Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1184) to waive the passport fees for a relative of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such member or to attend a funeral or memorial service for such member.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to, first of all, thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lantos, for his eloquent statement and for his leadership for decades on the fundamental issue of human rights, particularly as it relates to religious freedom. We have been partners, along with Frank Wolf and a few other Members of this body for years in pressuring Moscow and what was formerly the Warsaw Pact nations to liberalize their policies. As Mr. Lantos pointed out so well a moment ago, there is a very troubling and dangerous trend as Putin takes Russia in the wrong direction, especially as it relates to NGOs, religious freedom and religious bodies of all kinds and various denominations, and just basic civil liberties are being constricted in that country, Russia needs the oxygen of liberty and freedom in order to realize it's vast potential. So I want to thank again Mr. Lantos for his wonderful statement and leadership. I would also like to thank John Finerty from the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, who is our Russian expert. John has been on the commission since 1981. When I got elected 26 years ago, John Finerty was there, a Russian speaker, a Russian expert, who has provided valuable insight to both Democrats and Republicans on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. His wisdom, his council, his clarity has aided us while we travelled to Russia, when we met with lawmakers in bilateral discussions, with members of the Duma and other officials from Russia, and has always provided us the insight that we needed, and like I said, that sense of perspective and timeliness as well as what our next steps ought to be. John has been to Russia and to the Soviet Union at least 27 times over the years. I will never forget when he accompanied Frank Wolf and I, when we went to Moscow on a very I think historic trip where we visited Perm Camp 35 where Nathan Sharansky had spent so many years of his life, John was with us on an historic trip/meeting with the Duma. Four days of talks--and did we ever need John's incredible knowledge and insight. He was amazing! So I want to thank John for his leadership for all of these years and helping us with this legislation today. General Leave

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 673, sponsored by our distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, expresses support and solidarity for the efforts of the people of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights. It also urges the Government of Belarus to conduct free and fair Presidential elections on March 19. I would like at the outset to commend our distinguished colleague, Mr. Shimkus, for his hard work on this resolution and his great interest and passion for supporting freedom in Belarus and in other countries of the former Soviet Union. Belarus, as my colleagues know, is often described as ``the last dictatorship in Europe.'' In the past 3 or 4 years, especially since the 2004 parliamentary elections and referendum, President Alexander Lukashenko has increased repression against NGOs, media outlets, any opponents of the government, including youth groups. Perhaps most disturbing are the cases of forced disappearances of lawmakers and journalists and others who have dared to criticize the Lukashenko dictatorship. To date, the Government of Belarus has refused to conduct an impartial investigation into these disappearances and has refused to allow an independent U.N.-appointed investigator to look into these cases. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Lukashenko regime has only become more dictatorial with the passage of time. The assault on civil society, the NGOs, the independent media, democratic opposition, and increasing pressure on unregistered and minority religious groups has only intensified, becoming daily occurrences. Despite innumerable calls for Belarus to live up to its freely undertaken OSCE election commitments, elections in 2000, 2001, and 2004 were neither free nor fair. It follows along a downward trajectory that began a decade ago when Lukashenko, through an illegitimate referendum, took control over the legislature and the judiciary and manipulated the Constitution to remain in power. Mr. Speaker, Belarus, which borders on EU and NATO member countries, has become an increasingly stark anomaly in a growing democratic Europe. The Belarusian people have become even more isolated from the winds of democracy following neighboring Ukraine's Orange Revolution. Lukashenko's fear that the people would follow the Ukrainian example has led to further clamping down on those who dare to speak out for freedom. Among the numerous examples that can be cited here on the floor: Just last week, one Belarusian opposition candidate running for next week's elections was detained by security forces and severely beaten. Yesterday we received reports that five members of the campaign of the United Opposition Candidate, Alexander Milinkevych, was held by police and driven away. In recent weeks Lukashenko has launched an intensive campaign to encourage a climate of fear and stoke hostility among the Belarusian people through a Soviet-style propaganda campaign against the opposition: Europe and the United States. Mr. Speaker, as the prime sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act, which was signed into law by President Bush, I welcome the administration's growing engagement with the people of Belarus. I am pleased that President Bush and other high-ranking officials met with Irena Krasovska and Tatyana Zavadska, two of the wives of opposition figures believed to have been murdered with the complicity of Belarusian senior officials. I would note, parenthetically, that I have had the privilege of meeting with them and others on a number of occasions over the last 6 years and have admired their determination and courage to seek an accounting of their loved ones, in most cases their missing, possibly murdered husbands. Given the disturbing, Mr. Speaker, preelection environment, where meaningful access to the media by opposition candidates is denied, where independent voices are stifled, and where the regime maintains pervasive control over the election process, it is very hard to imagine that next week's elections will be free. They are already not fair. In the event that protests are held in response to electoral fraud, we are reminded by Belarusian authorities that the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental human right and a basic tenet of the OSCE. Any violent suppression of peaceful protests will have serious repercussions and only deepen Belarus' self-imposed isolation. Over the course of the last century, the Belarusian people have endured great suffering at the hands of murderous dictators such as Stalin and Hitler. Twenty years ago they endured, and continue to endure, Chernobyl's dark cloud. The Belarusian people deserve the freedom and the dignity long denied them, and Belarus deserves its rightful place in a free, prosperous and democratic Europe. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for authoring this legislation. It sends a clear, unmistakable message to the Lukashenko dictatorship, and a message of solidarity and concern to the people that hopefully there will be a brighter day for this important country. But it is only because of ongoing, dogged determination on the part of the pro-democracy advocates inside that country and their friends outside, like Mr. Lantos, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Shimkus, and others; that we keep the pressure on from without so that someday human rights and democracy will flourish in Belarus. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 673) expressing support for the efforts of the people of the Republic of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and urging the Government of Belarus to conduct a free and fair Presidential election on March 19, 2006.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the author of H. Res. 673, my good friend and colleague. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 673.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I chaired a hearing on the Internet in China regarding an issue that is deeply troubling to me, and I believe, to the American people: that American technology and know-how is substantially enabling repressive regimes in China and elsewhere in the world to cruelly exploit and abuse their own citizens. Over the years, I have held 25 hearings on human rights abuses in China, and while China's economy has improved somewhat, the human rights situation remains abysmal. So-called economic reform has utterly failed to result in the protection of freedom of speech, expression, or assembly. The Laogai system of forced labor camps is still full with an estimated 6 million people; the Chinese government permits a horrifying trade in human organs; the PRC's draconian one-child-per-couple policy has made brothers and sisters illegal and coerced abortion commonplace; and political and religious dissidents are systematically persecuted and tortured. 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 e-mail 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. 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 was recently on a news show talking about Google and China. The question was asked, ``Should it be business' concern to promote democracy in foreign nations?'' That's not necessarily the right question. The more appropriate question today is, ``Should business enable the continuation of repressive dictatorships by partnering with a corrupt and cruel secret police and by cooperating with laws that violate basic human rights?'' 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. Web sites that provide the Chinese people news about their country and the world, such as BBC, much of CNN, 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. Cisco has provided the Chinese government with the technology necessary to filter Internet content through its creation of Policenet, one of the tools the regime uses to control the Internet. Cisco holds 60 percent of the Chinese market for routers, switches, and other sophisticated networking gear, and its estimated revenue from China, according to Derek Bambauer of Legal Affairs, is estimated to be $500 million annually. Yet Cisco has also done little creative thinking to try to minimize the likelihood that its products will be used repressively, such as limiting eavesdropping abilities to specific computer addresses. Similarly, Google censors what are euphemistically called ``politically sensitive'' terms, such as ``democracy,'' ``China human rights,'' ``China torture'' and the like on its new Chinese search site, Google.cn. Let's take a look at what this means in practice. 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. Another example: let's look at ``China and torture.'' Google has said 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. Not surprisingly, Americans, not just Chinese, are also the victims of this censorship. On an informal request from the Chinese government, Microsoft on December 30, 2005 shut down the blog of Zhao Jing because the content of Zhao's blog on MSN Spaces was offensive to the PRC. Zhao had tried to organize a walk-off of journalists at the Beijing News after their editor was fired for reporting on clashes between Chinese citizens and police in southern China. However, Microsoft shut down the blog not only in China, but everywhere. It not only censored Chinese access to information, but American access to information, a step it has only recently pulled back from. Like Yahoo, MSN defended its decision by asserting that MSN is committed to complying with ``local laws, norms, and industry practices in China.'' Regrettably, I haven't been able to find an MSN statement on its commitment to global laws, norms, and industry practices protecting human rights in China. Standing for human rights has never been easy or without cost. It seems that companies have always resisted having to abide by ethical standards, yet we have seen the success of such agreements as the Sullivan principles in South Africa and MacBride principles in Northern Ireland. I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, would welcome leadership by the corporations to develop a code of conduct which would spell out how they could operate in China and other repressive countries while not harming citizens and respecting human rights. But I believe 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 introduced HR 4780, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, to promote freedom of expression on the Internet. There are some encouraging and innovative public and private efforts already underway in this area. Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, allows Windows-based computers to become proxies for Internet users, circumventing local Internet restrictions. Through the efforts of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors' fund of a mere $100,000, VOA and Radio Free Asia's Web sites are accessible to Chinese Internet users through proxy servers because of the technology of Dynaweb and UltraReach. Earlier this month, the technology firm Anonymizer announced that it is developing a new anti-censorship technology that will enable Chinese citizens to safely access the entire Internet filter-free. The solution will provide a regularly changing URL so that users can likely access the uncensored Internet. In addition, users' identities are apparently protected from online monitoring by the Chinese regime. Lance Cottrell of Anonymizer said it ``is not willing to sit idly by while the freedom of the Internet is slowly crushed. We take pride in the fact that our online privacy and security solutions provide access to global information for those under the thumb of repressive regimes.'' In conclusion, I am hopeful that the hearing was the beginning of a different sort of dialogue--a discussion on how American high-tech firms can partner with the U.S. government and human rights activists to bring down the Great Firewall of China, and on how America's greatest software engineers can use their intelligence to create innovative new products to protect dissidents and promote human rights. I would also like to recognize and honor the work of Dr. John S. Aird, a distinguished American whose immeasurable contributions as a scholar, population expert, and defender of human rights have changed the lives of so many over the course of his career. It was with great sadness that I learned of Dr. Aird's death last October. His passing represents a grave loss for all of us who are committed to ensuring human rights around the world, and his tremendous work in this and other fields will not be forgotten. Dr. Aird, former Senior Research Specialist on China at the U.S. Census Bureau, served for 28 years as that organization's resident expert on the population of China. He was a forthright and vehement critic of the Chinese government's coercive one-child family planning policy. During his retirement, Dr. Aird worked as a full-time volunteer. He provided expert testimony in immigration courts for 415 families, helping Chinese citizens fleeing their country's coercive family planning programming to secure asylum in the United States. John S. Aird was truly one of the most informed and outspoken opponents of China's one-child policy. He testified before this and other Congressional committees on numerous occasions, and I believe my colleagues would join me in saying that his insights were consistently persuasive and well-considered, and proved invaluable to our work on human rights in China.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on January 16, Ellen Johnson- Sirleaf was sworn in as the first elected female president in the history of independent Africa. Mrs. Sirleaf had run against Charles Taylor in 1997, but lost, at least partly due to the impression that Taylor would return to war if he failed to win the election. Following the election, Mrs. Sirleaf spent a great deal of time outside Liberia, and many observers felt her gender and her supposed lack of common touch would prevent her from ever being elected President. In 2005, former international soccer star George Weah captured the imagination of many inside and outside Liberia, who felt that his connection with Liberia's youth made him an almost inevitable winner, despite his lack of education and political experience. However, in the run-off election between the two, Mrs. Sirleaf employed modem campaign techniques, including polling, message development and targeted campaigning to achieve a stunning victory. Her connection with women voters may have made not only the difference in her election, but also may pave the way for other female candidates throughout Africa. Now that she is leading this West African nation, the question is: What can she do to turn it around from the chaos and poverty into which it had fallen? From its independence in 1847 until 1980, Liberia was ruled by the descendants of former slaves from the United States. They managed to turn this nation into an economic engine, using the country's wealth of natural resources. Abundant sources of water and fertile soil supported rubber, palm oil and tropical fruit plantations, as well as some of the richest timber supplies in Africa. Liberia's mountains contained some of the highest quality iron ore in the world, and there were significant deposits of diamonds and gold. Unfortunately, the so-called Americo-Liberians denied the descendants of the indigenous people their benefit from Liberia's natural wealth and their fair share of political power. The 1980 coup by then-Sergeant Samuel Doe led to the ascendancy of indigenous ethnic groups, but it also led to a poisonous political atmosphere and rampant official corruption. In late 1989, Charles Taylor, a former member of the Doe government and an escapee from a prison in America, began an insurgency that eventually toppled the Doe government in 1990. Several years of factional fighting devastated the capital city of Monrovia, as well as much of the country. Following a rather shaky cease-fire, a 1997 election brought Charles Taylor to power. By that time, more than 150,000 of his countrymen had died in the fighting, and more than half the population had been displaced. The Taylor regime was a disaster for Liberia. Taylor and his government looted the treasury and Liberia's natural resources. Political opponents were jailed, or in the case of Sam Dokie and his family members, they were killed. However, Taylor also was a catastrophe for its West African neighbors. Rebels who had been supported by Taylor have destabilized Sierra Leone, Guinea and Cote d'Ivoire. Taylor's crimes against his own people stimulated an insurgency that eventually led to his negotiated exile in Nigeria. His crimes against the region led first to United Nations sanctions in 2001 for his support of the Revolutionary United Front rebels in Sierra Leone and subsequently to an indictment for war crimes by the UN-sponsored war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone in 2003. The issue of Taylor's extradition to the Sierra Leone Special Court remains high on the agenda of the U.S. Government. Nevertheless, there are internal issues facing the new government in Liberia that also are pressing, and that was the main focus of our hearing last week on Liberia and the impact of its election on West Africa. During the Taylor regime, and apparently also during the transitional government headed by Gyude Bryant, corruption became a way of life in Liberia. Illegal logging and mining and just plain theft of government resources were commonplace. In fact, the transitional government officials reportedly took furniture, computers and even rugs and light fixtures when they left office just a couple of weeks ago. In one of her first acts as President, Mrs. Sirleaf fired the entire staff of the Ministry of Finance for corruption and told the officials to stay in the country pending an audit. The ministry and the Central Bank significantly differ as to the amount of money on hand for government operations. Those funds are desperately needed to repair Liberia's roads, water systems and power supply--all of which suffered from years of warfare and neglect. The Sirleaf government will have to examine all contracts to determine if they are in the best interest of the nation and rationally exploit Liberia's resources. Too many of the population of 3 million remain displaced, and 85 percent of Liberia's people are unemployed and 80 percent live below the poverty line. About 70 percent of the population survives on agriculture, which remains disrupted due to the lingering impact of the war. If Liberia is to recover from its long nightmare, the United States will have to take the lead among the international community to assist in that restoration. That will require focus and consistency in America's engagement. Liberians feel a kinship to America that Americans do not share with Liberia. Nevertheless, our country's relationship with Liberia is quite real and very important for the welfare of its 3 neighbors. The Bush administration and Congress must take these facts into account in developing policies and programs to respond to Liberia's new, post- election realities.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 7, I chaired a hearing on the current human rights situation in Burma, and what the U.S. and the international community can and must do to improve that situation. After 40 years of brutal military dictatorships, the human rights situation in Burma is frightening. That nation's current military junta, in power for over 17 years, is an abysmal failure on every conceivable level. It has ruined a beautiful and naturally rich land. According to the State Department's most recent Human Rights Country Report: More than 4 decades of economic mismanagement and endemic corruption have resulted in widespread poverty, poor health care, declining education levels, poor infrastructure, and continuously deteriorating economic conditions. During the year, poor economic policymaking, lingering consequences of the 2003 private banking sector collapse, and the economic consequences of international sanctions further weakened the economy. The estimated annual per capita income was approximately $225. Most of the population of more than 50 million live in rural areas at subsistence levels. The Heritage Foundation ranked Iran and North Korea as the only countries with more restrictive economies than that of Burma. But economic misery is probably the least of the problems faced by Burma's long-suffering people. Citizens still did not have the right to criticize or change their government . . . Security forces continued to carry out extrajudicial killings. Disappearances continued, and security forces raped, tortured, beat, and otherwise abused prisoners and detainees. Citizens were subjected to arbitrary arrest without appeal.--2004 State Department Human Rights Report. There are more than 1,100 political prisoners in Burma, who are abused and tortured. Seven are reported to have died in custody last year, and just last month a 38-year-old democratic activist died in custody due to inadequate medical attention. Over 15 years ago the National League for Democracy, led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and other democratic forces, won an overwhelming victory in free elections, 82 percent. The junta refused to accept the results or to call Parliament into session. Instead it imprisoned many activists, including Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent 10 years under house arrest. Her current house arrest is tantamount to solitary confinement. She has been cruelly kept away from her children, and her husband, who died abroad. For 15 years the junta has cynically proclaimed its intention to draft a new constitution via a national convention, with no participation by the people's democratic representatives. That national convention has again been adjourned, with no constitution, and no freedom, in sight. Since 1999, the U.S. Secretary of State has designated Burma as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' under the International Religious Freedom Act for particularly severe violations of religious freedom. According to the U.S. Department of State, Burma continues to be a Tier 3 Country for human trafficking, and ``the junta's policy of using forced labor is a driving factor behind Burma's large trafficking problem.'' The ILO has condemned Burma's use of forced labor, and the ILO representative in Burma has received death threats. Burma has threatened to quit the ILO. Burma regularly prosecutes those who complain about forced labor. Last October, Burma sentenced a 34-year- old woman to 20 months in prison for ``criminal intimidation'' of local officials. Her offense? She had the temerity to initiate the first successful prosecution for use of forced labor in Burma. She had lodged a complaint in 2004 against local government officials over their use of forced labor on a road construction project. She exercised her right to do this under new regulations introduced by the government to appease the International Labor Organization, ILO. She is now in prison, and her appeal was summarily denied. Burma is high on the list of uncooperative drug-producing or transiting countries, and there is evidence of military and government involvement in the narcotics traffic. Burma produces about 80 percent of Southeast Asia's heroin, and is one of the largest producers of methamphetamines in the world. It exports its illicit narcotics throughout China and Southeast and Central Asia. And as Burma's heroin circulates through Asia, so does HIV/AIDS, which Burma refuses to take seriously as a domestic problem, although the U.N. estimated in 1999 that over half a million adults had HIV. According to one estimate, Burma spent only $22,000 in 2004 to help AIDS victims. In 2005, the regime tightened restrictions on NGOs and U.N. agency staff providing humanitarian assistance in Burma. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria announced in August that it was terminating its $98 million program on the ground that ``its grants to the country cannot be managed in a way that ensures effective program implementation.'' The French contingent of medical aid group Medecin Sans Frontieres reportedly plans to withdraw from Burma because of restrictions imposed on access to villagers. The military's self-justification for its decades of arbitrary rule is to protect Burma from ``instability.'' Yet for 40 years it has waged endless war on the nation's ethnic minorities, killing tens of thousands, driving hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of others into exile as refugees or within Burma as displaced persons. It has destroyed over 2,500 villages, and uses rape as an instrument of policy. And to wage these wars, it has resorted to conscription of children: more than 70,000 child soldiers may be serving, in horrible circumstances, in Burma's bloated army. The U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Sergio Pinheiro, has not been allowed into Burma for 2 years. In January 2006, U.N. Special Envoy to Burma Razali Ismail resigned his post after nearly 5 years, since the junta has not allowed him into the country for 2 years. With such a record, it is no wonder that the U.S. has a wide array of sanctions in place against Burma, many of which must be renewed this year. And many wonder, can any progress be made? Yet in the midst of so much darkness, there has been light this year. In September 2005, Nobel Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Czech President Vaclav Havel released a major report documenting Burma's human rights problems as a threat to regional peace and security. In December, with the strong support of the United States, U.N. Undersecretary for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari, in the unusual but significant presence of Secretary General Kofi Annan, personally gave the Security Council its first-ever briefing on the situation in Burma, a possible first step towards tougher international action. He went on record that the Burmese junta imprisons dissidents, ignores basic human rights, and is steering the country ``towards a humanitarian crisis.'' The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, which Burma joined in 1997, has finally moved from a posture of ``constructive engagement,'' without sanctions or diplomatic pressure, to a more proactive approach to promote change. But most of all, we owe this progress to this administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, and even more importantly, President George Bush, have been relentless in making the world face up to the appalling disaster in Burma. We have just begun, and we have a long way to go, but we in Congress are determined to support these efforts to bring peace and freedom to the heroic Burmese people, who, in the face of so much persecution and suffering, still persist in their resolute struggle for justice. The next logical step to take is for the U.S., which is currently President of the Security Council, to introduce a Security Council Resolution calling on Burma, in the strongest possible terms: to release Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners; implement a program for national reconciliation that includes the National League for Democracy; and grant immediate and unhindered access to all parts of Burma for U.N. relief agencies and other international humanitarian organizations. Such a resolution should include a timeline for compliance and punitive sanctions if the SPDC fails to comply. We heard testimony from Assistant Secretary of State Barry Lowenkron, of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. It was Mr. Lowenkron's first time before this House, and we look forward to a very fruitful collaboration on the vital issues he promotes. His Bureau has kept attention focused on Burma when most have forgotten it. We also heard testimony from Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who is the chief executor of our President's policy to change Burma. Additional witnesses included: Mr. Bo Kyi, of the Assistance Association of Political Prisoners, a former political prisoner himself, who described his own torments, and the ongoing struggles of democracy activists in Burma and in exile; Naw Win Yee, a leading member of the Shan Women's Action Network, an organization comprised of refugee women living in Thailand that works for human rights, freedom and democracy in Burma and also works to elevate the roles of women in Burmese politics and society. SWAN produced a ground breaking report on the military regime's use of rape as a weapon of war in Burma that was subsequently corroborated by the U.S. State Department; Mr. Tom Malinowski, the Washington Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch, who urged the U.S. to keep the pressure on the Burmese regime; and Ms. Anastasia Brown, the Director of Refugee Programs, Migration and Refugee Services for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, who had just returned from a visit to the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand, and made an urgent and eloquent plea for quick action to resolve the problems of the resettlement of Burmese refugees. All the witnesses provided strong confirmation that Congress needs to stay closely involved in the ongoing human rights tragedy in Burma.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for H. Res. 657, a resolution recognizing the valuable contribution of Catholic Schools. Last week marked the 32nd annual Catholic Schools Week, a week dedicated to honor the achievements and successes of Catholic Schools throughout the U.S. More than 2.4 million children are enrolled in the 7,799 Catholic schools in our country. In addition, 720,000 students are enrolled in the 212 Catholic Colleges and Universities nationwide. In my home State of New Jersey, 129,232 students are enrolled in Catholic Schools. In fact, New Jersey has the sixth largest enrollment of students in Catholic Schools out of all 50 States. Of course, children do not form their core values on the sole basis of what schools teach them. Learning a respect for life and respect for the rights of others is not the purview of schools alone; it begins and is nurtured in the home. Accordingly, the Catholic school curriculum recognizes parents and family as primary educators and seeks to foster a shared vision between the school and family. As the father of four children who have attended Catholic schools, I know that Catholic school educators strive to work hand-in-hand reinforcing family values, ethical behavior, social responsibility, and academic achievement. Placing a premium on both academic standards and moral responsibility has proven to be a successful formula for Catholic Schools. Catholic Secondary Schools have a 99 percent graduation rate and moreover, 97 percent of graduates continue their education. Learning in a religious setting is not for everyone and America's public school system is critical to providing educational opportunities for all. We must continue to vigorously support our public schools at both the federal and local levels. At the same time, however, we should support those who seek the benefits of Catholic school and choose a religious setting as the best educational environment for their children. The contribution of Catholic schools to our Nation extends beyond the classroom. Catholic elementary and secondary schools save the government and taxpayers of the U.S. up to $20 billion a year. In effect, parents of Catholic school children pay twice--they pay their fair share of taxes necessary to support the public school system and they pay tuition at the school their children attend. In order to address this issue, I have introduced H.R. 441, the Education, Achievement and Opportunity Act. This bill provides refundable tax credits for the educational expenses incurred by parents for elementary and secondary school. Most significantly, the tax credit is used for private school tuition, however, it can also be used for other educational needs such as computers, tutoring or transportation fees. Thus, parents sending their children to public school can also benefit from this legislation. A Catholic education challenges students through a combination of high standards, strong motivation, effective discipline and an emphasis on personal responsibility. It is an education that goes beyond preparation for a secular life; it is an education that prepares students for a Christian life. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members lend their support to H. Res. 657, and pass it unanimously.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to set the record straight about significant misinformation that continues to be disseminated concerning an amendment I offered last summer. Planned Parenthood has refused to admit the truth about the true genesis of this amendment. Because Planned Parenthood boasts that ``trust is the cornerstone of why people choose [them],'' I cannot allow its lies to continue unanswered. And I believe it's time Americans take a look at Planned Parenthood on other issues as well, including abortion. Several years ago I became aware of a devastating condition called fistula. Fistula is a terribly painful disorder that marginalizes women in many parts of the developing world, yet is relatively inexpensive to treat. I authored legislation to authorize USAID to provide much-needed assistance to women desperate for treatment. Unfortunately, with the help of organizations like Planned Parenthood, some of my colleagues tried to weaken the authorization by adding language that would have prevented crucial faith-based health care providers from helping women through this program. Women suffering with fistula need treatment, and provisions mandating contraceptives would have prevented some health care providers most suited to provide treatment from doing so. These women need speedy treatment, not politicized language. As the prime author of H.R. 2601--The Foreign Assistance Authorization Act of FY 06 and 07--I personally wrote the section in the bill, (Sec. 1001) that authorizes the President to establish at least 12 treatment centers to provide surgery and healing therapies for women suffering from a devastating condition known as obstetric fistula. The bill also provides for the dissemination of educational information so that women will know where to go for affordable treatment and how to protect against the occurrence of this preventable, curable condition. Obstetric fistula is an excruciatingly painful hole or rupture in tissues surrounding a woman's birth canal, bladder, or rectum that is caused by rape, physical abuse or untreated, obstructed labor. Tragically, the constant leaking of urine and feces leads to sickness, desertion by husbands and family, extreme social isolation, and poverty. Amazingly, for $150--$300, a woman victimized by fistula can obtain a surgical repair which gives her back her life. No woman