Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the resolution, my distinguished friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my good friend and colleague, for authoring this resolution. The gentleman is a Member who is considerably schooled in the Far East and knows well the effects which the war in the Pacific had, not only on Japan, but on other nations in the region. The gentleman from Florida is also a senior member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I know that he has been a leader in ensuring that no veteran is ever left behind. He is also the author of the Millennium Health Care Act, which puts a special emphasis on providing long-term health care, especially to our World War II veterans. So it is very fitting, I think, that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is the author of this resolution, and I thank the gentleman for introducing it. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 360 is a resolution that recognizes the 60th anniversary of victory in the Pacific during World War II, V-J Day. Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago the guns fell silent and the world was able to begin the process of, paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg when he said, we will bind up our Nation's wounds when we begin the very difficult and arduous process of binding up the world's wounds. The loss of life was indeed staggering; the process of rebuilding seemingly insurmountable. But just as Americans had rallied in war, Americans rallied in peace as well. This resolution reiterates the simple, but very powerful, message that our Nation honors and deeply appreciates the men and women who served in the Pacific Theatre during World War II, and we especially remember and pay tribute to those Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Mr. Speaker, we take this opportunity to honor those individuals who gave their lives in the Pacific Theatre and thank all veterans of World War II. During the war, several million members of the United States Armed Forces fought in the Pacific, including the chairman of the International Relations Committee, our distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This was one of the largest military forces ever committed by the U.S. in any theatre of operation. I would also briefly pay tribute to my own late father, who saw horrific combat starting in New Guinea and ending in the Philippines. My dad was tough as nails but had a very gentle heart, and he was like so many of those combat veterans that I have met over the many years who absolutely hated war, but felt it was his duty to defend freedom and to defend America. This resolution recognizes the staggering deaths and casualties and the struggle by military forces and civilians of the allied powers during the epic struggle for the control of the Pacific. It also recognizes that since the war Japan has become a free and prosperous democracy and has become a valued partner in the process of standing tall against despotism and oppression. This is an occasion, Mr. Speaker, to remember and to commemorate. We must remember why the war was fought, remember the victims and the heroes, and thank those who fought so hard and sacrificed so much. I join millions of Americans participating in thousands of events all across the United States, many of which have already been held, and around the world, in observing and honoring the courage of American servicemembers, allied soldiers, and home front workers. This truly was the greatest generation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 360) commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II in the Pacific.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 19.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 19, as amended, calling on the President to issue a proclamation in recognition of the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act. The resolution urges the 55 states of North America, Europe and Eurasia which comprise the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe to abide by their obligations under the Helsinki Final Act. The Congress further calls on the President to reiterate the United States' agreement that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and economic liberty are vital elements in promoting a new era of democracy, peace and unity in this region of the world. For all of the history that we make here, Mr. Speaker, it is not too often that we in this body have the opportunity to celebrate and honor an event that has so conspicuously marked such a turning point in human affairs. Too often the history of international relations is one of false starts and missed opportunities. The victories, when they do happen, are more often ones of prevention, disasters averted or crises ended. Or if not that, then the results are realized too far into the future to be judged with any clarity. This is not the case with the Helsinki Final Act signed on August 1, 1975. With that historic event, what we saw was a recognition not just by the United States or even the West, but even in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, that human rights are the pivot, the linchpin of true security and peace in the world. What the Helsinki Final Act asserted and what subsequent history has taught beyond any reasonable doubt is this: The way governments treat their people is the concern not just of those governments but of all the nations and peoples of the world. In essence, security and human dignity and human rights are one and indivisible. Indeed, it is in the fall of the Communist regimes in Europe that we have seen the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and the process that the act inaugurated, unleashed forces of good and of hope. The document spoke truth to power and empowered millions to rise up and demand democracy and fundamental freedoms, especially religious freedom. Many became Helsinki monitors in dictatorships, in places like Czechoslovakia where members of Charter 77 risked their lives and often went to prison in demanding that their dictatorship allow them fundamental freedoms. We saw it in places like Perm 35, a horrible gulag that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I visited back in the 1980s, where men were actively clamoring for their rights. For instance Mikhail Kazachkov, a physcist by training imprisoned for his dissident activites, took the Helsinki Final Act and, even at risk of cruel retribution, would speak up and demand his freedoms and those of his fellow inmates. Recently, the United States Helsinki Commission of which I am the Co- chair hosted an event commemorating the 30th anniversary. We had Dr. Henry Kissinger as our principal speaker. Dr. Kissinger, as many will know and recall, was