Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, last night, Mr. Stupak and I respectfully requested that an amendment reinstating the Mexico City Policy be made in order so that the full House would have the opportunity to vote up or down on this critically important issue. This year's Foreign Ops Appropriations bill increases population control funding by a whopping 40 percent over the 2008 levels to a record $648 million. Our amendment would simply ensure that this huge allocation of taxpayer grant money not be awarded to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions on demand or lobby for abortion on demand in developing countries. Today, most African and Latin countries protect the lives of their unborn children, and the real threat to those laws and policies are coming from the United States and European nongovernmental organizations and the money behind them. Indeed, prior to January, Mr. Speaker, the pro-life Mexico City Policy guaranteed that unborn children in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere not be put at risk of death by the NGOs that we fund. Every human life is precious, Mr. Speaker, and sacred and worthy of respect. No one, no one is expendable. Thus, family planning funds and the NGOs that they empower cannot be allowed to be the Trojan Horse for a global abortion industry. On an encouraging note, Americans agree with our efforts to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. The Gallup Poll recently found by a margin of 2-1, 65 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose President Obama's Executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy. They support his other Executive orders, but not that one. Another Gallup Poll found that, for the first time, 51 percent to 42 percent, Americans are identifying as pro-life. Ultrasound technology-- the window to the womb--is finally shattering the myth that an unborn child is somehow not a person. Mr. Speaker, stripped of its many euphemisms, abortion is violence against children and often harms women emotionally and psychologically and physically. Abortion methods either dismember the fragile body of a baby to death or poisons the infant or chemically induces premature labor, leaving the immature child unable to cope with his or her new environment. You know, in Congress we often speak and enact laws and policies designed to reduce infant mortality, and that's a wonderful and necessary goal. Can we not see or appreciate or understand that abortion is infant mortality? An unborn child's immaturity and dependence should in no way mitigate, negate, or nullify an unborn child's inherent humanity. Human rights ought to be about inclusion, not exclusion, especially of the weakest and the most vulnerable. Finally, can we not see or appreciate or understand that birth is an event and not the beginning of a child's life? And the stunning breakthroughs over the last three decades in treating unborn children who are diagnosed with diseases or disabilities only brings into sharp focus that the child in the womb must be regarded as a patient in need of benign and compassionate interventions. Not poison shots or razor- sharp curettes that kill, but medicines and procedures that cure. The Mexico City Policy holds children harmless in our family planning programs throughout the world. Tragically, the rule before us precludes so much as a vote on the Mexico City Policy. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the right to life is the most fundamental human right issue on Earth. Unfortunately, abortion and the promotion of abortion is the only violation of that basic human right that has the audacity to call itself a right. I therefore will be voting ``no'' on the rule as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I'm sure it was unwitting, but my friend from the other side of the isle misspoke. Just to make very clear, the population account, the money that was allocated in FY 2008, was approximately $460 million. It is now at $648 million. That is approximately a 40 percent increase. And then other moneys potentially could be going to these foreign nongovernmental organizations that promote abortion as well, like Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, and others. So we have a very serious problem. They are American surrogates in foreign countries. They speak for us. They certainly don't speak and act for millions of pro-life Americans. Yes, do family planning. Our amendment would leave that in tact. It would not touch the amount of money for family planning. We ought argue that abortion is not family planning and has no legitimate place in any compassionate program of health care. It is the killing of an unborn child.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of HR 2997: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Act for FY 2010. Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith Bill Number: HR 2997 Account: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--Salaries and Expenses Legal Name of Requesting Entity: State of New Jersey, Department of Agriculture Address of Requesting Entity: 369 South Warren Street, P.O. Box 330, Trenton, NJ 08625 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for the New Jersey Gypsy Moth Pest Management Program to support and enhance gypsy moth control on affected communities and public lands. Funds will be used to cost-share aerial treatments borne by local municipalities to develop a web-based interactive online map showing the distribution of gypsy moths in New Jersey and proposed treatment areas. The funds will also be used for technical support, salaries, and vehicle operation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, today I am offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act that will ensure that the Department of Defense has done their due diligence and that my constituents have access to information needed regarding a DOD proposal that will significantly impact our local community. By way of background, over 20 years ago, the Navy entered into a Section 801 Housing agreement to build 300 units on Naval Weapons Station Earle. Because of changed home porting plans initiated in the 1990's, there are simply no sailors or dependents to live there. When Colts Neck was put into my district in 2003, the units were already 75 percent unoccupied. Naval Weapons Station Earle's mostly vacant 300 units of housing at Laurelwood has long been--and is today--unnecessary, obsolete and a financial burden to the Navy. Regrettably, the Navy is still in a bind and has made one bad decision after another in an attempt to recoups losses they failed to properly anticipate in 1988. Despite the fact that there are next to no tenants at Laurelwood, the contract stipulates mandatory federal payment to the developer-- estimated to be $3.5 million a year--regardless of occupancy. At issue today are the deeply troubling consequences imposed by an egregiously flawed contract. The so-called out-lease period which becomes effective in 2010 and ends in 2040 makes all 300 housing units available to virtually anyone with rent money, with a guarantee of unimpeded access inside one of the most sensitive munitions depots in the country. The Navy's EIS and the ROD should have been comprehensive reviews of all relevant challenges, dangers, and costs associated with the proposed matriculation of Laurelwood to civilian use. They were not. Both documents fell short in addressing the myriad of valid concerns raised by the community including security, education and transportation, to name just a few. The Navy initiated its review process of Laurelwood as far back as 2002 so the questions left unanswered by their ``analysis'' are numerous and troubling. On education, for example, their study offers us no assurances whatsoever of anything close to fairness and equity. Under the Navy plan, local communities are left to educate hundreds of non-military children for whom the towns can not adequately plan without proper numbers. The Navy's assumption that a third of these children would be educated in public schools is unsupported and masks the real problems that these schools will face when the influx of between 300 and 600 new students happens. My amendment is necessary to ensure that the school boards have all relevant information and can plan and budget accordingly. The Navy has been extraordinarily myopic on the paramount issue of security and both the EIS and the ROD are devoid of any meaningful analysis of the true costs to the Navy and surrounding jurisdictions if Laurelwood rents to civilians who are then able to drive onto and through the base. We cannot hermetically seal our military bases but, in my view, the Navy's proposal unwittingly does the reverse: it creates vulnerabilities where they do not exist today. It compromises