Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, next week, on April 24, we will mark the 103rd anniversary of the infamous Armenian genocide. The date of the commemoration marks the anniversary of Red Sunday, the night when the Ottoman Empire Government gave the order to arrest and intern approximately 250 Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul.

Less than 2 months after Red Sunday, the end of May 1915, the government enacted legislation that unleashed unspeakable widespread government-organized evictions, massacres, and deportations. As many as 1.5 million people perished. It was about the annihilation of the Armenian people.

In September of 2000, I held the first-ever hearing on the Armenian genocide here in Congress. Three years ago this month, I chaired another hearing on the 100th anniversary.

At the time, I noted that the Armenian genocide is the only one of the genocides of the 20th century in which the nation that was decimated by genocide has been subjected to ongoing outrage of a massive campaign of genocidal denial, openly sustained by state authority--that would be the Turkish Government. That has to change, and this horrible, horrible genocide needs to be recognized by our government for what it was.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for this Holocaust Remembrance Week to honor the people murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, especially the six million Jews singled out for genocide. The methods of mass murder were unspeakable, horrifying and modern. The anti-Semitic hate fueling the killing was an ancient, persistent evil, a disease of the heart that dehumanizes and destroys.

The late, iconic Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel wrote that ``The anti-Semite is an ideological fanatic and pathological racist. An anti- Semite is someone who never met me, never heard of me, yet he hates me.'' In addition, neighbors, colleagues, and friends, being murdered, strangers, from the youngest to the oldest, were targeted and annihilated merely for being Jewish or being perceived to be Jewish.

Children were even taught to hate the Jewish people, informally at home and formally at schools and through organizations like Hitler Youth. This wicked ideology was imposed on countries conquered by the Nazis. Several generations of Germans and other Europeans were infected by this poison and it may take several generations more for it to be purged from the body of Europe.

Families were robbed of lives, homes were robbed of their belongings, and countries were robbed of the talents of their Jewish citizens. Europe, indeed the world, has been poorer because of this theft. We will never know which cultural, scientific, and other gifts, past, present, and future, were consumed by the carnage of the Holocaust.

It may be tempting to think of the Holocaust as history from long ago. In the span of human history the Holocaust was close enough to be more like the present than the past. Some survivors are still alive, witnessing to the resilience of the Jewish people over the millennia, and perpetrators continue to be prosecuted. Anti-Semitism did not end with the Holocaust.

Anti-Semitic evil is still evident locally and globally. In my district, the Congregation Sons of Israel synagogue was recently vandalized for the second time in nine months. This time cowardly criminals spray-painted 666 on an outdoor Holocaust memorial and drew a swastika-like symbol on a nearby pick-up truck.

For all of America in 2016, the latest year for which the FBI has issued hate crimes statistics, fifty four percent of the victims of anti-religion criminal offenses were Jewish. Every year since Congress began requiring the FBI to collect and report these figures in 1996, more victims of anti-religious hate crimes have been Jewish than any other religious group.

Witnesses testified at a hearing I chaired last year on ``Anti- Semitism Across Borders'' that extremist groups in the United States are using, modifying, adapting, and boosting the anti-Semitic tactics and strategies of extremists in Europe--which has been the site of so many violent and deadly attacks on Jewish communities in recent years.

Anti-Semitism is hard-wired into the ideology, propaganda, radicalization, targeting, and operations of terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Neo-Nazis and fringe political elements in Europe are openly promoting anti-Semitism. Segments of Muslim society in Europe have been sources of anti-Semitic incidents, including refugees and migrants who arrive with the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel attitudes of their countries and regions of origin. Anti-Semitism has become mainstream across the political and economic spectrum in many European countries to a degree unseen since World War II.

The rise of anti-Semitism in Latin America reflects trends in Europe as well as in some instances the influence of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hezbollah that threaten Israel and Jewish communities everywhere.

The Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement, more commonly known as BDS, is a vicious example what the great Natan Sharansky rightfully called ``new anti-Semitism'': Anti-Semitism under the guise of criticizing the State of Israel. This new anti-Semitism is rampant on college and university campuses and is even found among local governments. Modern anti-Jewish hatred is as outrageous as older anti- Semitism.