should be denied this minimal, life-saving surgical repair. For several years now, I have asked USAID and the Congress to establish a program to assist women who suffer from obstetric fistula. According to USAID, an estimated 2 million women suffer needlessly from fistula, with 50-100 thousand new cases added every year, mostly in Africa. USAID has begun to provide support for fistula centers, and that's great. They hoped to put $3 million into the program by the end of 2005 and they have already identified a dozen medical facilities ready to participate and help these women. My bill, which originally authorized $5 million for 2006 and $5 million in 2007, ensures that the program is properly implemented and able to aid as many women, and young girls, as possible. During committee mark-up on H.R. 2601, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) amended my language in H.R. 2601, to mandate that the new centers ``expand access to contraception.'' At first blush, the language looked OK, but it became very clear that it would have had the dire consequence of excluding certain faith-based health providers who, while deeply committed to mitigating the pain of fistula, would be barred from receiving funds. For example, the Crowley language would have excluded NGOs and church-based organizations opposed to chemicals that act as abortifacients--those that prevent implantation of a newly created human life--from getting any U.S. funds. Had my amendment not succeeded, several hospitals selected by USAID as ``fistula centers'' would have lost funding. The amendment I offered that passed on the floor in July corrected this problem so that the faith-based sites including those already identified for the program by USAID--and perhaps others in future-- could participate and provide assistance to women in need. My amendment to my own bill also increased the funding in 2007 to $7.5 million, since it is obvious that once the centers are up and running the demand for the cure will be even greater. To participate in the program, providers must offer critical treatment care--including increased access to skilled birth attendants--and may offer information about a number of preventative practices such as abstinence education, encouraging postponement of marriage and childbearing until after teenage years, and family planning services for women whose age or health status place them at high risk of prolonged or obstructed childbirth. Nothing in my original fistula language or my amendment adopted on the floor restricts access to family planning services. Rather, my amendment made a variety of preventative practices optional and as such is sensitive to and consistent with the values of the people--and the hospitals that serve them--in developing countries. Despite all this, Planned Parenthood still insists on praising the people who would have killed the amendment and attacking me. The headline on its website reads: ``Rep. Chris Smith's Latest Political Attack on Women.'' The closing line of its story says, ``The gentleman from New Jersey would do well--just once--to try and feel the pain of others.'' I have authored numerous laws--that is to say, I am the prime sponsor of laws--that directly benefit women, including the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386), the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108- 193), the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-164), the Results and Accountability in Microenterprise (P.L. 108-484), and the Microenterprise Enhancement Act of 2003 (P.L. 108- 31),just to name a few. I helped secure the passage of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization in 2000 by incorporating its major provisions into my law, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000. I have fought for human rights and health care my entire career. I am currently the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations and the Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (also known as the United States Helsinki Commission), which works to promote and foster democracy, human rights, and stability in Eastern and Central Europe. I served as the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee until 2005, where I authored laws that are helping veterans to this day and will for as far as the eye can see in the areas of health care, college education, widows' benefits, and the creation of a new comprehensive program to help homeless veterans. I also presently serve as the co- chair and co-founder of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, the founding co-chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, the co-founder of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, the co-chair and co-founder of the Congressional Refugee Caucus, and the co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. Having served 26 years in Congress, I could continue this list, Mr. Speaker. I set forth my dedication to these causes here not to promote myself, but to show Planned Parenthood's deceptions. Planned Parenthood's vicious attacks on me are, at best, misinformed; at worst, libel. Sadly, this is a pattern of conduct with Planned Parenthood, seeking to discredit anyone who includes the protection of the unborn along with fundamental human rights. When one stops to consider the big business that is abortion, it is no wonder. Abortion as a business Planned Parenthood makes millions of dollars plying its lethal trade at nearly 850 clinics in the U.S. alone. Judith Fetrow, a former Planned Parenthood worker, verifies this fact: ``It is extremely difficult to watch doctors lie, clinic workers cover up, and hear terrifying stories of women dragged out of clinics to die in cars on the way to the hospital without beginning to question the party line. I began to wonder if we were really caring for these women, or if we were just working for another corporation whose only interest was the bottom line.'' Tragically, the seemingly benign Planned Parenthood is in the grisly business of dismembering the fragile bodies of unborn children with sharp knives and hideous suction machines that are 25 to 30 times more powerful than a vacuum cleaner used at home. Planned Parenthood ought to be known as ``Child Abuse, Incorporated,'' for the large number of children that it has killed and continues to kill, all the while being subsidized by American taxpayers. This is not a business of healing, nurturing, or caring--this is a business of killing. For Planned Parenthood, business is good. Violence against children pays handsomely. In 2004, it increased the number of abortions it performed by 10,000--while abortions nationwide have declined--for a total of 255,015, a new pathetic record of kids killed even for Planned Parenthood. For ``medical abortions,'' Planned Parenthood quotes prices from $350 to $650. For first-trimester vacuum and D&E abortions, the only type of surgical abortions for which they provide a price range, Planned Parenthood earns $350 to $700 apiece. To put the number of child deaths in perspective, picture this: 67,500 fans filled Ford Field to watch the Super Bowl last Sunday night. Planned Parenthood performed 255,015 abortions in 2004. The number of unborn babies whose lives were taken from them before they could take their first breath by this one corporation in one year could have filled that stadium nearly four times over. Planned Parenthood is now responsible for committing nearly one out of every five abortions performed in the United States, with its numbers steadily rising while the overall totals in the U.S. have been declining. Over the course of time, Planned Parenthood's tally in the taking of innocent children's lives has exceeded the three million mark. If the number of abortions performed alone doesn't convince you of Planned Parenthood's agenda, Mr. Speaker, just compare it with the other services it provided in the name of ``family planning.'' Planned Parenthood--parenthood, Mr. Speaker--provided a mere 17,610 clients with prenatal care. That's a ratio of one parent to every 14 women who lost their children to abortion. Planned Parenthood referred a meager 1,414 clients to adoption services. That means it killed 180 babies for everyone it referred to be placed with a couple desperately seeking a child. To me, Mr. Speaker, this record doesn't seem to be that of an organization dedicated to preserving women's ``choices.'' And if that is not enough, this so-called ``pro-choice'' organization does everything within its power and massive budget to prevent women from knowing all their options and being certain that their choices are truly informed. Planned Parenthood both lobbies and litigates against virtually every child protection initiative at both the state and federal level, including parental and spousal notification, women's right to know laws, waiting periods, partial-birth abortion bans, unborn victims of violence laws, statutory rape reporting laws, and abortion funding bans. It inflates statistics to promote its own agenda. One of the abortion community's own exposed them, though, when Ron Fitzsimmons, the director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers publicly admitted that he ``lied through (his) teeth'' when he told a TV interviewer that partial-birth abortion was ``used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.'' Fitzsimmons confessed that the myth about this horrific abortion procedure was deliberately propagated by the abortion lobby-- including Planned Parenthood and its research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). In a 1995 letter to Members of Congress, Planned Parenthood, AGI, and other groups stated, ``This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer than 500 per year. It is most often performed in the cases of wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong, when a family learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies or a medical condition that threatens the pregnant woman's life or health.'' In truth, Fitzsimmons explained, the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy fetuses, 20 weeks or more along, with healthy mothers. The number of 500 partial-birth abortions a year that Planned Parenthood cited in its letter was also a complete falsehood. Fitzsimmons estimated that the method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually. I would argue that even this number is low--in just one New Jersey abortion mill, the Bergen Record newspaper reported that 1,500 children were killed by partial birth abortion in one year. When Planned Parenthood can't accomplish its deadly goals through the democratic process, it turns to the courts. It files approximately 50 lawsuits a year to protect its business interests in abortion. Then, Planned Parenthood fights tooth and nail to prevent judges who recognize the inherent value of human life at every stage, as well as the constitutional protections of that life, from getting on the bench. Luckily for us, the American people and our President and Senate have seen through that propaganda blitz. International efforts Sadly, it does exactly the same thing overseas, and many foreign governments are eventually deceived by its arguments. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America-International is leaving no stone unturned in its misguided, obsessive campaign to legalize abortion on demand. If it succeeds, millions of babies will die from the violence of abortion. We cannot add to the body count. In Planned Parenthood's 2003-2004 annual report, the organization clearly admits its goal. It states that programs supported by Planned Parenthood Federation of America-International ``guarantee the sexual and reproductive health and rights of individuals by providing. .. safe abortion and post-abortion care services. . .'' The use of family planning to cloak its real agenda--the use of family planning as a cover for permissive abortion laws--is now commonplace, and must be stopped. In over 100 countries around the world, the lives of unborn children are still protected by law. But in country after country, we find Planned Parenthood zealots partnering with well-financed NGOs from Europe to promote violence against unborn babies. And as Planned Parenthood--the most prominent advocate, sometimes the only advocate--of legalizing abortion on demand--has said, ``When abortion laws are liberalized, the number of abortions skyrocket.'' That is Planned Parenthood's word, skyrocket. So if we want more abortions--more dead babies and more wounded women--liberalize the laws. Taxpayer subsidy Over a third of Planned Parenthood's income comes from the pockets of tax-paying Americans, through local, state, and federal governments. Sure, we have the Hyde Amendment in place, thankfully, which prevents taxpayer dollars from directly funding abortions, but money is fungible. The millions of dollars we give to Planned Parenthood to provide so-called ``family planning'' services immediately frees up millions more to be used for the performance and promotion of abortion. Americans' hard-earned money goes to keep the lights on and pay the heat bill for this industry that is literally making a killing taking the lives of the children they'll never get the chance to meet. People who see that abortion is murder are still forced to subsidize the lawsuits and lobbying that keeps abortion legal. Planned Parenthood's 2003-04 annual report brags about how it helped increase Title X funding, for a total of $273 million in taxpayer dollars. It also discloses that it received $265.2 million in government grants and contracts from Title X and other sources during that period. The abortion promoters never tire of reminding us that they promote abortion with what they call ``their own money,'' but this argument deliberately misses the point. First, it ignores the fact that all money is fungible. When we pay an organization like Planned Parenthood millions of dollars, we cannot help but enrich and empower all of that organization's activities, all that it does, even if the organization keeps a set of books that says it uses its money for one thing and our money for something else. We must begin to stand with the victims, both mother and child, and against the victimizers. When we subsidize and lavish Federal funds on abortion organizations, we empower the child abusers; and Planned Parenthood, make no mistake about it, both here and overseas, is ``Child Abuse, Incorporated.'' Abortion clinics = torture mills Abortion mills do not nurture, they do not heal, they do not cure disease. Abortion is violence against children. Some abortion methods dismember and rip apart the fragile bodies of children. Other methods chemically poison children. Abortionists turn children's bodies into burned corpses, a direct result of the caustic effect of poisoning and other methods of chemical abortions. I would say to my colleagues, there is absolutely nothing benign or curing or nurturing about abortion. It is violence. It is gruesome. And yet the apologists sanitize the awful deed with soothing, misleading rhetoric. Abortion methods are particularly ugly because, under the guise of choice, they turn baby girls and baby boys into dead baby girls and dead baby boys. I have drafted a bill that would inform women about the pain their unborn babies experience during abortions, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, H.R. 356. This bipartisan bill requires that those performing abortions at or beyond the 20-week point provide the mother with certain information regarding the capacity of her unborn child to experience pain during the abortion, and offer the mother the option of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the unborn child to reduce his or her pain. Not surprisingly, the abortion lobby--including Planned Parenthood--has opposed informing women of this truth, though they do not deny that unborn children may feel pain after 20 weeks gestation. Conscience Forty-five States and the Federal Government protect the right of health care providers to decline involvement in abortion. Planned Parenthood has launched an active campaign to abolish these legal protections, arguing on its website: ``While everyone has the right to their [sic] opinions about reproductive health care, including . . . abortion . . . Health care providers who object to providing certain services still have an obligation to respect the rights of their patients and to enable them to access the health care they need.'' Planned Parenthood wants to compel hospitals and health care providers of conscience to do abortions--it's that simple. Not all of the hospitals and health care providers who oppose this plan are religious. There are people who are not religious who have deep, moral convictions, and they believe that abortion takes the life of a baby. We ought to be nurturing. We should not compel our places of healing to become killing fields. Pro-Choice?? Planned Parenthood reasons that every child should be a wanted child. While the implication of this goal is valiant and an ideal I share, how we go about achieving it is much, much different. I agree, every child deserves to be loved with every ounce of her parents' being--Planned Parenthood, however, would rather kill her than allow her to be born into a home that might not have planned for her or allow another loving family to adopt her. This philosophy turns children into a commodity that is owned--and if they aren't wanted, they are expendable. Planned Parenthood also claims to promote informed choice for women, but the reality of its words and actions belies this assertion. When describing abortion procedures on its website, it consistently talks about the emptying of the uterus, and the elimination of the ``products of conception.'' Even its clinic layouts aim to avoid the acknowledgement of the life of the unborn. One of their employees explained that ``Planned Parenthood is set up so clinic workers never have to see the babies. It's set up that way because having to look at the babies bothers the workers.'' Although Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder, supported abortion, she did recognize that it was murder, admitting, ``Abortion was the wrong way--no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.'' It is incredibly sad that the Planned Parenthood of today has entirely dismissed the humanity of the unborn, and works to delude women into doing the same. Planned Parenthood's website states that it believes: ``Information about becoming pregnant and about postponing, preventing, continuing, or terminating pregnancy should be easily available; the choice of whether or not to parent should be free and informed,'' and that: ``People need accurate and complete information to make childbearing decisions that are appropriate for them. They want and need to know about abstinence, birth control, abortion, adoption, prenatal care, and parenting in an age-appropriate context.'' They say that they believe ``in trusting individuals and providing them with the information they need to make well-informed decisions about sexuality, family planning, and childbearing.'' If all that is true, why do the organization's actions, services, and expenditures not reflect it? Why does it lobby against and sue to overturn every informed consent provision enacted? Why does it provide so many abortions, especially when compared to so few adoption referrals and so little prenatal care? Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood and a virtual who's who of abortion activists in America so vehemently oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and promote a gutting substitute in its stead? Why would it take a position so extreme that 80 percent of Americans oppose it? The mothers of these babies have made their ``choice'' to have their babies, and someone else takes that decision from them. Should a mugger have unfettered access to maim or kill that baby without triggering a separate penalty for the crime? Why would it oppose parental involvement in their daughters' pregnancy decisions, in one of the most important decisions those young girls will ever make? Because, Mr. Chairman, Planned Parenthood is not supportive of ``choice''--it is supportive of abortion, because, after all, that's how it stays in business. pp's targets Planned Parenthood has been very clever and self-serving in its business practices. Not only has it fought to keep abortion legal and to give it protection that is to be found nowhere in our Constitution, not only has it kept its income stream pouring in from local, state, and federal governments and from clients, but it has successfully brainwashed its target audiences so that its ``services'' remain in high demand. Again, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, laid the groundwork for this business plan back in the early 1900s. In her book, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger argued, ``We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.'' In Chapter 5 of that book, which is entitled the ``Cruelty of Charity,'' she pulls no punches in condemning those of us who seek to help poor, disadvantaged pregnant women get maternal health care: ``. . . Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ``failure'' of philanthropy, but rather at its success. . . . But there is a special type of philanthropy or benevolence, now widely advertised and advocated, both as a federal program and as worthy of private endowment, which strikes me as being more insidiously injurious than any other. This concerns itself directly with the function of maternity, and aims to supply gratis medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers. Such women are to be visited by nurses and to receive instruction in the ``hygiene of pregnancy''; to be guided in making arrangements for confinements; to be invited to come to the doctor's clinics for examination and supervision. They are, we are informed, to ``receive adequate care during pregnancy, at confinement, and for one month afterward. Thus are mothers and babies to be saved, ``Childbearing is to be made safe.'' The work of the maternity centers in the various American cities in which they have already been established and in which they are supported by private contributions and endowment, it is hardly necessary to point out, is carried on among the poor and more docile sections of the city, among mothers least able, through poverty and ignorance, to afford the care and attention necessary for successful maternity. . . . The effect of maternity endowments and maternity centers supported by private philanthropy would have, perhaps already have had, exactly the most dysgenic tendency. The new government program would facilitate the function of maternity among the very classes in which the absolute necessity is to discourage it. Such ``benevolence'' is not merely superficial and nearsighted. It conceals a stupid cruelty . . . Aside from the question of the unfitness of many women to become mothers, aside from the very definite deterioration in the human stock that such programs would inevitable hasten, we may question its value even to the normal though unfortunate mother. For it is never the intention of such philanthropy to give the poor over-burdened and often undernourished mother of the slum the opportunity to make the choice herself, to decide whether she wishes time after time to bring children into the world. . . . The most serious charge that can be brought against modem ``benevolence'' is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents.'' In 1922, Margaret Sanger stated, ``All our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working classes.'' The Planned Parenthood of today has stayed true to Sanger's school of thought, identifying its ``core clients'' as ``young women, low-income women, and women of color.'' Planned Parenthood's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, has disclosed that this objective has been achieved: forty- five percent of women who have abortions are college-age, 18-24 years old. Women aged 20-24 have a higher abortion rate than any other group, followed closely by women aged 18-19. Black women are three times as likely as others to have abortions, and the numbers of poor women who have abortions are triple those of others. Since 1973, the year the unelected, lifetime-appointed justices on the Supreme Court made abortion legal on demand, at least 13.8 million minority babies have been aborted. Black and Hispanic women represent only a quarter of American women of child-bearing age, yet account for more than half of all abortions in the US. Alveda King, the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was herself deceived by the lies of the abortion lobby in the wake of Roe v. Wade. Alveda experienced firsthand the tragic consequences abortion inflicts on women who undergo them--she had two abortions and now deeply regrets them--and to their entire families, and to society