national security and unnecessarily puts the people on and around Earle in potential danger. Shortly after federal prosecutors revealed that a group of young men were planning to infiltrate Fort Dix, which is also located in my Congressional District, and kill as many servicemembers as possible, Congress recognized the vulnerability of our military bases and took steps to ensure that those who are seeking access to our bases are thoroughly checked and accounted for. However, the Navy now plans to remove these restrictions and allow any member of the public to drive onto and through the largest munitions depot on the East Coast. Incredibly, the Navy believes that ``impacts to security from the proposed action are not anticipated.'' In my opinion--which is supported by a Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) report I requested earlier this year--the Navy is not providing adequate security at the base now. I requested this report after a security guard at the base raised concerns regarding the performance of the security contractors at Earle (D-2009-045). The IG produced troubling findings. They stated that the Navy did not know whether all contractor security guards had completed a background check or that they had completed all training required by the contract. The Navy's security plan places undue faith in a fence as a means to deterring or mitigating access and appears to rely simply on adjusting already inadequate patrols currently performed by private security guards at no perceived increase in cost. The Navy believes that ``additional security personnel will likely be required to patrol the additional perimeter fencing,'' but gives no clue whatsoever as to how many and at what cost. Again, this information--which GAO will provide in accordance to my amendment--is needed if a prudent decision is to be reached. It is worth noting that two of the other installations that are approaching the outlease deadline share similar security concerns. Port Hueneme's security officials believe that ``allowing the general public to live in the units would, at a minimum, indirectly affect the mission of the base'' and require ``additional police officers and patrols, and an increased security budget.'' Ft. Hood recently required that the renters of their Section 801 Housing units must undergo a background check as a condition of residency--although given the demand for this housing by military personnel, no background checks have been conducted or are expected. In my view, the 1988 contract itself--written long before the bitter lessons of the USS Cole, the Khobar Tower bombings, the destruction of our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and 9/11--fails to anticipate and its authors could not have adequately understood as we do today the dangers inherent in proximity, enhanced 24/7 surveillance of potential targets, and the proliferation of sleeper terror cells. The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with instances of dangers unrecognized, unacknowledged, and unanticipated that led to the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever. I strongly believe that the Navy is in the process of compounding its initial 1988 contracting mistake with a far more serious one that is fraught with significant danger for Navy personnel and the people residing in adjacent communities. Until now, the security of my constituents and the costs that they will bear when this proposal is implemented has been deferred to the interest that has a conflict of interest: the Navy. My amendment would change that. It will ensure a thorough and comprehensive study of all relevant factors. It will allow our local community to adequately plan and budget for the impacts of the decision--which they overwhelmingly oppose--and I urge its adoption.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and for his help and the chairman's help in making this amendment, my amendment, part of the en bloc amendment. This amendment requires the Department of Defense, Mr. Chairman, to report to Congress on the plight of our service members who, along with their children, suffer from intrafamilial international child abduction. The international movement of our servicemembers make them especially vulnerable to the risks of international child abduction. Attorneys familiar with this phenomenon estimate that there are approximately 25 to 30 new cases of international child abductions affecting our servicemembers every year. One man, Commander Paul Toland, recently came into my office largely because of the publicity about David Goldman and his son, Sean Goldman, the Brazilian case that I have been working on. He heard about it, and he came in and said, You have got to hear my story. And it is a heartbreaking story. Commander Toland was deployed to Yokohama, Japan. He and his wife, regrettably, had a split. She is now tragically deceased. And yet for approximately 6 long years, he has been trying to get his daughter back and has been unable to. The custody of his child is with the maternal grandparents. Again, he has not been able to get his own child back. Commander Toland received poor advice from the Naval Legal Services Officer on how to adjudicate the case. Have others? Be advised, The amendment will not entangle the Department of Defense in custody disputes. Rather it will instruct the Department of Defense to study and produce a comprehensive report to Congress about what they are doing to ensure that our servicemembers are receiving preventive education, legal protections and other assistance needed to avoid and, when necessary, resolve the international abduction of their children. This is the least we can do for those who serve our nation. Our servicemen and women risk much in the service of our Nation. We must do all that we can to mitigate the risks to their families. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment, especially the ranking member and the distinguished Chair. I rise in support of the amendment to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to report to Congress on the plight of our service members who, along with their children, suffer from intra-familial and international child abduction. The international movements of our service men and women make them especially vulnerable to the risks of international child abduction. This amendment will require a study to pinpoint the extent of the problem within our armed services and what the DOD is doing to prevent and remedy international child abduction within the armed services. The particular issue of international child abduction came to my attention with the Sean Goldman case. As many of you know, Sean Goldman was abducted to Brazil by his mother for a family vacation when Sean was four years old. His mother divorced his father and refused to return the child to the United States, which was Sean's country of habitual residence and consequently should have been the legal jurisdiction in which custody was decided. Sean's father has been fighting for the return of his son for five years. Sean's mother is now deceased, and Sean's father still cannot get him back. Since my involvement with this case, I have been receiving calls from parents left behind in an international child abduction--the particular plight of military parents caught my attention. Military parents are at heightened risk because they often marry when they are serving this country abroad, and may live in numerous countries, including the United States, while they build a family with their spouse. Upon divorce, one parent sometimes whisks the child away to a legal jurisdiction unfavorable to the left behind parent. Such was the case of Commander Paul Toland, whose infant daughter was abducted by his estranged wife while he was stationed on our naval base in Yokohama, Japan. When he sought help from the Naval Legal Services Office on base, he was told to hire a local lawyer and deal with the issue himself in Japanese courts. Whether through lack of training by the DOD or lack of attention by the personnel, this very wrong advice from the Naval Legal Services Office directed Commander Toland to give up the legal jurisdiction of his home state and engage with a foreign legal jurisdiction that has NEVER returned a child to the United States. Commander Toland's former wife is now deceased, his daughter lives with her ailing grandmother in Japan, and he still cannot get her back. The fight has been six long years, and it continues with little hope. Attorneys familiar with this phenomena estimate that there are approximately 25-30 new cases of international child abductions affecting our service men and women every year. Our service men and women risk much in their service to our nation. The DOD must do what it can to minimize their risks. This amendment would not entangle the