actually embraced. I said previously, ``with indifference.'' Sometimes I wonder if it's indifference in the way the Japanese Government deals with this. They are a safe harbor for child abductors, and that brings dishonor to the government, in my opinion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman.