[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 41 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1977-H1980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CUT FOREIGN AID TO UNFRIENDLY NATIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my dear friend Dan Burton.
He is a patriotic American. He stands for what he believes in. And if
we had a lot more Dan Burtons in Washington, the country would be that
much better off. So we're grateful to him and his service.
It is an honor to serve in this body. It's been rather frustrating
lately, and one of the things I wanted to mention was that another good
friend, former fellow judge as I was, a district judge--I lost
credibility as far as some of the district judges believed when I
became chief justice of the Court of Appeals--but my friend Ted Poe
from Houston is pushing a bill that I'm sure glad to cosponsor with
him. I'm glad he's doing it. It goes a bit hand-in-hand with a bill
that I've been pushing ever since I've been here.
But Congressman Poe's bill would allow an up-or-down vote on all the
different countries that we provide foreign assistance. It's a good
idea. I mean, for all of the years that I've been here in each
Congress, three times we have filed a U.N. voting accountability bill,
and my friend Ted Poe has been on that bill cosponsoring with us, and
I'm glad to support his bill.
My bill simply says any country that votes against us more than half
the time gets no foreign assistance the following year. We know there's
sometimes when there are emergencies, there are things we need to do,
and so there's an exception for that in the event of an international
emergency, but otherwise, we're not going to tell foreign countries how
they vote in the U.N., but you can tell a lot about who is your friend
and who isn't by who stands with you during difficult times and on
difficult issues, and you're able to discern who has the same moral
beliefs as you do.
For example, there are countries where sharia law is the rule of the
land, and life does not have the value that we in America believe that
God gave life to have. So it's okay. In fact, you can find your way to
paradise, some believe, and not all Muslims believe this, but there are
those who believe that you can find your way to paradise and differing
number of virgins waiting for you if you die while you're killing
infidels, people that don't believe in the same things you do. Well,
that's fine, but if you believe in torturing, killing, taking a life,
taking innocent lives for nothing, or just because of someone's
religious beliefs, then we should not be financing that.
It's deeply troubling to see that in Egypt, one account said that
President--or king, whatever you want to call him--Mubarak had $70
billion in the bank. Another account said he had $7 billion in the
account. Either way, can't help but wonder if that couldn't be a whole
lot of U.S. taxpayer dollars back when we weren't having to borrow to
give away money like we are now. We were giving $2 billion or so a
year, and it wouldn't be surprising if most of that money were United
States dollars that had been given to Egypt.
{time} 1720
On the other hand, we know that there are despots, there are
dictators, there are corrupt leaders of countries around the world who
believe that it's fine to even force women to have abortions. As my
friend and I both believe, abortion is wrong. It is wrong. It is taking
innocent life. Yet, we are just handing money out around the world hand
over fist, and people taking innocent lives, the unborn of others.
We know that there was about to be a hanging of a man who converted
from Islam to Christianity over in Afghanistan, and we're still just
pouring money into Karzai's regime. There are issues about him and his
brother, whether or not there is corruption there, and we're just
pouring money in there that we don't have. And we're having to pay, 40,
42 cents in interest of every $1 on loans because we don't have the
money to do that.
In any event, my friend Chris Smith is here, and I would be happy to
yield to him.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my very good friend and colleague
for yielding.
I do raise my voice today, and I join my friend from Texas and others
in a bit of a celebration--although it needs to be a cautious
celebration because the tyranny on the island of Cuba continues
unabated for so many others. But Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Oscar
Biscet of Cuba, one of the bravest and brightest human rights defenders
on Earth, was released on March 12 from a wretched Cuban prison where
he had endured 8 years of torture with periods of solitary confinement
for his exemplary human rights work. It was Dr. Biscet's second long-
term, totally unjustified incarceration by Cuba, by Castro, totaling
almost 12 years in prison. According to his wife, Elsa Morejon, he was
arrested at least 27 periods and jailed for short periods of time
between 1998 and 1999 alone, yet he persisted and has an indomitable
will that continues to this day. Dr. Biscet's release and that of other
prisoners of conscience was negotiated and announced by Cardinal Jaime
Ortega, archbishop of Havana.