Department of Defense in custody disputes. Rather, this amendment will instruct the DOD to share with Congress what they are doing to ensure that our service men and women are receiving the preventative education, legal protection, and other assistance needed to avoid and resolve the international abduction of their children. This amendment asks the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the following items: The total number of children abducted from military parents; The total number of children who were later returned to left behind military parents; What the DOD did to facilitate any of the returns, and what sorts of assistance the DOD offers to military parents--such as psychological counseling, financial assistance, legal services, and leave for travel; The means through which available services, information, and activities relating to international child abductions are communicated to left behind military parents; The training provided to those who supply legal assistance to the left behind military parents; Measures taken by the DOD to prevent abductions; Which of the Status of Forces Agreements negotiated with host countries are written to protect the military parent's ability to adjudicate abduction cases in the parent's state of legal residence; The feasibility of including in present and future Status of Forces Agreements a framework for the resolution of child abduction; Identification of potential strategies for engagement with host countries with high incidence of international child abductions; Whether the DOD coordinates on abductions with other departments, such as the U.S. Department of State; Whether the DOD currently partners with, or intends to partner with, civilian experts on international child abduction; Whether the DOD has engaged in joint efforts with the U.S. Department of State to provide a forum, such as a conference, for left behind military parents to share experiences, network and develop best practices for securing the return of abducted children; An assessment as to how international child abductions impact the force readiness of our service members. We all want to do right by our service men and women. The study called for by this amendment will give us a window into what we are already doing, and what we can do better to protect our service men and women from the frustration and anguish of international child abduction.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 10 Homeland Security Appropriation Act. Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H Smith Bill Number: H.R. 2892 Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency's Pre-Disaster Mitigation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Trenton Address of Requesting Entity: 319 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608 Description of Request: Funding will be used to help fortify the City's water filtration plant from ongoing flooding and contamination risk. The plant is responsible for providing safe drinking water to 225,000 people in Trenton, Hamilton and surrounding Mercer County areas. Work supported with the $300,000 in federal funds--which the city of Trenton will match with $100,000--will protect the drinking water supply by eliminating vulnerabilities to contamination resulting from future flood events. The city will use it to waterproof open areas, relocate vulnerable controls and electronics, and make improvements to the sump pump system and the Chlorination storage facility.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010: Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith Bill Number: H.R. 2847 Account: Office of Justice Programs--Juvenile Justice Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Brick Township Police Athletic League (PAL), 60 Drum Point Road, Brick, NJ 08723 Description of Request: Brick PAL offers after-school and summer camp programs to keep students engaged in educational, social and cultural programs in the critical hours while parents are at work. The amount of $250,000 listed in H.R. 2847 will be used for hiring counselors, equipment, educational trips, scholarships and general operations of the programs. Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith Bill Number: H.R. 2847 Account: Office of Justice Programs-Juvenile Justice Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: D.A.R.E. New Jersey, Inc., 292 Prospect Street, Cranbury, NJ 08512 Description of Request: D.A.R.E. New Jersey will use the $350,000 listed in H.R. 2847 to implement the Middle School Drug and Safety Prevention Program, ``Keepin' It Real'' which focuses on teaching middle school students how to resist peer pressure, avoid involvement in drugs, gangs and violence and live productive, meaningful lives. The funding will be used for officer training, workbooks, teachers books and materials, evaluation of the program, personnel, and general expenses such as printing, postage and travel associated with the training. Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith Bill Number: H.R. 2847 Account: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, and Facilities Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, NJ 07764 Description of Request: The University's Resilient Coastal Urban Community and Ecosystem (RESCUE) Initiative will use the amount of $250,000 listed in H.R. 2847 to maintain and expand the water quality monitoring system, work directly with communities to implement cost- effective strategies for reducing pollution, restoring and protecting critical habitats that support resilient coastal ecosystems and communities and support the development of community strategies to adapt to coastal threats. Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith Bill Number: H.R. 2847 Account: Office of Justice Programs--Juvenile Justice Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: KidsBridge, 4556 S Broad Street, 2nd Floor, Trenton, NJ 08620 Description of Request: The KidsBridge program allows students the opportunity to participate in leadership training, violence prevention and gang resistance programs during and after school. Through mentors and academic programs, students will learn improved behaviors thereby reducing violent encounters and victimization. The amount of $90,000 listed in H.R. 2847 will be used to facilitate weekly youth meetings, materials and workbooks, evaluation, cultural and educational trips, healthy snacks for the students and staff salary. Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith Bill Number: H.R. 2847 Account: Office of Justice Programs--Byrne Discretionary Grants Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Trenton, 319 E State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608 Description of Request: The YouthStat program is a key component of the City of Trenton's ongoing efforts to develop and implement aggressive new strategies to effectively respond to the problems of gang violence in Trenton, New Jersey. The amount of $310,000 listed in H.R. 2847 will provide participants with customized community based programming including mentoring, work experience, life skills development, and recreation for juveniles who are at the highest risk for gang and criminal involvement.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee, I joined several colleagues at an important Foreign Affairs Committee meeting with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe. It was an extraordinary opportunity to discuss Zimbambwe's progress towards democracy and away from dictatorship, hyperinflation, and multiple health crises, including cholera--and obtain a fuller understanding of what additional steps the U.S. can take to help. That meeting, however, occurred at precisely the same time the House considered H. Res. 529, a resolution condemning the June 10th violent attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum--a despicable anti-Semitic act that killed Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns. As so eloquently articulated by many colleagues yesterday, I--we--salute officer Johns for his bravery and courage and extend our deepest condolences to his family. I rise today to not only express my support for H. Res 529 but also to thank my friend and colleague Mr. Klein for introducing it and for including me as a co-sponsor. Mr. Speaker, the Holocaust Memorial Museum is a noble and vitally necessary attempt to remember and honor the victims of the Holocaust. The memorial itself is a witness to truth and promotion of human dignity and tolerance. Wednesday's attack on that museum by a crazed, hate-filled gunman is yet another chilling reminder that our society still harbors a dangerous collection of bigots and racists who hate Jews. Unparalleled since the dark days of the Second World War, Jewish communities around the world are facing violent attacks