in general. Citing her uncle, who once said, ``The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety,'' Alveda asks, ``How can the `Dream' survive if we murder the children?'' Today, Alveda is part of a courageous group of women, all of whom have had abortions and have come to regret that fact, called Silent No More. These amazing women help women who have had abortion find peace and reconciliation. effects of abortion on women Planned Parenthood also perpetuates the myth that abortion is safer than childbirth. Of course its never safer for the baby. And the CDC abortion surveillance, however, doesn't even track morbidity, so data on injury and illness from abortion is obtained from the abortion mills--talk about a conflict of interest. Mortality--death to women from abortion--is likely to be underreported. That's true, in part, because women who have had abortions, suffering serious complications, often seek assistance at hospital emergency rooms rather than the abortion mill, and the death certificates, at times, list sepsis or infection, rather than abortion, as the cause of death. Moreover, national reporting of death to women from abortion is extremely passive, thus the likelihood of underreporting. I would encourage anyone seeking the truth on this question to ask the family and friends of Holly Patterson, who died two weeks after her eighteenth birthday from septic shock after taking RU-486, the abortion pill. Her parents had no idea what she had done until arriving at the hospital the day she died. The abortion pill was provided to her at a Planned Parenthood clinic. A state of California investigation into her death found that that clinic failed to report her death to the state Department of Health, and that it did not give her full information and education on how to take the drug. This is not surprising, considering that Planned Parenthood was involved in the sham trials that allowed RU-486 to be approved for sale by the Clinton FDA, something that needs to be seriously reconsidered and the drug pulled off the market. Between October 1994 and September 1995, the Des Moines, Iowa, Planned Parenthood clinic participated in these trials. Based on Planned Parenthood's accounting, news reports said no problems had been experienced in the trials. One Iowa doctor watching the news was in disbelief about what he was reading. This doctor, Mark Louviere, had attended to a woman who had participated in the trials and had suffered serious side effects two weeks later, as a result of taking the abortion pill. When Dr. Louviere arrived in the emergency room, the woman had lost between half and two-thirds of her blood volume, and she was in shock. Dr. Louviere immediately took her into surgery to save her life. In his own words, ``If near death due to the loss of half of one's blood volume, surgery, and a transfusion of four units of blood do not qualify as a complication, I don't know what does.'' Planned Parenthood responded that they only reported what happened during the immediate time period of the trial--so the fact that this woman nearly died from taking a drug that they were responsible for reporting the effects of was of no concern to them. In challenging Planned Parenthood's assertion that abortion is safer than childbirth, I'd also look into the story of Michelle Madden, an 18-year-old college freshman who decided to have an abortion after a doctor told her that the drugs she was taking for epilepsy would cause her baby to be deformed. Michelle collapsed three days after the abortion, and at the hospital, doctors found that pieces of the baby were still inside her. Michelle died of a blood infection resulting from the abortion three days after admission to the hospital. I would suggest reading about what happened to Mary Pena, 43 years old, the mother of five children, who died after she underwent a second-trimester abortion and bled to death on the operating table. You might also be interested in the story of Debra Ann Lozinski, who was 16 years old when she went in for an abortion in my home state of New Jersey. Due to a lack of oxygen caused by the general anesthesia she was given for her abortion, Debra fell into a coma, where she remained for several months before developing pneumonia and then going into septic shock. Debra died 12 days after her 17th birthday. I'd also suggest learning about 22-year-old Tamika Dowdy, who sought an abortion when she was four months pregnant so that she could finish her college education. Paramedics were called to the clinic where Tamika's baby was being aborted, because Tamika was having problems breathing. They were unable to save her. There are many, many more heart-breaking accounts just like those of these women--and those are only the ones we know about. Multiples of these exist, but the whole story hasn't been disclosed. Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, helped create the safe abortion myth, based on studies and opinions of population control advocates, who were avidly promoting liberalized abortion laws. In reality, not only can abortions immediately kill women, through hemorrhaging, septic shock, uterine perforation, cervical lacerations, etc., but there are also long-term consequences of abortion that can lead to death, including suicide and breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer. Beyond these deaths, the impact of abortion on women, both physical and psychological, is devastating. Women suffer from many adverse post- abortion reactions, ranging from bleeding, cramping, and infection to depression and substance abuse to breast cancer and infertility. The risk of these detrimental effects of abortion is greatly multiplied in teens, one of the groups Planned Parenthood specifically targets. The brave women in the Silent No More Awareness Campaign have shown us that abortion really does hurt both babies and women, and sometimes even kills both. Abortionist Warren Hern admits, ``In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazards as abortion. It is a commonly held view that complications are inevitable.'' This is not a simple surgical procedure, the same as any other, and the baby being killed is not a clump of cells. Planned Parenthood downplays the physical or emotional after-effects of abortion. Their website claims, ``Most women feel relief after an abortion. Serious emotional problems after abortion are much less likely than they are after giving birth.'' While this may be true immediately after the abortion, a new study from New Zealand has shown that the long-term psychological consequences are much greater. Women who have had abortions are, in many cases, the walking wounded. The people pushing the safe abortion myth are the same as those who inflate the statistics about back-alley abortions. They are the same ones trying to instill a sense of pride about abortion by marketing ``I had an abortion'' T-shirts. These people, the people behind the propaganda machine at Planned Parenthood, are the same ones who are making millions from abortion, from killing our babies. Planned Parenthood cannot be trusted, and it appears that even it is starting to recognize that fact. Until July of 2005, its tagline read: ``Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's largest and most trusted voluntary reproductive health organization.'' It has since dropped the reference to trust and replaced that line with this slogan: ``Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider.'' Mr. Speaker, the truth about Planned Parenthood's pattern of deceit and destruction of human life must at long last be brought to light. The cover-up is over.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two very special people while offering my prayers and warmest wishes for their quick return to full health. Stephen and Mary Petrilla are 50 year residents of Hamilton Township--the largest municipality in my congressional district in central New Jersey. As teachers, parents and local residents, they live quiet but influential lives, earning the respect and devotion of their students, neighbors, and fellow parishioners at Saints Peter and Paul Parish in Trenton, New Jersey. Their family and friends are inspired by their faith, kindness and commitment to helping others. Mr. Stephen Petrilla is a veteran of the United States Army and was injured while serving his country in the line of duty. He is a member of the American Legion, the DAV and the Elks. For nearly 75 years, Mr. Petrilla dedicated his life to the field of education, helping children in either a teaching or administrative capacity. A former administrator for two training schools in New Jersey, his expertise and passion focused on special education, helping children with mental retardation and working to ensure that State and local governments did more to meet the needs of our precious children who face special challenges. Mr. Petrilla organized and directed shelter workshops for challenged children across the State and later worked as a special education teacher in Lawrence Township and at Sister Georgine's Learning Center in Trenton. His inspiring commitment to helping children has been recognized through various honors including being named a Fellow in the American Association of Mental Deficiency and being featured in various Who's Who publications including Who's Who in the East, 1979, and Who's Who in Child Development Professionals, 1976. Mrs. Mary Petrilla has been a constant source of love and support for her husband and her children, while also distinguishing herself in the teaching profession. After receiving her bachelor of arts degree at St. Joseph's, Mrs. Petrilla began working as a teacher eventually advancing her way to become one of the first female elementary school principals in the Pennsbury School District. She also taught adult education classes in Trenton while serving as a private tutor. For 20 years, Mrs. Petrilla served as a home instructor for Ewing Township Schools, helping children with illnesses who were physically or medically unable to go to school. She also served as a supplemental teacher for ``English as a Second Language'' and Basic Skills Instructor until her retirement in 1994. Lots of children have benefited from the hard work, commitment, love and compassion the Petrillas each exuded on the job, in their careers in education. And it is important to note, that that same love, generosity, empathy, nurturing and mentoring was and remains a hallmark of the Petrilla home. They are the proud parents of five children and eight grandchildren and their family feels abundantly blessed. They have shared with me inspiring stories that truly capture their parent's extraordinary example of reaching out and helping others throughout their lives. We join with their family and friends in thanking the Petrillas for dedicating themselves to successfully helping our community, and we offer our continued prayers for their comfort and full recovery.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps is often selected as the day to honor those murdered at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators. More than one million people were killed at Auschwitz before the survivors were liberated on January 27, 1945. Appropriately, each January 27, individuals and governments around the world pause to remember those individuals murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Also known as the Sho'ah, Hebrew for ``calamity,'' the Holocaust witnessed the death of six million Jews by the Nazi killing machine, many of them in concentration camps or elsewhere in a web that stretched throughout the heart of Europe. Millions of individuals-- political dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses, those with disabilities, and others including entire Romani families--also perished at the hands of the Nazis. Holocaust Remembrance Day also celebrates those brave souls who faced unimaginable horrors and lived to tell of their experiences. In a historic first, late last year the United Nations designated January 27 as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Initial drafters of the resolution--Australia, Canada, Israel, Russia and the United States-- were joined by 100 nations in sponsoring the resolution in the General Assembly. Other international organizations, like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), have done much to ensure the lessons of the Holocaust are taught in schools across Europe, including the former Soviet Union. In addition, the Belgian Chair-in-Office of the OSCE held a commemorative event for Holocaust victims on January 27 in Brussels. Unfortunately, while the Holocaust is rightly remembered, its lessons have yet to be fully learned. Early on, the world said ``Never Again'' to genocide, only to allow genocide to happen again in Bosnia- Herzegovina and Rwanda in the 1990s, and in Darfur today. The establishment of international tribunals to seek justice in response to these crimes may indicate some progress, but the best way to honor the lives of those who died during the Holocaust or in subsequent genocides would be to have the resolve to take decisive action to try to stop the crime in the first place. Some heads of state refuse to recognize even the existence of the Holocaust. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, made the outrageous claim on December 14 that Europeans had ``created a myth in the name of Holocaust.'' Showing his virulent anti-Semitic nature, two months earlier in October, he said Israel is ``a disgraceful blot'' that should be ``wiped off the map.'' While Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic hate is shocking, other hate mongers have physically attacked Jews. In early January, a knife-wielding skinhead shouting ``I will kill Jews'' and ``Heil Hitler'' burst into a Moscow synagogue and stabbed at least eight worshippers. A copycat attack followed in Rostov-on-Don, with the attacker thankfully being stopped inside the synagogue before anyone was hurt. As Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I have worked over the past four years with other Members of Congress and parliamentarians from around the world to fight anti-Semitism. I was pleased to have either authored or cosponsored three resolutions at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which condemned anti-Semitism, while also being a principal sponsor to the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act that passed the Congress and was signed into law by President Bush in 2004. Internationally, the OSCE has held three international meetings focusing on anti-Semitism and has pledged to hold another major conference in Romania in 2007. Mr. Speaker, while our struggle continues, we have made progress, moving governments and international organizations to begin to act. To reverse Edmund Burke's truism, what is necessary for the triumph of good over evil is for good men and women to take action.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I want to inform colleagues of an important breakthrough in combating human trafficking achieved at the recently concluded Ministerial Council meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). There have been growing concerns in recent years that some individuals serving as peacekeeping forces, or civilian contractors involved in international operations and other personnel serving with international organizations have helped fuel the demand side of the human trafficking cycle, particularly for sexual exploitation. These concerns stem in part from shocking revelations of complicity by elements in these operations with trafficking networks profiteering from this contemporary form of slavery. Serving in my capacity as Special Representative on Combating Human Trafficking for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I have pressed for adoption of a zero-tolerance policy regarding trafficking in human beings by personnel involved in peacekeeping missions, along with related education and training. Overcoming pushback from various quarters, I am pleased to report that agreement was reached earlier this month among the 55 OSCE countries meeting in Slovenia, including numerous countries actively involved in peacekeeping missions around the globe, to ensure the highest standards of conduct and accountability of persons serving on peacekeeping forces and other international missions. Importantly, the OSCE countries have pledged to step up efforts to prevent military and civilian personnel deployed abroad from engaging in trafficking in human beings or exploiting victims of trafficking. Countries with deployed military and civilian personnel have also agreed to work cooperatively with authorities in countries hosting such missions, in efforts to combat trafficking in human beings. While many of the cases involve sexual exploitation and abuse, the OSCE countries also recognized that cases involving forced labor also need to be aggressively pursued and have committed to enforce relevant standards of conduct and to ensure that any such cases are properly investigated and appropriately punished. Mr. Speaker, if we are to be successful in combating human trafficking, we must be proactive at home and abroad. The OSCE has proven to be an important forum for building consensus and cooperation on anti-trafficking measures throughout the expansive OSCE region. Developing this consensus has required both tact and tenacity. In this regard, I want to recognize the tireless efforts of Janice Helwig and Maureen Walsh, two outstanding professionals on the Helsinki Commission staff. Having secured this important agreement at the OSCE, the Commission will continue to remain fully engaged in monitoring its implementation. Mr. Speaker. I submit for the Record a copy of the Ministerial Decision, agreed to by the 55 OSCE participating States. Decision No. 16/05 Ensuring the Highest Standards of Conduct and accountability of Persons Serving on International Forces and Missions The Ministerial Council: Reaffirming the OSCE commitments to combat trafficking in human beings, in particular 2000 Vienna Ministerial Council Decision No. 1, 2002 Porto Ministerial Declaration and Maastricht Ministerial Decision No. 2/03 and the OSCE Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings, as well as its addendum ``Addressing the Special Needs of Child Victims of Trafficking for Protection and Assistance'', Recalling the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, and its comprehensive definition of trafficking in persons, Reiterating that trafficking in human beings, a contemporary form of slavery, seriously undermines the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Concerned that military and civilian personnel serving on international peacekeeping forces or other international missions, including contractors, as well as field presences of international organizations including the OSCE could be a contributing factor to the demand side of the trafficking cycle, Welcoming the efforts of the United Nations as well as other international organizations to develop and enforce ``zero-tolerance'' policies to prevent trafficking in human beings by both forces and other staff, which, combined with education and training, are required, Recalling the ongoing activities in all relevant international organizations aimed at the development of common standards and best practices to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings, Concerned about reports of misconduct by military and civilian personnel serving on international peacekeeping forces or other international missions, including reports of engaging in trafficking in human beings as defined in the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, strongly condemning such acts, and noting that they have a detrimental effect on the fulfillment of mission mandates, Concerned also about reports of misconduct by military and civilian personnel serving on international peacekeeping forces or other international missions including reports of sexually exploiting and abusing local and refugee populations, as well as reports of cases of forced labour, strongly condemning such acts, and noting that they have a detrimental effect on the fulfillment of mission mandates, Emphasizing the need for more information and awareness- raising concerning these issues among personnel serving on international missions, Taking note of efforts by the United Nations aimed at ensuring that personnel serving on peacekeeping forces or other international missions are held to the highest standard of conduct and accountability, 1. Calls on participating States to improve, where necessary, measures to prevent military and civilian personnel deployed abroad to peacekeeping forces or other international missions, as well as OSCE officials, from engaging in trafficking in human beings or exploiting victims of trafficking. In this regard, the participating States will seek to ensure that their national laws, regulations, and other relevant documents can be enforced with respect to their nationals who are serving on peacekeeping forces or other international missions, with a view to ensuring the highest standards of conduct and accountability; 2. Calls on participating States with deployed military and civilian personnel to assist, within their competence and respective mandates, responsible authorities in the host country in their efforts to combat trafficking in human beings. Each participating State will take into account policies and consequences regarding trafficking in human beings when instructing its military and civilian personnel to be deployed abroad; 3. Calls on participating States to take appropriate action necessary to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as cases of forced labour, by military and civilian personne1 deployed by them who are serving on peacekeeping forces or other international missions, to enforce relevant standards of conduct in this regard, and to ensure that any such cases are properly investigated and appropriately punished; 4. Reaffirms the importance of implementing the Code of Conduct for OSCE Officials and Staff Instruction 11 addressing trafficking in human beings and instructs the Secretary General, drawing on the expertise of the OSCE Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and the Anti-Trafficking Assistance Unit, to update these documents to make them in line with this decision, and to circulate them to the participating States for comments and discussion prior to issuance; 5. Invites the governments of the OSCE Partners for Co- operation also to commit to the same, principles as are set forth in this decision and to that end tasks the OSCE Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and the OSCE Secretary General to share relevant information and materials with the OSCE Partners for Co-operation; 6. Tasks the OSCE Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings to share with relevant international organizations OSCE training materials and other information that could assist in combating trafficking in human beings; 7. Tasks the OSCE Secretary General to report annually to the Permanent Council on the implementation of this decision in regard to the Code of Conduct for OSCE Officials and Staff Instruction 11, in accordance with provision III 11.1 of the OSCE Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me on the way to work this afternoon that it is especially fitting that during this season of holiness and faith and surpassing religious significance that Congress send to the President a bill designed to effectuate cures of some of the most devastating diseases and cancers on earth. 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 life-saving stem cells. Indeed, it is one of the best kept secrets in America that umbilical cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells are curing people of a myriad of terrible conditions and disease and are now showing the plasticity and pluripotency that my previous colleague just mentioned. So I would hasten to correct the gentlelady from Colorado that cord blood stem cells are not just for blood-related diseases, it also has the capability increasingly, as research shows, to do other miraculous things as well. Let me just remind Members that we passed this legislation 6 months ago. Many things have happened since those 6 months. Much progress has been made. This bill law will establish a national program to collect upwards of 150,000 units, with great diversity, so that most Americans who suffer from anomalies that could be cured by cord blood will be able to get it. Let me thank so many people, the Speaker, Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, Joe Barton whom we all pray for and wish a very speedy recovery. Let me thank my friend on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) and the Congressional Black Caucus for the yeoman's work that they expended in getting this legislation first passed in the House, then passed over on the Senate side, because there was a Democratic hold on it regrettably, Tom Harkin, but then he lifted it. Let me especially thank Senator Frist for the good work he did; Sam Brownback; Mike Enzi; Orrin Hatch; Jon Kyl; so many others as well as so many here; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts); the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren); the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and I could go on and on. I have a list of three pages of people who have been instrumental in getting this legislation to the point where it will be passed and sent down to the President for signature. Let me especially thank Cassie Bevan in the Majority Leader's Office who has worked so hard. She is amazing. John Cusey, on September 11, 2001, put together our first drafting meeting on this legislation. He too is amazing. That is how far back it goes. It has been a long time coming, and so many others. Cheryl Jaeger, Chuck Clapton, Kikki Kless in the Speaker's Office, Nicole Gustafson and Autumn Fredericks in the ProLife Caucus, Eric Euling in Senator Frist's office and Doug Branch with Senator Brownback and some of the others were outstanding. I will put the full statement in regarding all the many, many fine people who worked on this. I will insert the remainder of my statement and the material I referred to previously at this point in the Record. Cord-blood stem cells are, as we speak, treating and curing patients. Amazingly, we are on the threshold of systematically turning medical waste, umbilical cords and placentas, into medical miracles for huge numbers of very sick and terminally ill patients who suffer from such maladies as leukemia and sickle cell anemia. And because this legislation promotes cord-blood research as well, we can expect new and expanded uses of these very versatile stem cells. For the first time ever, our bill establishes a nationwide stem cell transplantation system. It also authorizes the national bone marrow transplant system and combines both under a new program, providing an easy, single-access point for information for doctors and patients and for the purpose of collecting and analyzing outcomes data. The cord blood stem cell portion of this bill will provide federal funding to increase the number of cord blood units available to match and treat patients. The goal is to reach a total inventory of 150,000 units so that matched stem cells will be available to treat more than 90 percent of patients, especially focusing on providing genetic diversity. The legislation would also link all the cord blood banks participating in the inventory program into a search system that would allow transplant physicians to search for cord blood and bone marrow matches through a single access point. The national program would promote stem cell research by requiring any participating cord blood banks to donate units not suitable for transplant because of disease or size to researchers who are working on new applications for cord blood stem cells. The National Bone Marrow Registry authorization expired on September 30, 2003. The bill reauthorizes an updated program through fiscal year 2010 for $34 million in FY06 and $38 million for each additional year of the program. In the more than 6 months since we passed this bill, even more advances have been made in the field. Peer-reviewed studies have been published showing increased plasticity and flexibility. In August, it was released that cord blood stem cells are as flexible as embryonic stem cells. Two young Maryland siblings have been cured of severe combined immune deficiency syndrome by cord blood from unrelated donors. Victims of Krabbe's and Hurler's diseases have found new hope in cord blood treatments--these are severe genetic neurological diseases that kill most of their victims before they reach 2 years old. A Duke University group treated newborns with cord blood--the lead author, Dr. Maria Escolar, now reports of the oldest survivor that the seven-year-old is ``now running, jumping and doing well in school.'' Earlier this month, Michelle Farrar from Leesburg, Virginia, traveled to South Korea to be treated for her spinal cord injury. True hope exists for countless other medical conditions, ranging from heart attacks to muscular dystrophy to diabetes. Just over a month ago, Dr. Brian Mason, an OB/GYN at Detroit's St. John Hospital, explained that ``People literally are dying on the transplant list who could be cured with this.'' I am so happy that for those people, delayed action on this bill has ended. No longer will they be denied access to the cures that are out there. Those suffering from the nearly 70 often terminal diseases will now get the cures that the legislation will make available to them. The door to the treatments that have cured people like Keone Penn, Steven Sprague, and Jacklyn Albanese will now be opened for thousands of others. As I mentioned before, there are so many people who deserve thanks in helping get this bill moved through the legislative process on both sides of the Hill. Among those people are Rich Doerflinger and Mark Gallagher from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Dr. David Prentice and David Christensen from the Family Research Council, the staff of the New York Blood Center including Pablo Rubenstein, Cladd Stevens, and Kathleen Reichert, Sue Ramthun who has been so personally invested in this issue, Dr. Edward Guindi at Cordus and NBA Hall of Famer Julius ``Dr. J'' Erving, Richie Weiblinger with the Senate Budget Committee, and the folks at Concerned Women for American, Focus on the Family, and the Susan B. Anthony List. I am ecstatic that we are passing it through here today and getting it to the President, so that we may set up this network that will absolutely save thousands of lives.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that yesterday our colleagues in the European Parliament voted unanimously in favor of an important measure urging the Romanian Government to settle the cases of applications for international adoption which have been in limbo since the Romanians imposed a moratorium in June 2001. The amendment was successfully offered to the European Parliament ``Report on the Extent of Romania's Readiness for Accession to the European Union.'' Final approval on the report was adopted by the Parliament on December 15. Amid credible allegations of corruption in the adoption system in Romania, the European Union had put intense pressure on Romania four years ago to impose a moratorium on international adoptions. In June 2004, Romanian Law 273/2004 enacted a permanent ban on international adoptions and, in practice, the law was being applied retroactively to cases that were registered before the ban came into effect on January first of this year. There were approximately 1,500 cases pending in which the children had been matched with parents in Western Europe, and 211 cases had been matched with adoptive parents in the United States. As a party to the Hague convention on Intercountry Adoption, Romania has agreed to certain international standards and Principles. In fact, intercountry adoption is a recognized as a legitimate option for children who have not found permanent placement in their country of origin. The amendment adopted by the European Parliament is consistent with this principle and urges settlement of the pending cases ``with the goal of allowing inter-country adoptions to take place, where justified and approptate, in those special cases.'' I applaud the European Parliament in offering this assurance Ithat they will not stand in the way of these adoptions. I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this action by the European Parliament will embolden authorities in Romania to look again at the cases which have been pending. Given this reassurance that resolving the pipeline cases will not jeopardize their efforts toward accession, I would hope that the authorities would consider the cases only with the best interests of the children in mind. They have heard the European Parliament speak with one voice in favor of adoptions for these pipeline cases. Mr. Speaker, for these children who had already had a loving adoptive family identified, I encourage the Romanians to examine these cases with alacrity and transparency. Such a priority could mean this Christmas would be filled with renewed hope for hundreds of children and the prospects of a permanent home in the New Year.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am attaching an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Davis concerning the bill H.R. 4436, ``To provide certain authorities for the Department of State, and for other purposes'' for printing in the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, December 14, 2005. Hon. Tom Davis, Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, Washington,

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to point out to my colleagues and remind them that last July, July 20 to be exact, by a vote of 351-78, the House passed a very comprehensive piece of legislation, H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. That bill, regrettably, is stalled over in the other body, so this is a much scaled-down version that will provide some very important authorities to the Department of State, and I will just briefly outline that bill at this point. First, H.R. 4436 provides for U.S. participation in the Regional Emerging Disease Intervention Center, or REDI Centers, in Singapore. This provision will allow the U.S. Government to detail Health and Human Services infectious disease experts to the center to work with their Asian counterparts, by providing training and research to prevent and respond to disease outbreaks and bioterror attacks, such as the avian flu and SARS. Not only will this help prevent the spread of the epidemic abroad, it will also be a vital step in protecting American citizens at home from this and other deadly viruses. Second, H.R. 4436 addresses key personnel issues which will strengthen the Department of State's ability to manage its people and resources. I have always believed, Mr. Speaker, that personnel is policy, and how we take care of our foreign service officers abroad, many of whom operate under dangerous and difficult conditions, has great impact on how the U.S. is perceived abroad. H.R. 4436 increases the maximum post-differential and danger pay allowance that may be given to an FSO of the Department of State to 35 percent of base pay, bringing it in line with allowances offered to USAID personnel. Other provisions will restore grievance rights to those being separated for cause and provides funding for educational expenses for dependents of the Broadcasting Board of Governors personnel stationed at the Northern Mariana Islands if the board determines that the commonwealth schools are unable to be recognized as an adequate education. I would just point out that, earlier, we had a very good briefing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spoke to that very issue of the difficulty of attracting experienced State Department personnel for those overseas missions that have great risk affixed to them. She was very glad to hear that this bill would be coming to the floor, as my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lantos, who was there at that briefing, heard as well. Third, the bill makes discretionary the convening of an Accountability Review Board in the case of an incident involving serious injury, loss of life or significant destruction of property at or related to a U.S. Government mission in Afghanistan or Iraq. In lieu of such a board, the Secretary of State may conduct an inquiry and submit a report on the incident to the House International Relations and Senate Foreign Relations Committees. Lastly, the bill amends section 904 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to enable the State Department to retain medical insurance reimbursements in the year in which they are collected, strengthening the Department's management tools and ability to provide emergency medical services for its employees abroad. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It gives our diplomatic service the resources it needs in this post-9/11 environment to promote U.S. interests and values abroad and to protect American citizens right here at home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), this is a Hyde-Lantos bill, for his leadership on this bill.