Secretary of State in that period, and he pointed out how rough the world was at the time, how close we were to superpower conflict between ourselves and the Soviet Union. The arsenals were brimming over with nuclear weapons that unfortunately seemed to be at the ready. Dr. Kissinger pointed out that the Helsinki Final Act was not popular at the time. Many thought it was a concession to the Soviet Union, that somehow they would make propaganda, and they would reap tremendous benefits from it. People had serious misgivings about what the Helsinki Final Act would actually do. The United States signed onto the Final Act and, of the three baskets, we emphasized the human rights dimension and promoted it and promoted it and promoted it, much to the chagrin of leaders in the Kremlin, as well as those who were part of the Warsaw Pact. In reality, Dr. Kissinger noted the Helsinki process served as a catalyst to ``promote change in the political situation and also to change the human rights situation.'' He said, ``I can think of nothing that the Soviet Union got out of this, except that their position in Eastern Europe and their position along the dividing line in Germany was undermined.'' Whenever we met with Soviet authorities or Polish leaders or any leaders of those occupied countries, we always had lists of political prisoners and of religious prisoners. We always based our inquiries on the fact that all of these nations were voluntary signatories to the Helsinki Final Act. This was a matter of international concern. These were not simply American values, these were universally recognized and agreed to values. Mr. Speaker, let me also say that the Helsinki process continues. We need to continue fighting. We are now fighting to try to stem the rise of anti-Semitism, that ugly specter of hate toward Jews throughout the countries that make up the OSCE, including the United States. We are working to combat racism and xenophobic behavior. We are now working very hard, and have been since the 1990s, to combat this hideous form of slavery known as human trafficking, especially for prostitution where women are turned into chattel and into commodities and their lives destroyed. We are also working on a number of other human rights issues within the Helsinki process, trying to get the Central Asian countries to realize that they have commitments that need to be abided by. Mr. Speaker, this is not a document that we only look back on. This is a living document that we work to implement as we go forward. Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of the Helsinki Final Act is our ability to use it to promote democracy and elections. No organization does a better job than the OSCE monitors when it comes to elections. When the commitments have been implemented, political parties have had the opportunity for free and fair elections. When emphasis is given to the conduct of free elections, we have witnessed some amazing changes, including Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution and Serbia's Democratic Revolution. These events in the last 5 years alone testify to the power of the principles inscribed in the Helsinki Final Act and the other OSCE documents that followed on. Some participating States, however, most notably Belarus, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, seem determined to not live up to their commitments. These remain some of the areas of concern that our Helsinki Commission works on on a daily basis. Finally, Mr. Speaker, having served as a member of the Helsinki Commission since my second term in 1983, I believe the U.S. must hold vigorously to the values that have inspired fundamental and democratic change in much of the OSCE region. As I said a moment ago, our work is not done. Much needs to be done going forward. I know we will do it. We will use this now famous document, the Helsinki Final Act, as our inspiration going forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time as well.

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 pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 19) calling upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in January I traveled to Aceh, Puquet and Colombo and saw American foreign aid save the lives of tens of thousands of people ravaged by the tsunami. Two weeks ago, I was in Darfur, Sudan and visited refugee and IDP camps in that war-ravaged area and saw firsthand U.S. taxpayer funds and U.S. leadership saving and rebuilding the lives of hundreds of thousands of Africans. But charity begins at home, Mr. Speaker, and we must leave no stone unturned in our effort to save the lives of Americans, our neighbors, devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Today's appropriation is a downpayment. It is a beginning of an aggressive humanitarian effort that will take months, even years, to rebuild the lives of those shattered people. Today we say to the suffering, we will do whatever it takes to save lives, to mitigate disease, and rebuild.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the FDA issued a stern warning on Tuesday about the dangers to women from RU-486, the abortion drug the Clinton administration aggressively pushed through approval without proving its safety. Not only is RU-486 baby pesticide, killing unborn children up to 7 weeks, it is poison to the women themselves. Licensed by the Population Council, manufactured in the PRC, and widely disbursed by Planned Parenthood, at least five women have died in the U.S. after taking this dangerous drug. As a result of these women's deaths and serious concerns that many more women have died as well-- underreporting is a serious problem--new drug labeling will warn women that serious danger of sepsis and blood infection can occur. Because RU-486 was rushed to approval by the Clinton administration using the expedited FDA subpart H process, which is supposed to be used for HIV/AIDS and other life-threatening diseases, numerous safety concerns were suppressed, trivialized and overlooked. The Clinton FDA approval process was a gross sham. The approval of RU-486 is a scandal that is today killing women. The FDA must pull this dangerous drug and Congress must pass Holly's Law.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for crafting this very important amendment. It is creative as an amendment, and it also will get the job done. The U.S. Interests Section, if this amendment were to be enacted, will get the information out that there is a bounty on the heads of these people who have committed serious crimes in the U.S. According to the FBI, 74 U.S. citizens convicted of felonious crimes in the U.S. are currently living in Cuba under the protection of the Castro regime. Joanne Chesimard was convicted, and one of those who is living in Cuba. She was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1977 for the 1973 execution-style slaying of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike. Witnesses said she fired two bullets into his head as he lay on the ground. This is a very commonsense approach to try to get the message out, and hopefully it will empower everyday, ordinary Cubans to take action to bring these people to justice. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition, even though I support the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, the July 7 attacks in London, I believe, served as a chilling reminder of what is at stake in the global war against terrorism. We must fight this war, a war that we never sought, but which has been declared against our country and against our citizens; and we must fight in a way so as to win. The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) underscores the resolve to do just that. Since the first prisoners were brought to the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in January of 2002, this base has provided a secure location for holding terrorists captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and from the many other places around the globe where we have obtained custody of suspected terrorists. It has provided a place where these people could be kept from returning to combat. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) a moment ago talked about the 12 detainees who were released and then returned to combat; two, I understand, in Afghanistan; and at least one that was killed in a firefight. We are talking about terrorists who went right back to attempts to kill Americans. Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy at the Department of Defense, estimated that as many as 25 of the 202 released had taken up arms again. For example, Mullah Shahzada, a former Taliban field commander who apparently convinced officials at Guantanamo that he had sworn off violence, was freed in 2003, and immediately rejoined the Taliban. He was subsequently killed in battle in the summer of 2004 in Afghanistan. Maulvi Ghafar, a Taliban commander captured in 2001, was released in February 2004. He was subsequently killed in a shootout with Afghan government forces in September 2004. Abdullah Mesud, a Pakistani who was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, bragged that he was able to hide his true identity for two years at Guantanamo before being released in March 2004. He was considered a low-risk security threat because of his artificial leg. After retuning to Pakistan, Mesud led a group of Islamic militants--part of a campaign against the Pakistani government--that kidnapped two Chinese engineers working on a dam. One of the engineers and several militants were subsequently killed in a government raid. Mesud is still at large. Mr. Chairman, Guantanamo is a place where crucial intelligence could be gathered that could help the United States understand the operating methods, patterns, financing, tactical skills and training of these terrorists. This information is critical to preventing future terrorist attacks and, in the long run, critical to developing a strategic vision for combating this new enemy. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, those who are held in Guantanamo must be treated, without exception, humanely. There must be zero tolerance for torture or degrading or inhumane or cruel treatment, and Congress does have a moral responsibility to ensure that that is the case. And I, like many of my colleagues, have gone down to Guantanamo to see for myself, to provide oversight, to ask the tough questions and to try to get answers to those questions. I would point out to my colleagues as well that in last year's defense authorization bill, Public Law 108-375, this body unambiguously stated that it is the sense of Congress that, and I quote it, ``no detainee shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.'' Moreover, that law requires the Secretary of Defense to take steps to ensure that policies are adopted to ensure the humane treatment of detainees and that all DOD commanders have adequate training regarding the law of war and Geneva Convention obligations, and that standard operating procedures regarding detainees be established. Mr. Chairman, finally, just let me say that the U.S. must continue to fight this war on terrorism on every front. We must not let complacency lead us to lower our guard. We must fight this war in a way that is consistent, however, with fundamental principles. And I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has offered us a resolution that tries to make that clear.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, every American wants our soldiers, especially those who have loved ones deployed in Iraq, home as quickly as humanly possible. But I would submit to my colleagues that that must be at a time that ensures that the baton of security is passed to a militarily capable, free, and democratic Iraq. Let me point out to my colleagues that progress is being made in that regard. There are currently more than 171,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, including 76,000 soldiers, 63,400 police and highway patrolmen, and 33,787 Ministry of Interior forces. So the previous speaker, I do not know where she is getting her numbers, but they certainly are not correct. Iraqi security forces are now capable of planning and executing operations at the battalion level and higher, and there are a number of instances where they have performed superbly. One of the previous speakers, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), mentioned that we need to be providing money for rehab. We have provided $19.1 billion to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. That is a significant commitment. You cannot do reconstruction without security. Finally, I respectfully submit that any public announcement concerning specific timetables or a date certain for withdrawal of our Armed Forces is likely to result in significantly advantaging the terrorists in a way that will put more lives, more American lives, more Iraqi lives, at risk, and the mission itself will be put at risk. I would also point out to my colleagues that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) did offer an amendment on the withdrawal issue; it failed 33 to 12 in the committee. So we did have some consideration of that during markup. The Iraqi Prime Minister, when he met with us just a few weeks ago, was passionate: no timetables; it will lead to the loss of life. Mr. Chairman, let me finish today's debate on H.R. 2601 with a boatload of thank yous to our staff who have worked long and hard to produce this piece of legislation. And let me particularly thank Eleanor Nagy, director of policy for my committee for the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, for her extraordinary skill, wisdom, insight and professionalism in crafting this comprehensive bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Kucinich amendment. A key element in a robust defense against ballistic missiles is the deployment of space-based weapons to intercept them in flight. We are talking about in all cases nonnuclear interceptors to stop an incoming nuclear device. I think the amendment, while well intentioned, and I respect the gentleman from Ohio, is very counterproductive and puts our cities and our population at risk. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting Chairman. Is the gentleman from New Jersey acting as the designee of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King)?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his outstanding work on this issue, and I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Watson) very important amendment. Mr. Chairman, in August of 2003, the Government of Nigeria, at the urging of the governments of the United States and Great Britain, gave asylum to then-Liberian President Charles Taylor. The purpose was to prevent further bloodshed and to allow for a transition back to a democratically elected government in Liberia. The deal was struck in spite of the indictment of Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in June of that year on 17 counts of war crimes, including mass murder, sexual slavery, rape, hostage-taking, amputations, forced conscriptions of children and adults, arson, looting, and many other abuses of human rights. Nevertheless, the action by the Nigerian Government likely saved thousands of lives and is providing at least a chance for free elections in Liberia in October. However, the deal was not without conditions, and there is ample evidence that Charles Taylor has violated this asylum agreement. For example, Taylor is alleged to be cooperating with international terrorist organizations. He is engaged in illicit trade in blood diamonds in violation of U.N. sanctions and is linked to the proliferation of small arms throughout the region. He has also destabilized the entire subregion of West Africa, leaving thousands dead and millions displaced in its wake. Nigerian President Obasanjo refuses to end the asylum agreement, however, unless there is irrefutable evidence of violations by Taylor. I would point out to my colleagues that on March 17, Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council that Taylor's former military commanders, party leaders, and business associates maintain regular contact with him and are planning to undermine Liberia's return to democracy. I urge strong support for this amendment. It is an outstanding one. A few days later, Jacques Klein, the UN Special Representative to the Secretary-General on Liberia confirmed that Taylor is ``still very, much involved'' in Liberian politics. Outgoing Chief Prosecutor for the Sierra Leone Court, David Crane continues to accuse Taylor of ``ruling the country from his house arrest in Calabar'' In southern Nigeria. So, yes President Obasanjo, there is plenty of evidence that Charles Taylor has violated the terms of his asylum. Has he continued to destabilize not only Liberia, but also Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea? That has yet to be proven in court, but there is enough evidence for him to be sent to the court in Sierra Leone to find out. President Bush raised this issue with President Obasanjo at a meeting in May, but U.S. policy must consist of more than a brief discussion. Whatever evidence we have must be shared with the Nigerian government, and then they must make up their mind if they want to continue in the direction of helping West Africa to heal or if they want to close their eyes to continued interference and further upheaval. Surely, the time has come for Charles Taylor's reign of terror in the region to reach its final, conclusive end.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his very compassionate and important amendment. It should be supported, and the majority on this side of the aisle supports it. Since 1993, almost 400 women and girls have been murdered and more than 70 remain missing in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. This commonsense amendment simply seeks to provide congressional authority and funding to the Secretary of State to make independent technical and forensic expertise available to the families of these young women and girls. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) represents, as we know, the El Paso area across the border from this area. His amendment extends a helping hand to these grieving families. I want to commend the gentleman for his compassion in offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires that the State Department submit a report to Congress that one, identifies by name all NGOs receiving funding under the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the date that the funding was provided, and the date on which the NGO filed the statement certifying its policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Number two, it describes the Department of State's plans to audit the compliance by nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. funding under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief to have and adhere to an explicit policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking and a description of the plan of the Department of State to transmit the results to the appropriate congressional committees. Mr. Chairman, I would just note for my colleagues, this is a very simple amendment. When the Hyde historic legislation on HIV/AIDS was considered by the committee, I offered the amendment that was included in that bill to ensure that the NGOs, to which we provide considerable amounts of money and, in many cases, we are talking tens of millions of dollars, are not in any way complicit in sex trafficking nor in the promotion of prostitution and its legality. I would point out to my colleagues that by way of historical background, I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act Reauthorization and Expansion Act of 2003. We take very seriously our obligation to ensure that we as a government, we as a provider of significant Federal funding, in no way are enabling this modern-day slavery called sex trafficking or prostitution, which is its very close cousin. I would hope that Members would realize that this is a very simple amendment. It just requires that we get basic information, which I think in our oversight capacity we have an obligation to do as a Congress and as certain committees of the Congress. So I hope that Members will support this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2601.