against synagogues, Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. Anti- Semitism is an ugly reality that won't go away by ignoring or wishing it away. It must be combated with resolve and tenacity. The sad deeply troubling reality is that James von Brunn cannot be dismissed as an aberration, but is connected to a whole hate-promoting movement that results in violence against Jews in America and around the world on practically a daily basis. The Anti-Defamation League recently issued its annual Audit of Anti- Semitic Incidents. While the ADL is to be congratulated for its careful research on an unpleasant but absolutely necessary subject, the ugly facts that the report documents make for painful reading. In 2008, the ADL noted 1,352 reported incidents of vandalism, harassment, and physical assaults on Jewish people or Jewish-owned property nationwide. Sadly and shamefully, my own state of New Jersey had more reported anti-Semitic incidents--238--than any other state. But the attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum, Mr. Speaker, is the most ominous aspect of this wave of evil. The Holocaust Memorial Museum is a unique institution. It is a memorial, a museum, a center of Holocaust scholarship, and a promoter of tolerance and preventer of genocide. It is a very powerful symbol of the solidarity of America with those murdered in the Holocaust, and with the Jewish people. Mr. Speaker, at this critical moment we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, every anti-Semitic act wherever and whenever it occurs. No exceptions. At this moment, not to speak out enables the purveyors of hate. They never take a holiday or grow weary, nor should we. Just as Mr. Brunn attacked the Holocaust Memorial Museum and murdered a courageous security officer tasked with its protection, Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews. Finally, if we are to protect our children from the evil of anti- Semitism, we must reeducate ourselves and systematically educate our children. While that starts in our homes, the classroom must be the incubator of tolerance. It seems to me that only the most hardened racist can remain unmoved by Holocaust education and remembrance. Only the most crass, evil, and prejudiced among us can study the horrors of the Holocaust and not cry out: Never again!

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, yesterday, as ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee, I joined several colleagues at an important Foreign Affairs Committee meeting with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe. It was an extraordinary opportunity to discuss Zimbabwe's progress towards democracy and away from dictatorship, its problems with hyperinflation, and multiple health crises, including cholera, and to obtain a fuller understanding of what additional steps the United States can take right now to help. That meeting, however, occurred at precisely the same time that the House considered H. Res. 529, a resolution condemning the June 10th violent attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum, a despicable anti- Semitic act that killed Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns. And as so eloquently articulated by so many of my colleagues yesterday during that debate, we salute Officer Johns for his bravery and his courage, and extend our deepest condolences to his family. I rise today not only to express my support for H. Res. 529, but also to thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Klein, for introducing it and for including me as a cosponsor. Madam Speaker, the Holocaust Memorial Museum is a noble and vitally necessary attempt to remember and honor the victims of the Holocaust. The memorial itself is a witness to truth and the promotion of human dignity and tolerance. Wednesday's attack on that museum by a crazed, hate-filled gunman is yet another chilling reminder that our society still harbors a dangerous collection of bigots and racists who hate Jews. Unparalleled since the dark days of the Second World War, Jewish communities around the world are today facing violent attacks against synagogues, Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. Anti- Semitism is an ugly reality that won't go away by ignoring it or by wishing it away. It must be combated with resolve and tenacity, and it must be defeated. The sad and deeply troubling reality is that James von Brunn cannot be dismissed as an aberration, but is connected to a whole hate- promoting movement that results in violence against Jews in America and around the world on practically a daily basis. The Anti-Defamation League recently issued its annual audit of anti- Semitic incidents. While the ADL is to be congratulated for its careful research on an unpleasant but absolutely necessary subject, the ugly facts that the report documents makes for painful reading. In 2008, the ADL noted 1,352 reported incidents of vandalism, harassment, and physical assaults on Jewish people or Jewish-owned property nationwide. Sadly, and shamefully, my own State of New Jersey had more reported anti-Semitic incidents, 238, than any other State in the Union. The attack on the Holocaust Museum is the most ominous aspect of this evil wave that we have seen worldwide and in our own country. The Holocaust Museum is a unique institution. It is a memorial, a museum, a center of Holocaust scholarship, and a promoter of tolerance and preventer of genocide. It is a very powerful symbol of the solidarity of America with those murdered in the Holocaust, and with the Jewish people as well. Madam Speaker, at this critical moment, we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, every anti- Semitic act, wherever and whenever it occurs, no exceptions. At this moment, not to speak out enables the purveyors of hate. They never take a holiday. They never grow weary, nor should we. Just as Mr. Brunn attacked the Holocaust Memorial Museum and murdered a courageous security officer tasked with its protection, Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews. Finally, if we are to protect our children from the evil of anti- Semitism, we must re-educate ourselves and systematically educate our children. While that starts at our homes, the classroom must be the incubator of tolerance as well. It seems to me that only the most hardened racist can remain unmoved by Holocaust education and remembrance. Only the most crass, evil and prejudiced among us can study the horrors of the Holocaust and not cry out: Never again!

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. I rise in opposition to the rule. Let me just say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s, I served as chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, at first having served as ranking member to Tom Lantos. Then when the House went Republican, we switched and I became the chairman of that committee. And one of the responsibilities of that committee was to write the Foreign Relations Act, the State Department Reauthorization Act, for the country. And we worked very hard, Mr. Lantos and I, very diligently in crafting a bill that was, A, truly bipartisan and, B, open to virtually every amendment that Members wanted to offer. I remember bringing a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, where every day Members just had to file their amendments in the Congressional Record, a preprinting requirement, so in the morning we would wake up and find out what amendments might be offered, and then we would deal and dispatch positively or negatively with those amendments. The process was open, transparent and fair. Today we have a very much closed rule, except on matters where there is consensus. Sure, there are some Republican amendments. But on areas where there is significant and fundamental disagreement, especially an amendment that I had hoped to offer to authorize the office for Global Women's Issues, I had been precluded that opportunity. And I want to say to my colleagues I didn't do that when I chaired the subcommittee, and I worked very hard in a bipartisan way with my friends, and I do consider you on the other side of the aisle friends, to ensure that we all got to express our voice and vote on things that mattered, that we all had an opportunity to express ourselves. In Committee, I offered an amendment to establish a Global Office on Women's Issues. It lost in a party-line vote. Every Democrat voted against it; every Republican voted for it. That legislation would have established a new Office for Global Women's Issues led by an ambassador-at-large, designed to coordinate and advise on activities, policies, programs, and funding related to women's empowerment internationally. The amendment would promote activities designed to expand educational opportunities and job training for women, equal pay for