We must fight anti-Jewish hatred until it is defeated. The safety and security of Jewish communities is paramount and must be prioritized-- particularly through strengthened and new partnerships between law enforcement agencies and these communities. Our domestic law enforcement agencies at every level have to ensure they are focused on anticipating, preventing and responding to anti-Semitic crimes. Iran, ISIS, Hezbollah, and other terrorist entities that threaten Israel and Jewish communities elsewhere must be confronted.

Stand we must and stand we will with Jewish communities so that they are able to flourish without fear.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we held a hearing on parental child abduction. International parental child abduction rips children from their homes and whisks them away to a foreign land, alienating them from the love and care of the parent and family left behind.

Child abduction is child abuse, and it continues to plague families across the United States.

According to State Department statistics, almost 800 children are today held hostage in a foreign country, separated from their American parent. Several hundred additional children join their ranks every year.

If past is prologue, only 16 percent of these children will be returned to the United States.

In 2014, Congress adopted legislation I wrote, the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (Public Law 113-150) to change the status quo. Since 2014, we have seen a reduction in new abductions, but not an increase in percentage of returns in ongoing cases.

Despite the new legislation, the State Department has persistently refused to use the return tools in the Goldman Act as envisioned by Congress. Moving beyond letters and meetings, the Goldman Act is an enforcement tool for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and leverage for return agreements with non-Hague countries.

The Goldman Act takes the lessons learned from the successful return of Sean Goldman from Brazil and lays out actions: a delay or cancellation of one or more bilateral working, official, or state visits; the withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S. development, security, or economic support assistance; and extradition.

To my knowledge, extradition has been used once and the other options not at all. The Obama State Department said in the past that sanctions will not work. But in the one case where sanctions were tried by Congress, they worked.

The inaction by the Obama Administration has been noted and challenged. On February 14 of 2017, one month into the new Trump Administration, Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fumio Kishida, noted in a Diet discussion of abduction that, ``until now there is not a single example in which the U.S. applied [Goldman Act sanctions] towards foreign countries.'' He went on to note that ``according to the U.S. [Japan is] not included in the category of the non-compliant countries.''

Three days later, the Osaka High Court overturned a return order for the four American children of James Cook in flagrant violation of the Hague Convention, Japan's own Hague implementation guide, and U.S. law. The court had reopened the case because Mr. Cook had moved into an apartment after the enormous legal bills from years in court in Japan. When did sharing a bedroom with a sibling become a grave risk to a child's physical or psychological well-being?

I urge and believe the new administration can and must do better.

At least 300 to 400 children have suffered abduction from the U.S. to Japan since 1994, and more than 35 currently await reunification with their American parent-most of these are left over from previous Administrations. In almost all cases, the child is completely cut off from contact with the left behind parent. Most have aged out of the system without ever being reunited with their left behind parent.

Some parents have won in court only to find that Japan's law enforcement could not return their children unless the taking parent agreed to abide by the decision, and the taking parent did not.

The systematic non-enforcement of access and return orders is so bad in Japan that 26 EU countries recently issued a joint demarche to Japan, asking Japan to fix the problem. Although non-enforcement has plagued many U.S. cases, the U.S. did not join the demarche.

However, in the upcoming Goldman Act report, the U.S. has the chance to hold Japan

accountable for its failures in the Cook case as well as others, like that of the Elias children, taken from my home state of New Jersey after their mother obtained duplicate passports from the Japanese consulate in contravention of the judge's order. The report can and must better reflect the reality of the child abduction and the suffering of American children separated from their American parent every day in Japan.

According to the Goldman Act, a country can find itself on the ``non-compliance list'' and eligible for sanctions if a country regularly fails to enforce return orders. The State Department should also put the country on the list if the judiciary regularly fails to properly apply the Hague Convention--such as in the Cook case.

Finally, a country should be put on the ``non-compliance list'' if 30 percent or more cases in the country are unresolved cases--or cases that have been pending for more than a year.

Notably, the definition of an ``unresolved'' case makes no mention of a country's Hague status. In other words, all of the cases that began before Japan's accession to the Hague Convention and that were communicated to the Japanese government should be counted against Japan.

No child should be left behind.

We received assurances from the State Department years ago, as they myopically pursued Japan's accession to the Hague Convention knowing that the Convention would not cover the then existing cases of more than 50 children, that they would not leave these children behind.

That they would find ways to solve these cases.

How many of these children have come home four years later? How many even have access to their left behind parent now?

