Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3936) to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the principal office of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be at any location in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, rather than only in the District of Columbia, and expressing the sense of Congress that a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center should be provided for that Court and those it serves and should be located, if feasible, at a site owned by the United States that is part of or proximate to the Pentagon Reservation, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3936, a bill to authorize the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, now located in commercial office space in the District of Columbia, to seek a new location in the greater national capital region. This bill would also express the sense of Congress that a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center should be provided for the court and the veterans it serves. It should be located, or would be located, if feasible, next to Interstate Highway 395 on one of three small parking lots that are part of the Pentagon Reservation in Arlington, Virginia. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was created by statute in 1988 as an independent article I judicial tribunal that for the first time gave our Nation's veterans the right to judicial review of benefits decisions on their disability, pension, education and other claims. It should, like all other article I courts, have a permanent courthouse. In addition to the court, occupants of the new courthouse would be representatives of veterans that regularly practice before the court, for example, the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and the appellate attorneys of veterans service organizations. The court and the offices of its constituents pay over $3.7 million per year for their rent. The General Services Administration anticipates that the court's rental costs will increase substantially in the not-too-distant future. Therefore, the committee believes that it would be desirable to relocate the court on a government-owned site if possible. H.R. 3936 would also require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Administrator of General Services to submit a joint report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs on the feasibility of locating a new Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center at an appropriate site owned by the U.S. that is part of or near the Pentagon Reservation. Madam Speaker, we have veterans or their survivors from all of the wars in which our country fought in the 20th century, and we are now engaged in a global war on terrorism. I cannot imagine a better use for one of the present parking lots near the Pentagon than a stand-alone dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center to embody the gratitude and the respect this Nation has for these men and women who have served and are serving their country so well. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a letter from the Committee on Armed Services and an additional letter concerning H.R. 3936.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chief sponsor of this very important resolution, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for requesting this time to discuss rule of law in Russia. Not only is this an issue of great importance to the citizens of Russia but U.S.-Russia relations are affected by the regard given to this critical component of democratic and civil society. I have the privilege of serving as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, commonly known as the ``Helsinki Commission,'' an independent agency of the United States Government charged with monitoring and encouraging compliance with the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and subsequent documents of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The fate of rule of law in Russia, an OSCE member, will determine to a great degree the future of the Russian state and its role in the world community. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia moved from an authoritarian police state under communist rule to a sovereign nation with democratically elected leadership and many of the civil liberties that we in this country take for granted. We were encouraged by those positive and historic steps. On paper at least, there have been significant reforms designed to bring the Russian political and legal system into conformity with the accepted norms and practices of the United Nations, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, etc. In recent years, though, the Putin government has undermined these reforms. In its Nations in Transit 2004 report, Freedom House sums it up: ``Russia is backsliding in key areas of democratic governance and rule of law.'' Two months ago, on May 20th, the Hensinki Commission held hearings on the issue of human rights in President Putin's Russia. One of our distinguished witnesses, Mr. Gary Kasparov, chairman of the Free Choice 2008 Committee in Russia and world-famous chess champion, spoke with passion about restrictions on freedom of speech in the electronic media, a process that we see continuing today. In the area of rule of law per se, we are also seeing some disturbing moves against individuals who have apparently offended the powers-that- be in the Kremlin or the intelligence apparat. The first case is that of industrialist Mikhail Khodorkovsky, former head of the Yukos Oil Company. Mr. Khodorkovsky's arrest on charges of fraud and tax evasion has received a lot of publicity. I don't claim to know whether Khodorkovsky is guilty or innocent, but this appears to be very much a case of selective justice. His real crime seems to have been, as David Satter wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week, that he ``had demonstrated independence, and, by financing opposition political parties, had contributed to political pluralism.'' Will Khodorkovsky get a fair trial? Let me jut quote from a report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: ``The courts are often subservient to the executive, while the security services, the prosecutors and the police remain highly politicized . . . the so- called `Yukos case' reflects these problems.'' As if to confirm the OECD assessment, officials at the Matrosskaya Tishina prison confiscated documents from one of his lawyers after she met with her client. Another case is that of Dr. Igor Sutyagin, a Russian scientist who was sentenced to 15 years of labor camp for espionage, i.e., passing military secrets to British intelligence agents. Sutyagin never denied that he had worked with foreign scholars or that he shared previously published material with them. Indeed, Federal Security Service (FSB) agents never found evidence of any classified documents in his possession, and he had neither security clearance nor