equal work, microfinancing and microenterprise programs for women, property inheritance rights for women, an improvement of maternal mortality, expand pregnancy care centers, combat forced abortions and forced sterilization, to enhance our efforts in the area of sex and labor trafficking particularly of women and other forms of violence against women, seeking an end to genital mutilation, stop child marriage, and promote changes in male attitudes and behavior that are detrimental to women. That was all prescribed in the legislation, and obviously other things could be included as well, consistent with core human rights norms that all human life, Mr. Speaker, is sacred and precious and worthy of protection regardless of age, sex, race, color, creed, disability, wantedness, or condition of dependency. My amendment sought to hold harmless unborn children and their mothers from the violence of abortion. The Smith amendment is abortion neutral and states that the new office shall not engage in activities to author the laws or the policies of foreign countries with regard to how abortion is regulated or permitted. Abortion neutral. I would like it to be a pro-life office that says it time to empower and embrace and enfranchise unborn children. I say to my colleagues, We live in 2009. We no longer have any doubts about the humanity of an unborn child. Unborn children are just like you and I except they're young, they're immature, and they're dependent. And their human rights are violated with impunity not just in this country but around the world. Sadly, the Obama administration, and I say this with great sadness, Mr. Obama is well on his way to becoming the abortion President. Virtually everything he has done through Executive order and through appointments and through other policies promote the killing of unborn children and the wounding of their mothers. So I rise in opposition to this rule, Mr. Speaker. Whether this body chose to vote up or down on my amendment, we should have had the opportunity. It saddens me greatly because, again, I have great affection for the chairman, Chairman Berman, and for his staff, with whom I have worked very closely on human rights issues. This is a human rights issue. There could be a consensus about the new office that's being created, that has already been created, and that this gives statutory affirmation to for women's issues. But, unfortunately, we will not have that opportunity. I will remind my colleagues that Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King's niece--

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, has had two abortions. She now heads up an organization called the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, and she speaks out and says that this is the new civil rights movement, protecting the unborn child but equally protecting women from abortion. It is violence against women. It is violence against children. The new Global Office on Women's Issues ought to at least be neutral, I would say affirm the unborn but at least neutral when it comes to respecting unborn human life.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. I just want to say to my pro-life friends on the Democrat side of the aisle: think consequences. In late April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified one of our hearings--and this is the question I posed to her--Is the Obama administration seeking in any way to weaken or to overturn pro-life laws and policies in African nations and in Latin American countries either directly through multilateral organizations, including the United Nations, the African Union or the Organization of American States, or by way of funding NGOs like Planned Parenthood? Secretary of State Clinton answered that the administration was ``entitled'' to advocate abortion ``anywhere in the world.'' She also went on to redefine the words ``reproductive health,'' which are found in many documents and in many laws around the world, in a way completely contrary to the accepted definition by the previous administration and by many others to now include abortion. So every time you see those words now in a document, to the Clintons and to the Obamas, they mean ``abortion on demand.'' The Office of Global Women's Issues should be all about promoting human rights for women. Promoting violence against children and promoting the wounding of their mothers by advocating abortion is not human rights. It is the contrary. It is the exact opposite. I hope my colleagues will realize that the amendment that my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, is offering simply restates current law. It says the new office will follow the law. Did anybody expect that the office would not follow the law? Of course they would. Well, hopefully, they would. We need to make sure, we need to ensure that this new office, which will be a command and control center, for women's rights and empowerment and not become an office for NARAL, for Planned Parenthood or for others in the promotion of child deaths around the world. Let's hold harmless the precious lives of unborn children. Let's mitigate maternal mortality and all of the other crises affecting women, not the killing of unborn babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at precisely the same time as President Barack Obama continues to assiduously assure Americans, including graduates at Notre Dame University last month, that he wants to reduce abortion at home and abroad, his administration is aggressively seeking to topple pro- life laws in sovereign nations, a clear, deeply troubling contradiction. First Mr. Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy, a pro-life Reagan- era executive order, that ensured that the $500 million in population control funds appropriated by Congress each year only went to foreign nongovernmental organizations, family planning organizations, that did not promote, lobby or perform abortions as a method of family planning. As a result of Obama's new policy, pro-abortion organizations are now flush with cash and will continue to get hundreds of millions of dollars annually to push abortion around the world, all of it decoupled from pro-life safeguards. I mentioned the Mexico City policy, which is not on the floor today, for context to underscore what is actually happening 24/7 in the Obama administration. Add to this the fact that the administration has stuffed pro-abortion activists, a literal who's-who from the abortion rights organizations, in key gatekeeper positions, and you get the idea and see that abortion is a serious undertaking by this administration. Even the gatekeeper, the woman--and a fine woman--who heads up the U.S. Agency For International Development, Wendy Sherman, used to be the director of EMILY's List. So every dollar of foreign aid goes through the person who used to be the director of EMILY's List. Yet Obama's international abortion agenda is unpopular and getting increasingly unpopular with the American public. The Gallup Poll found that by a margin of 65 percent to 35 percent, Americans opposed his rescission of the Mexico City policy. And I would note parenthetically that the most recent Gallup Poll from May 15th indicates that Americans are clearly trending pro-life, with 51 percent calling themselves pro- life and 42 percent calling themselves pro-choice. America is changing. It is evolving in favor of life. In late April, Mr. Chairman, we received our distinguished Secretary of State at the Foreign Affairs Committee and I raised some issues that concerned me with her. I noted that she had recently received the Margaret Sanger Award in Houston on March 27th, and then in her speech, which was on the U.S. Department of State's Web site, she quoted that she was ``in awe of Margaret Sanger.'' She said that ``Margaret Sanger's life and leadership was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race and that Sanger's work both here and abroad was not done.'' I pointed out that Sanger's legacy was indeed transformational, but not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, an unborn child, or among the many so- called undesirables, the disabled that Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race. Sanger's prolific writings dripped with contempt for those she considered unfit to live. I have actually read many of Sanger's articles and books. She was an unapologetic eugenicist and a racist who said, ``The most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it.'' She also said on another occasion, ``Eugenics is one of the most adequate and thorough avenues to the issue of racial, political and social problems.'' In her book, ``The Pivot of Civilization,'' Sanger devoted an entire chapter which she entitled ``The Cruelty of Charity.'' Imagine that, a chapter, ``The Cruelty of Charity,'' explaining a shockingly