Yesterday, I had the high honor and the privilege to speak by phone
with Dr. Biscet who is still in Cuba. And I conveyed my and, I would
say, our collective respect, admiration, and abiding concern for his
welfare and well-being as well as that of his wife. He said during the
conversation that she
[[Page H1978]]
was pleasantly shocked and very happy to finally have him home. I let
him know that he and his amazing work was never and will never be
forgotten.
Awarded the U.S. Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush, Dr.
Biscet suffered the depravity of Castro's infamous gulag in order to
bring the rule of just law, respect for human rights, and a robust
democracy to Cuba.
In our phone conversation, he absolutely insisted that freedom will
and must be procured only through peaceful means, and of course that
work is far from finished. He said that faith in God was paramount and
that ``prayer is of utmost importance.'' He is truly a man of God.
Dr. Biscet, an OB/GYN, told me that the truth about what Castro has
done to his people and continues to do must reach--these are his
words--the truth must reach the Cuban people, and he singled out Radio
Marti as a valuable means to that end.
``Were you tortured?'' I asked him. He said last night, ``Yes, yes.''
And his multiple serious health conditions that must now be addressed
obviously are testimony to the cruel and severe mistreatment that he
suffered. He told me that in prison, he had to eat putrified food and
rice that was laced with worms. He endured solitary confinement with a
mentally ill person, survived a dungeon with a knife-throwing criminal,
and withstood burns all over his body from the prison's kitchen exhaust
pipe that emptied into his cell. The Cuban Government even attempted to
take him for shock therapy at a mental institution in order to rid him
of his passion for human rights. None of it worked. And by the grace of
God, he has persevered with unparalleled bravery.
Freedom House has ranked Cuba as one of the least free countries in
the world. The only country which ranked lower on the freedom scale
than Cuba was the nightmare gulag of North Korea. Yet in an insane
paradox, the Cuban tyrants remain romantic heroes for many in the
United States, including some Members of this Congress who in 2009
visited Cuba and gushed with admiration for the dictators Fidel and
Raul Castro, showing no compassion for the pain their courting and
their enabling of Castro gave to all those suffering under his
dictatorship.
Castro has not succeeded in crushing the spirit of Dr. Biscet. That
same spirit and vision animates the so-called ladies in white, Las
Damas de Blanco, the wives and relatives of imprisoned political
dissidents like Dr. Biscet who attend mass each week and march through
the streets dressed in white to symbolize peaceful dissent. Cuban
police have detained and beaten these women for their peaceful protest.
And lest anyone construe Dr. Biscet's release as the harbinger of
immediate peace and respect for human rights in Cuba, consider this:
Yesterday Amnesty International published an alert that noted that
``the repression of Cuban dissidents persists despite the releases.'' I
will put the entire statement in. But they point out that numerous,
numerous activists, new activists, men and women who are speaking out
for human rights are now being rounded up, put under house arrest, and
some held in detention.
They pointed out that on February 23, on the 1-year anniversary of a
great man named Tamayo's death, according to the Cuban Commission on
Human Rights, the authorities placed over 50 people under house arrest
before freeing them hours later. And the president of the Cuban Youth
Movement for Democracy was arrested after organizing an activist
meeting. Where? Inside his own home. And he now has been arrested.
Dr. Biscet hopefully will receive the Nobel Peace Prize. As my friend
and colleague knows, we have really orchestrated an effort all over the
world--parliamentarians were gladly writing in letters, including the
Prime Minister of Hungary, asking the distinguished body that gives out
the Peace Prize to consider Dr. Biscet and hopefully the other Cuban
dissidents for that prize. Liu Xiaobo got it last year. He couldn't
travel. They put the Peace Prize on the empty chair. Dr. Biscet is out
of prison, and it would be a great lifting of spirits and hopes for the
people of Cuba for that Peace Prize committee to award him.