Almost zero.

The Goldman Act directed the State Department to develop an agreement with Japan for the precious children that were already abducted. The Goldman Act made a way for the State Department to hold Japan accountable for these cases.

Four years later, we have no agreement with Japan for these cases. We have no action against Japan for these cases or current cases. And we have yet to see the State Department even list Japan as ``non- compliant'' in the annual report.

Every day these children are separated from their US parent the damage compounds.

As the State Department's own 2010 Report on Compliance with The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction observes, ``Abducted children are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems. Research shows that recovered children often experience a range of problems, including anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness. As adults, individuals who were abducted as children may struggle with identity issues, personal relationships, and possibly experience problems in parenting their own children.''

We must do better by our children. We must not leave any abducted child behind.

Congress is currently looking at new ways to put pressure on countries with low resolution rates, like Japan, Brazil, and India.

Last year, I introduced H.R. 3512, the Bindu Philips and Devon Davenport International Child Abduction Return Act of 2017 to amend the Generalized System of Preferences system so that any country named as ``non-compliant'' would lose their trade benefits. The loss of trade preference would be automatic and not dependent on the Administration choosing to apply sanctions. Currently, 11 of 13 non-compliant countries receive trade benefits from the United States. This has to change.

In addition, I am working on a bill that would limit H1-B and other business visas for countries that have low abduction resolution rates- this would affect Japan, Brazil, and India, among others.

We have 13 egregious long term cases pending in Brazil, including the Dr. Brann and Davenport cases. More than 90 American children are separated from their American parent in India--India will not even appoint a person to receive the applications and has refused to join the Hague Convention.

We asked in our hearing last year, when is enough, enough?

We hope that the State Department will do its job and implement the Goldman Act. We hope that the Trump Administration will be different than the last.

But we are prepared to go around the State Department in order to ensure no abducted child is left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 128) supporting respect for human rights and encouraging inclusive governance in Ethiopia, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 128, bipartisan legislation--we got about 114 Members, maybe as many as 118, a few came in right at the end--is a visible and necessary manifestation of deep congressional concern that egregious human rights abuses immediately end in Ethiopia and that fundamental human rights be promoted and protected for all.

I would note parenthetically that, like others in this House, my commitment to promoting human rights in Ethiopia spans decades and includes country visits, chairing numerous congressional hearings and legislation, including the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights Advancement Act of 2006.

The resolution before us today, Mr. Speaker, is balanced and recognizes the recent peaceful and voluntary transfer of power from Prime Minister Hailemariam to the new Prime Minister Abiy, and welcomes Prime Minister Abiy's inaugural speech calling for open political competition and the defense of fundamental human rights. However, Prime Minister Abiy has been a member of the governing Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front since the EPRDF took power in 1991.

Prior to becoming Prime Minister, he played a critical role in the government security apparatus as the cofounder of the Ethiopian Information Network Security Agency. He is the leader of the Oromo Peoples' Democratic Organization, one of the four ethnic groups that make up the EPRDF.

Also, H. Res. 128 commends Ethiopia's efforts to promote regional peace and security, as well as our longstanding partnership in addressing health challenges.

However, the resolution carefully and accurately highlights that, despite these developments, human rights abuses remain at the core of the government's treatment--or should I say mistreatment--of the Ethiopian people.

So after decades of serious human rights abuse--often ignored and trivialized by some in Africa, the European Union, and the United States--it is now time for positive action and meaningful deeds. Words, Mr. Speaker, are just not enough.

In a letter asking Members of Congress to support our resolution, Amnesty International notes that, in the last 2 months, the government has released large numbers of political prisoners--although many remain behind

bars--and closed the notorious Maekelawi prison, known for its torture. Yet some have already been rearrested, and all--absolutely all of them--are at risk of rearrest. Making matters worse, repressive laws and state of emergency, used to brutalize people, remains in place. There has been no reform there. None whatsoever.

Human Rights Watch strongly supports H. Res. 128 and has reported in its reporting on human rights that: ``Since late 2015, security forces have killed over 1,000 people''--and some estimates put that far higher--``and detained tens of thousands during widespread protests against government policies.''

The Human Rights Watch goes on to say: ``A state of emergency began in February 2018''--that is just several weeks ago--``the second in 2 years, and permits draconian restrictions on rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Authorities regularly use arbitrary arrests and politically motivated prosecutions to silence journalists, activists, and perceived opposition party members. Torture remains a serious problem in detention.''