inhumane case for the systematic denial of prenatal and maternal health care for poor pregnant women. She said, and I quote in pertinent part, ``Such benevolence is not merely superficial and nearsighted.'' She said, ``It conceals a stupid cruelty and leads to a deterioration in the human stock and the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents.'' So it is to me and many Members who are pro-life extraordinarily difficult to understand how anyone could be in awe of Margaret Sanger, a person who made no secret whatsoever of views that were antithetical to protecting fundamental human rights of the weakest and the most vulnerable, and to suggest that her work remains undone around the world, which the Secretary of State has done, is deeply troubling. So I asked our Secretary of State, is the Obama administration seeking in any way to weaken or overturn pro-life laws and policies in African and Latin American countries, either directly or through multilateral organizations, including and especially the United Nations, the African Union, or the Organization of American States? And I also asked her, does the United States' definition of reproductive health include abortion? Secretary of State Clinton was very clear, she was not ambiguous, and in a radical departure from President Bush said that the administration, the Obama administration, was entitled to advocate abortion anywhere in the world. Secretary Clinton went on to unilaterally redefine the term ``reproductive health'' to include abortion, even though that definition isn't shared by the rest of the world, including and especially in countries in Latin America and in Africa. That is important, because the term ``reproductive health'' is found in numerous UN consensus documents and action plans and in the laws of countries worldwide. On March 31st, for example, the UN Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Population, Refugee and Migration Bureau, told the UN that the U.S. Government seeks to achieve universal access to reproductive health and the promotion of reproductive rights. In light of the Secretary of State's statement, that clearly means universal access to abortion on demand. By foisting abortion on the developing world via a new government Office on Global Women's Issues, the Obama administration is squandering America's political capital to enable the purveyors of death to descend upon nation after nation to promote their deadly wares. Section 334 of the underlying legislation establishes an Office for Global Women's Issues, and I suggested that we limit it, that it not become a war room at the Department of State for the promotion of abortion. If so, the predictable consequences are more dead children and more wounded women. Even Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute has said that in most countries it is common, after abortion is legalized, for abortion to rise sharply for several years. Sharply. Contrary to what President Obama says about reduction, the numbers go up. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman, you know I asked those questions of Secretary of State Clinton. Do you believe that such activity, promotion of abortion, is prohibited under current law as referenced by your amendment? Can this new office promote these kinds of activities?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, on the issue of multilateral organizations like the Organization of American States, the African Union and others, the United Nations, what can the role of this new office be vis-a-vis the abortion issue and those multilateral organizations?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield 1 minute on his time?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I thank my friend and colleague for offering it. Today David Goldman is once again back in Brazil. He is back at the Brazilian Supreme Court, which he and I visited together last February, trying to get the justice that the Brazilian courts keep delaying and denying. Today David Goldman is tenaciously trying to reclaim his son from a child abductor. Mr. Chair, as many Members know, almost 5 years ago David Goldman's 9-year-old son Sean was abducted by his mother to Brazil. For 5 long years, David has sought relief in the Brazilian courts with the aid of an extraordinarily talented legal team and a local grassroots organization called Bring Sean Home. Mark DeAngelis runs that group, and I would encourage everyone to Google it. Go check it out. Look at the information that is contained in that Web site because it is truly remarkable what this grassroots organization has done to provide support for David, to lift his often discouraged spirits as he's gone through this Byzantine process in Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro. It is particularly outrageous that since the death of Sean's mother, Sean has been illegally held by her second husband, a man by the name of Lins e Silva, a wealthy and very well-connected lawyer who, by the way, does family law. If ever there was a case of abusing family law, the David Goldman case is it. Lins e Silva refuses to return Sean to his father David, but, heedless of the damage he does to Sean, endlessly delays, obstructs and abuses the judicial system. Last Tuesday, after a court had ordered the abductor, Lins e Silva, to turn Sean over for immediate return to the United States, within 48 hours a member of the Brazilian Supreme Court, responding to an appeal by a Brazilian political party, suspended that order. I have read Judge Pinto's return order--not all 82-pages, but the parts that were translated into English from Portuguese. It is a remarkable finding by a judge of a Brazilian Court. He talks about there not just being the first kidnapping by the mother, who sadly has passed away, but a second kidnapping, that occurred when a man who was not Sean's father took custody of a son that was not adoptable, and just grabbed him as if he was some kind of commodity. It is outrageous. That judge recognized that. He also acknowledged the extreme emotional and psychological harm that is being done to Sean Goldman each and every day. Court-appointed psychiatrists did an extensive battery of tests and reviews of Sean Goldman and found that the continued absence of David, the real father, has caused incredible emotional harm, which is compounded each and every day. Mr. Chair, David, again, is now before the Supreme Court; and this political party is actually questioning the constitutionality of The Hague Convention itself and its applicability to the laws of Brazil. To me, that seems as if--and it is--that Sean is being taken hostage. If they want to review whether or not that signing of The Hague Convention comports with their own domestic laws and their constitution, do so. But don't take a 9-year-old American boy as hostage while you adjudicate that consideration. Mr. Chair, we have to speak frankly about the situation in Brazil. I think this Congress has done so, as have our friends in the Senate, as has the White House. Generally speaking, the Brazilian judicial system enables international child abduction by Brazilian citizens. This is not an exaggeration. I invite you to read the State Department's April 2009 Report on Compliance with The Hague Convention. It just came out, just off the presses. The report documents in detail what it describes as patterns of noncompliance for Brazil, as well as for other countries. Brazilian courts, it notes, have a disturbing pattern of legitimizing abductions by claiming the abducted child has become ``adapted to Brazilian culture.'' In other words, for many of Brazil's courts, if you abduct a child and manage to keep him or her in Brazil long enough, in defiance of The Hague Convention, he or she becomes yours. And the administration of Brazilian President Lula connives at this outrage. It is complicit. It has done precious little to mitigate the damage being done to American children, especially David Goldman's son, Sean, in Brazil. Again, I support this amendment strongly, and I urge my colleagues to stay tuned to this. We have to bring Sean home.