Repression of Cuban Dissidents Persists Despite Releases
The Cuban authorities are continuing to stifle freedom of
expression on the island in spite of the much-publicised
recent wave of releases of prominent dissidents, Amnesty
International warned ahead of the eighth anniversary of a
crackdown on activists.
Hundreds of pro-democracy activists have suffered
harassment, intimidation and arbitrary arrest in recent weeks
as the Cuban government employs new tactics to stamp out
dissent.
Of 75 activists arrested in a crackdown around 18 March
2003, only three remain in jail after 50 releases since last
June, with most of the freed activists currently exiled in
Spain. Amnesty International has called for the remaining
prisoners to be released immediately and unconditionally.
``The release of those detained in the 2003 crackdown is a
hugely positive step but it tells only one side of the story
facing Cuban human rights activists,'' said Gerardo Ducos,
Cuba researcher at Amnesty International.
``Those living on the island are still being targeted for
their work, especially through short-term detentions, while
repressive laws give the Cuban authorities a free rein to
punish anyone who criticises them.''
``Meanwhile, three of the prisoners detained eight years
ago still languish in prison and must be freed immediately.''
In one recent crackdown the authorities detained over one
hundred people in one day in a pre-emptive strike designed to
stop activists marking the death of activist Orlando Zapata
Tamayo, who died following a prolonged hunger strike while in
detention.
On 23 February, the one-year anniversary of Tamayo's death,
according to the Cuban Commission of Human Rights and
National Reconciliation, the authorities placed over 50
people under house arrest before freeing them hours later.
Activist Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina, was recently named a
prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International after being
detained without trial for over three months.
The president of the Cuban Youth Movement for Democracy was
arrested after organizing an activists' meeting inside his
own home.
``Cubans are still at the mercy of draconian laws that
class activism as a crime and anyone who dares to criticise
the authorities is at risk of detention,'' said Gerardo
Ducos.
``In addition to releasing long-term prisoners of
conscience, to properly realize freedom of expression the
Cuban government also has to change its laws.''
Seventy-five people were jailed in a massive crackdown
against the dissident movement around 18 March 2003 for the
peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression.
Most of them were charged with crimes including ``acts
against the independence of the state'' because they
allegedly received funds and/or materials from US-based NGOs
financed by the US government.
They were sentenced to between six and 28 years in prison
after speedy and unfair trials for engaging in activities the
authorities perceived as subversive and damaging to Cuba.
These activities included publishing articles or giving
interviews to US-funded media, communicating with
international human rights organizations and having contact
with entities or individuals viewed to be hostile to Cuba.
Mr. GOHMERT. I certainly thank my friend from New Jersey. Chris
Smith, you are a leader. You are a man of conviction who cares deeply
about those who have suffered for no good reason and standing for
freedom. You are a true patriot, and it's an honor to serve with you as
a friend here.
I don't know if you were aware; but in the discussion about all the
foreign aid to countries who do not have the same abiding love and
desire for freedom for all people and the same value of human life, I
didn't know if my friend was aware of the fact that in 2008--I don't
have the 2009 and 2010 numbers in front of me--but for 2008, this
country, the United States, provided $45,330,000 in aid to Cuba. And
you can't help but wonder over the years, like with Dr. Biscet, how
much American money might have ever been used to help restrain heroes
of this whole Earth that should have been praised and appreciated. Yet
we're giving money to brutal dictators who treat the best that humanity
has to offer in this manner. Does the gentleman has some thoughts?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman from Texas makes an excellent
point. When you provide foreign aid, when you provide economic
lifelines to dictatorships, it enables them to continue their
repression. Years ago, we took a very principled stance against South
Africa because of that abomination known as apartheid. And when the
world united and said, No more, it did lead to an end to that racist
regime.