Earlier today, Mike Coffman and I had a press conference. There were several men and women there who have suffered the torture of the Ethiopian Government and bear on their bodies and their minds and their hearts the horrible and horrific indignity of the use of torture by the Government of Ethiopia. Human Rights Watch continues: ``The Ethiopian Government has not conducted meaningful investigations into any of these abuses. Repressive laws restrict the activities of nongovernmental organizations. The ruling coalition won all 547 parliamentary seats in the 2015 election.''

All of them. What does that tell you?

Mr. Speaker, the 2017 Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Ethiopia also cited serious human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests, killings, and torture committed by the security forces, restrictions on freedom of expression and association, politically motivated trials, harassment, and intimidation of opposition members and journalists.

On February 18 of this year, the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia issued a strong statement against the state of emergency. They said, in pertinent part: ``We strongly disagree with the Ethiopian Government's decision to impose a state of emergency that includes restrictions on fundamental rights such as assembly and expression.''

``We strongly urge the government to rethink this approach''--the State Department goes on to say--``and identify other means to protect lives and property while preserving, and indeed expanding, the space for meaningful dialogue and political participation. . . . `'

My resolution--cosponsored by well over 110, I think it is 118 now, Members of the House--calls on the Government of Ethiopia to:

Lift the state of emergency;

Repeal or amend proclamations used as a tool to suppress human rights in Ethiopia, including the so-called Antiterrorism Proclamation--which accuses any Ethiopian who criticizes the government of being a terrorist--and the Charities and Societies Proclamation--which makes it virtually impossible for civil society organizations to function by severely restricting foreign funding;

We are asking in the resolution to stop the killing of peaceful protestors and hold accountable those responsible for killing, torturing, and detaining innocent civilians;

Release dissidents, journalists, students, activists, and political leaders jailed for exercising their right to free expression and peaceful assembly;

Engage with citizens about development strategies, especially when these people could lose their land;

Allow a U.N. rapporteur unfettered access to examine the state of human rights in Ethiopia. Unfettered. Go anywhere, any time, and talk to anyone without fear of reprisal or retaliation;

And the resolution calls on the U.S. Department of State and USAID to, among other things, engage in a cooperative effort with the Government of Ethiopia in the formulation of a comprehensive strategy to help advance democracy, rule of law, human rights, economic growth, and peace and security in Ethiopia, and hold accountable individuals responsible for gross human rights violations in Ethiopia through appropriate mechanisms like the Global Magnitsky Act.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by thanking Congressman Mike Coffman, who has been an amazing tenacious supporter for this legislation and has really made a difference in helping to get it to the floor, and, of course, our majority leader for actually getting it to the floor. I see many of my colleagues on the Democrat side. I thank them. This is bipartisan legislation, and that is what it ought to be.

I want to thank Ms. Bass, the ranking member of the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee, for her cosponsorship and leadership as well, as well as Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel.

I would also like to thank the many human rights groups and the Ethiopian-American community, who have and continue to work diligently and tenaciously to secure fundamental human rights for the people of Ethiopia.

This is a first step today. My hope is that it will begin a process of this body being absolutely in solidarity with the oppressed and standing in opposition to the oppressor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), the original sponsor of the resolution, and, like I said, a giant when it has come to pushing human rights in Ethiopia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), one of the cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Mr. Speaker, I include these letters of support in the Record. I call attention to the membership an excellent letter written by human rights and diaspora groups, six groups in all. It is entitled, ``Ethiopia: Joint Letter About U.S. House Resolution 128'', in support of it. They make a number of very important points.

Ethiopia: Joint Letter About US House Resolution 128

Democracy, Human Rights and Diaspora Groups Urge Congress to Pass H.

Res. 128 on Ethiopia

Ethiopia is at a crossroads. On Monday, April 2, a new

Prime Minister, selected from within the ruling coalition,

delivered a speech about planned reforms while the country

was under another State of Emergency. At such a juncture,

amid mounting pressures, the role of the US, Ethiopia's

longstanding international ally to encourage critically-

needed reforms and human rights protections, should not be

underestimated in urging the country toward a new era of

stability.