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding. As a matter of fact, that's why I was late in getting here. I was working on that very issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Jean, just very briefly to say to my colleagues tonight, Barack Obama has said he is seeking common ground, and he wants to reduce the number of abortions. Sadly, virtually everything he has done, months to date, as President of the United States has expanded abortions internationally as well as domestically by executive order as well as by his embedding into his administration a virtual who's who of abortion leaders, people from the organizations who are now running agencies of the government of the United States. These are the people who ran the organizations for abortion rights. Now they're there. The District of Columbia for years has not provided--and our hope is that it will continue not to provide--any funding for abortion, except for rape and incest and life of the mother. That language, as you have pointed out, was crafted by Congressman Bob Dornan; and it was a little game that was played for years. I have been here 29 years, and I will never forget the game that was played. The language would say, no Federal funds can be used to pay for abortion; but they would allow it because we congressionally authorize local funds, so the bottom line was, the net consequence was, abortion on demand unfettered was paid for by public funds, by taxpayers. Barack Obama keeps saying he wants to reduce abortions. The common ground on reducing abortions is proscribing, prohibiting funding for abortions. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood itself continually say that about a third of the abortions don't occur when public financing is not available. So as a result of the Hyde amendment, as a result of an amendment that I offered back in 1983 that proscribed funding under the auspices of the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan, the Dornan amendment on D.C. approps, and all the other amendments have actually permitted, facilitated those children who otherwise would have been aborted because public financing of abortion wasn't there. That's true common ground. Taxpayers don't want to subsidize chemical poisoning and dismemberment of unborn children. People can talk all they want. The cheap sophistry of choice is that it does not bring into the visibility that it deserves the very active abortion, which is the maiming, ultimately the killing, of an unborn child. This is the year 2009. We know more about the magnificent life of an unborn child than ever before. Microsurgeries are being done. These unborn children are the littlest patients. They can get blood transfusions. Unfortunately in some hospital rooms and especially in clinics, they are being dismembered; they are being chemically poisoned; and they are being starved to death in the act of abortion, which then is suggested to be a benign act. It is anything but. It is not compassion. It shows no sense of justice; and the public should not be forced, compelled to finance abortion in the District of Columbia or anywhere else.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the pro-life movement is absolutely nonviolent and is totally committed to protecting unborn children and their mothers through peaceful, nonviolent means. I have been in the pro-life movement for 37 years, and those peaceful, nonviolent means include legal and constitutional reform as well as tangibly assisting women with crisis pregnancies. Dr. Tiller's murderer must be brought to swift justice commensurate with the heinous crime that he has committed. Murder is murder. Murder is never justified and can never be condoned by any society committed to fundamental human rights, justice, and the rule of just law. Let me, as well, like my other colleagues on the floor today, extend my profound condolences to the Tiller family.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the brave and tenacious heroes of Tiananmen Square will never be forgotten nor will their huge sacrifice--for some torture and for others even death--be in vain. Future generations of Chinese--and other advocates of democracy worldwide--will forever honor their courage, vision and dream of democracy. The Chinese people deserve no less. The Chinese are a great people--and deserve democratic institutions and respect for the rule of law that reflects that greatness. Twenty years after Tiananmen, pro-democracy advocates remain in concentration camps subjected to torture, myriad forms of humiliation and degrading treatment. They must be freed, unconditionally. The Tiananmen Square massacre was a turning point in China--and not for the better. The hard-liners in Beijing have since unleashed unprecedented cruelty on labor leaders, political prisoners, religious believers, and have committed massive crimes against women and children through forced abortion. The ugly spirit of the Tiananmen Square massacre continues today unabated throughout China, with brutality and efficiency only the Nazis could love. With some notable exceptions including last year's savage crackdown on Tibetans the Chinese leadership has taken their murder and torture behind closed doors, where the cries, screams, and tears of thousands of dissidents are heard by no one except the torturers themselves. For its part, the international community has failed to seriously challenge China's massive human rights violations--and that includes the weak and feckless response of the United States of America. That includes the Bush Administration, that includes the Clinton Administration, that includes the Obama Administration and that includes Congress. That must change. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited China a few months ago to peddle U.S. treasury bonds to finance U.S. debt, she said human rights shouldn't be allowed to ``interfere'' with that and other issues. Wittingly or not, that attitude enables the Chinese dictatorship to continue brutalizing its own people. And while I respect President Obama's outreach to Muslims in Cairo today, that event surely could have been scheduled for any other day but the 20th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. This solemn remembrance of the victims of mass murder at Tiananmen Square and the crushing of their bodies and hopes by tanks and bayonets, should have been the White House's major event today. Meanwhile, on this tragic 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, I am afraid that, American technology and know-how is actually enabling the Chinese Government to repress the truth about what happened on that day--about which it is absolutely vital that the Chinese people know the truth. After all, it is the truth about their history. Similarly, while the internet has opened up commercial opportunities and provided access to vast amounts of information for people the world over, the internet has also become a malicious tool: a cyber sledgehammer of repression of the government of China. As soon as the promise of the Internet began to be fulfilled--when brave Chinese began to email each other and others about human rights issues and corruption by government leaders--the Party cracked down. To date, an estimated 49 cyber-dissidents and 32 journalists have been imprisoned by the PRC for merely posting information on the Internet critical of the regime. And that's likely to be only the tip of the iceberg. Of course, one of the points on which the Chinese Government is most eager to crack down is dissemination of the truth about Tiananmen. Tragically, history shows us that American companies and their subsidiaries have provided the technology to crush human rights in the past. Edwin Black's book IBM and the Holocaust reveals the dark story of IBM's strategic alliance with Nazi Germany. Thanks to IBM's enabling technologies, from programs for identification and cataloging to the use of IBM's punch card technology, Hitler and the Third Reich were able to automate the genocide of the Jews. U.S. technology companies today are engaged in a similar sickening collaboration, decapitating the voice of the dissidents. In 2005, Yahoo's cooperation with Chinese secret police led to the imprisonment of the cyber-dissident Shi Tao. And this was not the first time. According to Reporters Without Borders, Yahoo also handed over data to Chinese authorities on another of its users, Li Zhi. Li Zhi was sentenced on December 10, 2003 to eight years in prison for ``inciting subversion.'' His ``crime'' was to criticize in online discussion groups and articles the well-known corruption of local officials. Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct result of information handed over to Chinese officials. When Yahoo was asked to explain its actions, Yahoo said that it must adhere to local laws in all countries where it operates. But my response to that is: if the secret police a half century ago asked where Anne Frank was hiding, would the correct answer be to hand over the information in order to comply with local laws? These are not victimless crimes. We must stand with the oppressed, not the oppressors. I believe that two of the most essential pillars that prop up totalitarian regimes are the secret police and propaganda. Yet for the sake of market share and profits, leading U.S. companies like Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft have compromised both the integrity of their product and their duties as responsible corporate citizens. They have aided and abetted the Chinese regime to prop up both of these pillars, propagating the message of the dictatorship unabated and supporting the secret police in a myriad of ways, including surveillance and invasion of privacy, in order to effectuate the massive crackdown on its citizens. Through an approach that monitors, filters, and blocks content with the use of technology and human monitors, the Chinese people have little access to uncensored information about any political or human rights topic, unless of course, Big Brother wants them to see it. Google.cn, China's search engine, is guaranteed to take you to the virtual land of deceit, disinformation and the big lie. As such, the Chinese government utilizes the technology of U.S. IT companies combined with human censors--led by an estimated force of 30,000 cyber police--to control information in China. Websites that provide the Chinese people news about their country and the world, such as AP, UPI, Reuters, and AFP, as well as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, are regularly blocked in China. In addition, when a user enters a forbidden word, such as ``democracy,'' ``China torture'' or ``Falun Gong,'' the search results are blocked, or you are redirected to a misleading site, and the user's computer can be frozen for unspecified periods of time. Google censors what are euphemistically called ``politically sensitive'' terms, such as ``Tiananmen,'' ``democracy,'' ``China human rights,'' ``China torture'' and the like on its Chinese search site, Google.cn. A search for terms such as ``Tiananmen Square'' produces two very different results. The one from Google.cn shows a picture of a smiling couple, but the results from Google.com show scores of photos depicting the mayhem and brutality of the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre. Google claims that some information is better than nothing. But in this case, the limited information displayed amounts to disinformation. A half truth is not the truth--it is a lie. And a lie is worse than nothing. It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Google has seriously compromised its ``Don't Be Evil'' policy. It has become evil's accomplice. And that continues. Last summer Frank Wolf and I were in Beijing. We tried to look up ``Tiananmen Square'' on the tightly-controlled Chinese Internet. Of course, mere mention of the slaughter has been removed from the Chinese Internet. We walked across Tiananmen Square-- officials searched us before we entered the square, and squads of police surrounded us while we were on it, terrified we might hold up a simple sign or banner. Standing for human rights has never been easy or without price, and companies are extremely reluctant to pay that price. That's why our government also has a major role to play in this critical area, and that a more comprehensive framework is needed to protect and promote human rights. This is why I have re-introduced The Global Online Freedom Act, H.R. 2271. I believe it can be an important lever to help disseminate the truth--about Tiananmen and so many more things in the history of China--to the Chinese people by means of the Internet. I'd like to ask you to support this bill, which would prevent U.S. high-tech Internet companies from turning over to the Chinese police information that identifies individual Internet users who express political and religious ideas that the communists are trying to suppress. It would also require companies to disclose how the Chinese version of their search engines censors the Internet. In the last Congress, the bill passed the Foreign Affairs Committee and was ready for a floor vote, but influential lobbies prevented a vote on the bill. I also want to mention the exciting firewall-busting technology that a group of dedicated Chinese human rights activists are promoting. They have technology that enables users in China to bypass the Chinese government's so-called ``Golden Shield'' censorship effort and surf the Internet freely. With this technology, which has been demonstrated to me in my office, Chinese users can visit the same Internet you and I do, and there is nothing the Chinese government can do about it. I think we should all ask the State Department to financially support this technology--which could produce a human rights and rule of law revolution in China. Today provides us an important reminder that the fight the Tiananmen protestors took on 20 years ago is still going on, in the streets, the internet cafe's and here today. To the brave men and women who continue to fight for the rights of the Chinese people--we say, we stand with you, we remember you, and we will not abandon the fight for your freedoms.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, child abduction is a serious crime that no legitimate government or self-respecting judicial body anywhere on Earth should ever countenance, support or enable by either direct complicity or incompetence. But the denial of fundamental justice in the kidnapping of an American child is exactly what has happened, and is happening, in Brazil today. The tragic kidnapping case of Sean Goldman, pictured here with his dad, David, now in its almost fifth year, raises serious and troubling questions concerning the Lula administration's commitment to honoring its clearly defined international obligations. Mr. Speaker, why has Brazilian President Lula's government so comprehensively failed to honor and respect international law, namely the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which it freely, and without reservation, signed and ratified, to expeditiously return a kidnapped child to the left-behind parent in the country of habitual residence? David Goldman's 9-year-old son, Sean, was abducted by his now- deceased mother almost 5 years ago. For 5 long years, David, his dad, has sought relief in the Brazilian courts. And with the aid of an extraordinarily talented legal team and a group of dedicated loved ones at home, friends and neighbors, David Goldman has left no stone unturned in trying to get his son back. Because of the Lula Government's complicity and/or incompetence, however, David Goldman has been frustrated at every turn. Justice was delayed again, thus denied again, earlier today when a clear, unambiguous order to return Sean to his dad and to the United States was frustrated by yet another legal filing. At its core, Mr. Speaker, it is utterly outrageous that Lins e Silva, a well-connected lawyer, who is not Sean's father, continues to hold Sean. By abducting a boy that is not his son, Lins e Silva commits what is among the most cruel, unethical and brazen acts of continuing illegality imaginable. Even Brazilian court-appointed psychiatrists have said that with each passing day, Sean is being harmed by his continued abduction. This week, Mr. Speaker, all of us involved in the case were cautiously optimistic about a positive ruling by a Brazilian federal court judge ordering the abductor to turn Sean over at the U.S. Consulate in Rio De Janeiro at 2 p.m. today so that David could immediately bring his son back to the United States. Sadly, it didn't happen. A new appeal, filed by individuals associated with the abducting party, has resulted in the Brazilian Supreme Court suspending the federal court's order to return Sean. This filing apparently seeks to nullify Brazil's obligations under the Hague Convention treaty on child abduction, a delaying and obstructionist tactic that will further harm Sean and continue the extreme agony of his father. We have been told that perhaps the supreme court will decide the case by next week. Yeah, we'll see. I would note parenthetically that if a political party in Brazil, and they are the ones who brought the case, wants to challenge Brazil's accession to the Hague Convention, or any part of it, it should do so without taking Sean Goldman hostage. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. It is long past time to bring Sean Goldman home. The Brazilian Government must more fully understand that these reckless legal maneuverings which have no finality or compassion or justice and bring dishonor on the Brazilian Government. How long will President Lula allow this disgraceful charade to continue? Let me be clear on this, Mr. Speaker. Our argument isn't with the Brazilian people, for whom I have deep affection and admiration, as do my colleagues in this Chamber. Many Brazilians have supported David Goldman's quest for justice against two wealthy and politically powerful families that brazenly abuse their connections and exercise grossly undue influence over certain parts of the Brazilian judiciary. The Lula Government has failed to honor its commitments under international law. And because of that, a son has been deprived of his father, and a father has been deprived of his son. That is unconscionable.