Now Cuba, for some reason--and China would fall into this category as
well. But Cuba, to keep on point, has had trade with Canada and with
the European countries and the European Union, and there's been no
matriculation from dictatorship to democracy at
[[Page H1979]]
all. If anything, Cuba has gotten worse in many cases, clearly
underscoring that when a brutal dictatorship is given the money and
wherewithal, they will continue their repressive ways.
{time} 1730
I believe, and I asked Dr. Biscet this last night, about lifting the
travel ban and lifting the trade embargo, which are two things that the
Obama administration is seeking to do. And he said don't do it unless
there are conditionalities, human rights, democracy, free and fair
elections. Otherwise, the secret police, the neighborhood block
committees, and those who repress every person in Cuba who, especially
those who articulate the vision of freedom and democracy and human
rights, are given additional power.
Hard currency, as Dr. Biscet said on the phone, the Cuban Government
runs everything. So when you lift the trade embargo, when you have
people traveling to Cuba bringing hard currency, you throw a lifeline.
Better condition it, all of it, to human rights conditions.
Again, had it worked, if that was the answer, as he said in the
conversation last night, having a travel ability from Canada, and
trade, and from the European countries, we would have seen a change
towards democracy. It has not happened. It has gotten worse.
I appreciate you bringing up that very good point.
Mr. GOHMERT. Well, thank you.
And what an anomaly to have a country that believes in freedom and
liberty and human life and human value, and yet at the same time we
demean it--whether it's giving money to entities that take unborn lives
or whether it's giving money to brutal dictators who certainly don't
believe in freedom of religion but are willing to take the lives of
people because of their religion or who repressively say, We told you
you could have one child, so we're going to kill your other children.
It is just a mind-boggling thing, as Bo Pilgrim used to say. I'm sure
he still does. But it's mind-boggling. How do we think that we're
helping the world when we give massive amounts of money to people that
are the very antithesis of the things that Americans have given their
last full measure of devotion to preserve and protect?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. You know, the date we lost China, in my
opinion, was May 26, 1994. On that date, President Bill Clinton
completely severed and de-linked human rights with Most Favored Nation
status, after getting accolades when he linked it a year before. He
said, unless there's significant progress in human rights, we're going
to condition our trading relationship, and we will only look at
performance. He shredded his Executive order. We had the votes to take
away MFN that year, which dissipated over time.
I met with the human rights groups. I even went to China and realized
that we were talking out of both sides of our mouth, like Janus, the
Roman god, saying two things, you know, like some in diplomatic circles
often do. And the foreign ministry in Beijing told me, We're getting
Most Favored Nation status. We don't care what you think about human
rights.
Fast forward to just a few weeks ago when Hu Jintao, the unelected
President of China, visited with President Obama; not a single public
statement on human rights. It was so bad that when there was a press
conference with Hu Jintao and President Obama at the White House, the
President defended Hu, President Hu. When asked about human rights by
an Associated Press reporter, President Obama said, ``Well, they have a
different culture and they have a different political system.''
That was an outrageous statement that undermines all of the peace and
freedom loving people of China, tens of thousands of whom are in the
laogai or the gulag system suffering for peace and human rights and
religious freedom. And it's as if to say somehow the Chinese people
don't get it or they don't understand human rights. They sure do, and
they want it. Ask Wei Jingsheng, Harry Wu, Chai Ling and all the great
human rights defenders, many of whom have spent years in the gulag
system.
It was so bad that The Washington Post did an editorial, and it said,
President Obama defends Hu, Hu Jintao, on rights, and took the
President, rightfully so, you know, a very liberal newspaper, The
Washington Post, to task for being so silent.
Here it is, President Obama, 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Liu
Xiaobo, 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the man who put him in
prison, Hu Jintao, and they're at a State dinner, first at a press
conference, all kinds of other meetings, and not a single word about
Liu Xiaobo. He should have said, Mr. President, Release the dissidents.
