[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4435-4439]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 4436]]

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 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

[[Page 4437]]

     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 have 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 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,

[[Page 4438]]

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 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

[[Page 4439]]

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.

                          ____________________