access to classified material. However, the FSB and the court came to the conclusion that Sutyagin's research was so accurate that he must have used classified documents to draw his conclusions. Think of it: one may be imprisoned for espionage for being too competent an analyst in military-security issues. Deputy Assistant Secretary Steven Pifer of the State Department has testified before the Commission that ``most observers agree that [Sutyagin] had no access to classified information and consider the severe sentence an effort to discourage information-sharing by Russians with professional colleagues from other countries.'' The final case I would mention in this brief presentation is that of Mikhail Trepashkin, an attorney and former FSB officer who was arrested on October 24, 2003, a week before he was scheduled to represent relatives of a victim who perished in an apartment explosion at a trial in Moscow. At the trial, Trepashkin was expected to present the findings of his investigation which implicated the FSB in the 1999 apartment bombing in Moscow and the aborted attempted bombing of Ryazan. A week before the trial opened, the police just happened to pull Trepashkin over on the highway, and just happened to find a revolver in his car. Trepashkin claims the gun was planted, a venerable KGB tactic. Three weeks later, he was put on trial and sentenced to four years labor camp for allegedly divulging state secrets to a foreign journalist. I don't know all the details of this case, but it has the whiff of the proverbial mackeral by moonlight. It is very possible that Trepashkin was arrested in order to prevent him from releasing potentially damaging information regarding the activities of the FSB. These are just few examples of the challenges to rule of law and human rights that Russia is now experiencing under President Putin. Let us hope that he will soon realize that the way to a genuinely stable and prosperous society is paved with rule off law and civil society, not the high price of crude oil.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz- Balart) and all of the speakers, my good friend from California (Mr. Lantos) and all of those whom I think made very, very important points about why this bill ought to become law. Let me just take a moment to speak on behalf of one of Vietnam's most courageous and renowned democracy activists, Dr. Que. Dr. Que has served two lengthy prison sentences and was arrested again for promoting democracy and human rights last year. He has been held incommunicado ever since, unable to see even his family. The Vietnamese government plans to put Dr. Que on trial next Monday. We do not know exactly what the charges are, and it appears that Dr. Que will be tried in secret without access to a lawyer. Unfortunately, this is par for the course for the government of Vietnam because they treat so many dissidents this way. The government of Vietnam should release Dr. Que, a peaceful man whose only crime is to speak out for freedom. Any adverse action against Dr. Que will only make our point as they have made our point regrettably over and over again. Let me just say one brief point about the POW/MIA issue because I take a back seat to no one in my concerns for a full and thorough accounting about our POWs. As a matter of fact, my first human rights trip to Asia was to Vietnam in the early 1980s on behalf of POWs and MIAs trying to follow up on what we thought were live sightings and also to get a full and thorough accounting. But I would point out that Jerry Jennings, who was mentioned by my good friend from Connecticut, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/MIA Affairs, has pointed out most recently that this is a mutual humanitarian effort between Vietnam and the United States; and, as he pointed out, the United States for its part has turned over hundreds of documents from U.S. national archives containing information about Vietnamese soldiers who died during the war. It is to our mutual advantage to cooperate on that issue. I believe it is to the advantage of the people of Vietnam that this effort go forward with regards to the AIDS funding which is explicitly exempted by this legislation, as is other humanitarian aid as recounted in the bill. This is all about human rights. This is about helping dissidents who are languishing in prisons. This is about religious believers who get that knock in the middle of the night and they are told, sorry, you are going to the gulag, where they are beaten, where they are repressed and where their families sometimes never hear from them again. These are modest, modest penalties; but we want to send a clear and unambiguous message to the government of Vietnam that human rights matter, they are important to us, they ought to be important to them. I urge support. There are 35 cosponsors of this legislation equally divided between both sides of the aisle. It is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. I urge support.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House H.R. 1587, the Vietnam Human Rights Act, a bill designed to promote democracy and human rights in Vietnam and to give hope to those voices of freedom who today are systematically oppressed and silenced. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is almost identical to that which has cleared the House twice, one as a stand- alone bill which I sponsored a couple of years ago and a second time as an amendment to the State Department bill, the reauthorization bill. The Vietnam Human Rights Act initially cleared the House by an overwhelming majority, 410 to 1, in September of 2001, coinciding with legislation to ratify the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam. Despite the near unanimous vote, the Vietnam Human Rights Act was subsequently blocked and never voted on in the Senate. The message then, Mr. Speaker, as it is today, is that human rights are central, are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any region of the world. As the Vietnam Human Rights Act languished in the Senate a couple of years ago, many thought, and I would say naively but with good faith, that the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam would lead to improved human rights conditions in Vietnam. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and for many Vietnamese the situation is dramatically worse than it was just 3 years ago. The government of Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, has scoffed at the Vietnam Human Rights Act and dismissed charges of human rights abuses, pleading the tired mantra of interference in the internal affairs of their government and that our struggle is some way related to the war in Vietnam. They say, Vietnam is a country, not a war. That is their protest, and I would say that is precisely the issue. Today's debate is about the shameful human rights record of a country, more accurately, of a government, and it is not about the war. And, of course, Vietnam is a country with millions of wonderful people who yearn to breathe free and to enjoy the blessings of liberty. We say, behave like an honorable government, stop bringing dishonor and shame to your government by abusing your own people and start abiding by internationally recognized U.N. covenants that you have signed. We know, Mr. Speaker, from the State Department Human Rights Reports and leading international human rights organizations that the government of Vietnam inflicts terrible suffering on countless people. It is a regime that arrests and imprisons writers, scientists, academics, religious leaders and even veteran communists in their own homes and lately in Internet cafes for speaking out for freedom and against corruption. It is a government that crushes thousands of Montagnard protestors, as they did in the Central Highlands during the Easter weekend, killing and beating many peaceful protestors. They have, the government, forcibly closed over 400 Christian churches in the Central Highlands, and the government continues to force tens of thousands of Christians to renounce their faith. I am happy to say that many of these folks have resisted those pressures. One pastor put it at 90 percent have refused to renounce their Christian faith, but the government is trying to compel them to renounce their faith. This is a government that has detained the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and continues to attempt to control the leadership of the Catholic church. This is a government that has imprisoned a Catholic priest by the name of Father Ly and meted out a 10-year prison sentence. Why? Because he submitted testimony to the International Religious Commission on Human Rights. For that, for writing a couple of pages of facts and his opinion, he got 10 years of prison. My speech today, Mr. Speaker, on this floor would easily fetch me a 15-year prison sentence replete with torture if I were a Vietnamese national making these comments in Vietnam. And in yet another Orwellian move, Vietnam on Monday, this past Monday, July 12, promulgated an Ordinance on Beliefs and Religions which goes into effect on November 15. This new anti-religious law will further worsen religious persecution in Vietnam. Amazingly, it bans the so-called abuse of the right to religious freedom to undermine peace, independence, and national unity, whatever that is. This new law is the most capricious and arbitrary policy imaginable, designed to ensnare and incarcerate believers for undermining, again, peace, independence and national unity, whatever that means. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, if a religious person ``disseminates information against the laws of the State,'' in other words, disagrees with anything that the Communist government enacts, such dissemination is a punishable crime. When is enough, enough, Mr. Speaker? Vietnam needs to come out of the dark ages of repression, brutality and abuse and embrace freedom, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental human rights. I respectfully submit that the legislation we are considering today offers a clear framework for improving human rights in Vietnam. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I hope the membership will support it. H.R. 1587 requires the President to certify each year on the progress or the lack of it of the regime towards respecting human rights based on an extensive report required by the law. Specifically, to avoid possible sanction against Vietnam, the President would have to certify substantial progress by Vietnam towards releasing all political prisoners and religious prisoners, respect for religious freedom in general, and return of confiscated property. The bill requires substantial progress by the government towards allowing Vietnam nationals free and open access to U.S. refugee programs and calls for respect for the ethnic minority groups in the Central Highlands. The bill seeks to ensure that the government is not complicit in human trafficking. Today Vietnam is on the State Department's Tier II Watch List due to the government's failure to provide evidence of efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking, particularly its inadequate control of two state-controlled labor companies that sent workers to American Samoa from 1999 to 2001. Unless the regime shows improvement in human rights, they will be unable to receive an increase over 2004 levels in nonhumanitarian U.S. foreign assistance. This is a modest but not insignificant penalty to a government that is brutalizing its own people. H.R. 1587 also authorizes funds for NGOs to promote democracy in Vietnam and to help to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia. Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members will support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1587) to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida.) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1587, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for the Record. The American Legion, Washington, DC, July 14, 2004. Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Smith: The American Legion applauds your continuing leadership in fighting for the rights of the abused minorities in Vietnam. The United States must maintain constant pressure on the Vietnamese government to honor the rights of its citizens and our former allies. The Legion stands in strong support of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004. The American Legion has grave concerns about the plight of ethnic groups such as the Montagnards, as well as religious minorities, including Buddhists and Catholics who are under constant attack and persecution by Vietnamese authorities for practicing their religion. The American Legion strongly believes that successful passage of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004 will greatly benefit the future of minority ethnic and religious populations in Vietnam. If the U.S. does not have the tools that would be available through the Vietnam Human Rights Act, we will lose the only remaining leverage we have in persuading the Vietnamese to change their egregious behavior. As a nation at war, I think it is important that America's allies know they serve beside a committed, loyal partner--one that will not desert or betray them in their time of need. Simply ignoring the current violations of human rights is not an acceptable option for The American Legion's membership of wartime veterans, many who served in Vietnam side-by-side with these current victims of tyranny. Sincerely, John F. Sommer, Jr., Executive Director.