He did no such thing, kept it all to himself even if he had those
thoughts.
And in China, because I went on People's Daily because I read it
often. I read it the next day. Filled with accolades from the American
President for a dictator. It demoralizes people in the laogai, just
like people in this Chamber, just like the President I believe is
demoralizing those suffering in the gulags all over the world,
including in Cuba.
So the gentleman is absolutely right. We need to be very serious and
use--what if it were I or my wife or my family that were suffering
this? Would we just then look askance and embrace these dictators? I
don't think so. I would hope not.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman's insights. But,
unfortunately, based on our modern history in this country, the
indications are if you were being tortured and held in prison, it
doesn't appear that this government would do anything different than
what we've been doing.
And the point that you make is so important. We've heard it from
those who suffer and have suffered in gulags, who have been later
released, and when we hear whether it was those held in Poland or in
the Russian gulags or Chinese or Cuban, for example, when Ronald Reagan
said this is an evil empire, what we've heard in the more recent years
is that gave us hope. Somebody was willing to stand up and call it what
it was. And at the time, that kept them going.
And our colleague here in the House, Sam Johnson, when he was a POW
for 7 years in North Vietnam, being tortured daily, one of the most
difficult things to endure was the information that our country did not
care.
Now, it's heartbreaking to think about our friends who were suffering
in horrible prison conditions, and we gave--not only gave the
impression we didn't care, we had people running around blaming those
very people for their own troubles when all they were trying to do was
keep horrible, repressive regimes from taking over and killing
millions, as they did when we left.
And so one of the great attributes of Reagan was he called things
like he saw them, and it gave hope to the world.
And I don't know if my friend from New Jersey has heard me mention
this, but last year, around Easter, I was in West Africa and met with
some of the West Africans who were Christians. And the oldest said he
wanted to make sure that I knew that they were so excited when we
elected an African American president, that that was thrilling to them,
until they began to see that his policies were weakening America. And
this elderly, wonderful, wise gentleman, with others younger, all in
agreement, said, You have got to make sure people in Washington
understand. If you keep becoming weaker, we lose hope in this life. We
know where our hope is in the next life. But as far as our hope for
having a peaceful life in this world, it will be gone when you become
too weak. Please tell your friends in Washington, do not let America
grow any weaker.
And here we overspend. We give monies to countries who hate us, who
hate the things we stand for, who hate the fact that we believe in
freedom, because they believe freedom leads to debauchery, and so they
believe you should have some dictator, caliphate, somebody that tells
you everything you can do and what you can't do because freedom, they
believe, corrupts; whereas, we know in our hearts, it's in our
Constitution, it's in our Declaration of Independence, God gave us
freedom to make choices.
{time} 1740
And it is one of the greatest things that America has done that I
think has helped cause this Nation to be blessed. We have stood for
those freedoms. Not just for America. There is no country in the
history of the world that has
[[Page H1980]]
ever given treasure and life of that country's people to get freedom
for other countries and other people of whom we ask nothing in return.
That is unheard of in the history of the world, and yet this Nation has
done it over and over. We have done it to help protect Muslims and give
them freedom of choice, Christians, Buddhists. It did not matter. It
was all about human rights, human dignity, and human freedom. And we
see that slipping away every time we prop up some brutal dictator,
every time we look the other way and pat cruel, evil people on the back
and say, ``Oh, we're so proud of you; we're glad to be your friend,''
when those like who have been repressed by Cuba say, ``Please, do not
give more credibility to the oppressors.''
I yield to my friend for any final thoughts.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Well, I think you just made an articulate
defense of why a consistent, transparent human rights, pro-freedom,
pro-democracy foreign policy is absolutely essential if we want a world
that is free of tyranny.
Pope John Paul II once said: If you want peace, work for justice.
Then he said: If you want justice, work on behalf of the
disenfranchised, unborn child, which I feel is a very good connection
of human rights from womb to tomb.
But you made an excellent point about Ronald Reagan. Yesterday, Natan
Sharansky, the great dissident--and Frank Wolf and I actually got into
the prison camp, Perm Camp 35, where he spent so many horrible days and
nights in the ShiZO, which was the punishment cell. We were there in
the late eighties right after he got out. And you remember, he didn't
just walk in a straight line when the KGB said you walk right across.
He did a zigzag, his ultimate final act of defiance to the KGB.
But he said just what you brought out, Judge Gohmert, and that was
that when Ronald Reagan talked about the Evil Empire, he said it again
yesterday, they knew that we got it, that there was hope. And it gave
him hope. It gave the other political dissidents hope. Jewish,
Christian, whatever their denomination or religious belief, they said
America understands the inherent failure of communism, the militant
atheism which it represents, as Solzhenitsyn said it in his books, and
he had hope.
Wei Jingsheng correspondingly, who is the father of the democracy war
movement in China, a great leader, he told me when they let him out to
get Olympics 2000--not the one they just had, Olympics 2000, and the
Olympic committee didn't give it to them because they were such
violators of human rights. Unfortunately, they capitulated some years
later. He said, ``When you kowtow, when you enable, when you pander to
dictatorship, including the Chinese dictatorship, especially the
Chinese dictatorship, they beat us more in prison. But when you are
tough, transparent, you look the dictator in the eye and say we are not
kidding; we want these people released, they beat us less.'' That is
from a man who spent 20 years in the Chinese laogai. Harry Wu and all
the others have said the exact same thing.
So when President Obama kowtowed for the better part of a week in
front of Hu Jintao, it was, in my opinion, a shameless exercise of lack
of commitment to human rights and they beat the dissidents more
because, ``They will tell us, America has abandoned you.''
Thankfully, in a bipartisan way--because when Hu Jintao came right
here on Capitol Hill, it was our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, who raised
human rights and raised the inherent violation of human rights in the
one child per couple policy, the missing girls, 100 million missing
girls in China, the result of a one child per couple policy where
brothers and sisters are illegal. And over the course of 30 years,
since 1979, when that horrific policy, the worst crime against women
ever, went into effect, they have systematically exterminated the girl
child, and now many of them are not here even as young women.
Forty million men won't be able to find wives by 2020 in China
because women have been forcibly aborted as part of this one child per
couple policy. It's a huge gender disparity, which raises problems
about potential war. There is a book called ``The Barren Branches''
that talks about this restless male population that can't ever get
married because women are not there. It is also a magnet for human
trafficking.
Our President should have stood boldly, I say diplomatically. Frank
Wolf and I met with Li Peng when he was Premier. We had a list of
political prisoners. We talked about the one child per couple policy.
We talked about religious freedom. We looked him right in the eye.
Almost no one ever does that. You will do it. I will do it. Our
President should do it. President Bush did it. He raised religious
freedom robustly with the Chinese Government on his trips. Mrs. Clinton
on her first trip to Beijing said, I am not going to let human rights,
quote, interfere with global climate change issues and the issue of
debt.
So it really is a very serious abandonment of the people who need it
most, who will be the next Lech Walesa or Harry Wu or Wei Jingsheng.
You bring up an excellent point, and I thank you for your leadership on
human rights and the peace agenda, which is really the freedom agenda.
Mr. GOHMERT. It is certainly an honor to serve with you. And I don't
know if you are aware, our friend Ted Poe, our colleague, has a bill
that is trying to force all foreign aid to come to a vote country by
country. That would give us the chance to discuss these very things on
each country, on whether or not we should give them assistance. Isn't
that wonderful? So I look forward to that in the time to come.
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the time to discuss this very important
issue, and especially now that money is so critically needed and that
we should not be wasting it to help those who repress others.
____________________