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my good friend from Connecticut that friends do not let friends commit human rights abuses. Whatever present relationship we might have with Vietnam, when they are torturing and killing and maiming and forcing people to renounce their faith, these are egregious human rights abuses, and they should not be put under the rug and somehow brushed aside. We need to speak out against those abuses, and we need to do it forcefully. Let me also say to my colleagues that the American Legion supports this bill wholeheartedly, and I will provide their letter for submission into the Record. Mr. Speaker, the AID's funding announced by Ambassador Tobias and the President just a few days ago is totally exempt, as is all medicine, foodstuffs, and humanitarian aid. None of that can be used as a penalty in terms of its provision to the people of Vietnam. We are talking about nonhumanitarian aid. We are talking about capping it at the 2004 levels. As I said in my opening, it is a very modest effort to say that we do not want this to go on anymore, to stop this abuse; and we have proven through the trafficking legislation and other legislation recently that modest smart penalties or sanctions do work. They do get the attention of offending governments. Our solidarity is with the oppressed in Vietnam. It is not with the oppressor. We want to see progress. I want to stand on this floor, as does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others, and sing the praises of the government, but we need to see progress. We are seeing significant deterioration with regard to human rights abuses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, along with my friends on the other side of the aisle, because we have so many speakers, that we extend the debate 10 minutes equally divided on both sides.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleague, Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, to introduce legislation that will help improve the safety and health of thousands of Americans who may be using the acne medication Accutane. Accutane has been documented as causing severe birth defects and miscarriages in pregnant women using the drug, and its side effects can result in the onset of depression, psychosis, and even suicide. Four years ago, my colleague and friend Mr. Stupak had to endure the tragic suicide of his teenage son, who was using Accutane at the time. Despite the fact that the significant and serious side effects associated with Accutane are well known, the Food and Drug Administration has yet to mandate a program to better monitor the use of this drug and to document its effects in patients, despite the fact that such a registry has been recommended by FDA advisory panels on two separate occasions. The Accutane Safety and Risk Management Act is common sense legislation that will build upon a safety plan first proposed by the makers of this drug themselves. It will still permit doctors to prescribe Accutane, but will also institute several additional patient safety and protection measures and ensure patients and their families know the full risks before beginning treatment. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we propose will permit physicians to prescribe Accutane only for ``severe, recalcitrant nodular acne'' that has been unresponsive to other forms of treatment. Severe acne is the condition for which Accutane was originally approved to treat. For patients with severe acne, Accutane may be the only medication that can successfully treat their affliction. But in far too many cases, Accutane is prescribed in an overly cavalier manner, and patients are being placed at risk to the drug's side effects for no medically valid reason. Many teenagers suffer from acne, and doctors and patients need to be cautious and not treat this drug lightly. The legislation will also register all doctors, physicians, and pharmacists who prescribe and dispense the drug, and institute an education campaign to ensure these providers are well-informed about the potential risks associated with Accutane. All patients will also be educated and be required to receive similar information before starting treatment with Accutane and throughout the treatment regimen. Prescriptions will only be written for 30 days and will not be permitted via the telephone, Internet, or mail. Female patients will also have to undergo a monthly pregnancy test before receiving a renewal on their prescription, and all patients will be required to take a monthly blood test. The makers of the drug and all practitioners who dispense Accutane will also be required to file prompt reports with the Department of Health and Human Services anytime they learn of a negative reaction, including a death. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just add that I commend my good friend Bart Stupak for having the courage and fortitude to turn a heartbreaking family tragedy into an effort to spare others from suffering a similar loss. I look forward to working with him to advance this important, common-sense health reform.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

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 myself such time as I may consume and rise in strong support of S. Con. Res. 114, which is an expression of support for the McGovern-Dole International Food For Education Program. The companion House version of this resolution was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts. By taking up the companion Senate version of the resolution, we will be able to complete congressional action on it. 300 million children around the world suffer from chronic hunger and malnourishment, and this program was founded on the premise that one of the most effective ways to combat child hunger could at the same time serve to increase literacy and to promote international stability. The program consists of a simple measure of supplying schools in areas suffering from food shortages with meals for their students. It has been shown that this measure, in addition to providing much-needed nourishment for hungry children, also results in a significant rise in attendance rates. This translates into higher literacy rates, job opportunities, and a healthier local economy as these children enter the workforce. These improvements, in turn, address several of the root causes of terrorism which is strongly linked to poverty and poor education. Since its inception, the McGovern-Dole program has donated surplus agricultural commodities to the U.N. World Food Program, feeding nearly 7 million children from 38 countries. I urge the Congress to pass this concurrent resolution as an expression of support for this admirable endeavor. This resolution does not involve any allocation of funds, but does serve to recognize the accomplishments of the program, accomplishments again which have aided some 7 million children with much-needed meals and have aided the world by promoting education and stability. We express our support. I hope that the membership will support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 114) concerning the importance of the distribution of food in schools to hungry or malnourished children around the world.

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. 1587, as amended.