The undersigned human rights and diaspora groups fully

support the passage of House Resolution 128 for the positive

contribution it can make toward respecting basic human rights

and encouraging inclusive governance in Ethiopia. The

resolution has strong bipartisan support and more than 100

co-sponsors. In addition, H. Res. 128 has significant

grassroots support among constituents across the US who have

ties to Ethiopia. It calls on the government of Ethiopia to

open up civic space, ensure accountability for human rights

abuses and promote inclusive governance.

For the past three years, Ethiopia has faced largely

peaceful and sustained protests in the Oromia and Amhara

regions of the country. These protests were led by youth

seeking opportunity, political reform and more participatory

development strategies. The government responded with

excessive force. More than a thousand protesters have been

killed by Ethiopian security forces, a greater number

injured, tens of thousands imprisoned and many tortured for

expressing grievances. Over a million, mostly from Oromia,

were uprooted due to government-instigated conflict in the

Eastern part of the country.

However, a combination of forces has accumulated in support

of the protesters--diaspora groups and international human

rights organizations helped publicize the protest movement in

Ethiopia and the government's violent response; the US

Congress rallied behind H. Res. 128; international news

outlets gave frequent coverage of the protests. At

the dawn of this new year, the EPRDF coalition announced

reforms and some changes began to occur. Close to 7000

political prisoners were released in January and February of

2018, Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn stepped down within

days, and Dr. Abiy Ahmed, a man with ties to the region most

impacted by the protests, was put forward by the coalition as

Ethiopia's newest prime minister.

In light of these beginnings, now more than ever, it is

imperative that the United States Congress take a stand that

reiterates the need for Ethiopia to take further steps in a

democratic direction by passing H. Res. 128. Ethiopia's

previous transfers of power indicate that leadership change

is often followed by unfulfilled promises, a culling of

opponents and power consolidation. If Prime Minister Abiy is

truly committed to breaking that pattern, this resolution

will encourage Ethiopia to lift the State of Emergency,

ensuring freedoms of expression and assembly and opening up

democratic space, all prerequisites for political and

economic reform.

1) H. Res. 128 is a signal of support for the youth in the

country who have organized to peacefully demand justice and

democracy and have paid a terrible price in terms of loss of

life, injury and arbitrary detention. Accountability for the

human rights violations that have occurred over the last 3

years will be an essential step towards genuine

reconciliation and is a key demand from the protesters.

2) H. Res. 128 contains clauses that could strengthen the

hand of the Prime Minister vis-a-vis less responsive segments

within the EPRDF party coalition structure, requiring

negotiation with the forces that control the country's

security apparatus, intelligence and the economic sectors.

3) H. Res. 128 contains clauses that call on the State

Department and USAID to develop a comprehensive strategy to

support improved democracy and governance in Ethiopia.

4) H. Res. 128 contains clauses that call on the Secretary

of State and Secretary of Treasury to apply appropriate

sanctions on individuals and organizations responsible for

gross human rights.

We support passage of H. Res. 128 as a means to send a

strong, unambiguous signal that the United States Congress

requires concrete reforms. Such reforms are needed to create

a path toward improved respect and protection of human and

civil rights, political stability and sustainable regional

security.

We urge members of the House to pass the resolution.

Amhara Association of America.

Coalition of Oromos for Human Rights and Democracy.

Ethiopian Advocacy Network.

Ethiopian Human Rights Project.

Human Rights Watch.

Oromo Advocacy Alliance.

For the past 3 years, they point out, as we know, Ethiopia has faced largely peaceful and sustained protesters in the Oromia and Amhara regions of the country. They were led by youth seeking opportunity, political reform, and more participatory development strategies. The government responded with excessive force. More than 1,000 protesters have been killed by the Ethiopian security forces, a greater number injured, tens of thousands imprisoned, and many more tortured for expressing grievances. Over 1 million have been displaced.

Let me just say in conclusion that they talk about the importance of supporting this. Yes, there is a new prime minister, but as they point out in their statement, and it is so true, Ethiopia's previous transfers of power indicate that leadership change is often followed by unfulfilled promises, a culling of opponents, and power consolidation. That can't happen again.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution, I think, deserves the support of every single Member.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank Chairman Royce for his very kind remarks. I want to thank him for his extraordinary leadership on combating human trafficking for so many years.

This bill is just another example of that ironclad commitment to the victims and to trying to bring to justice the perpetrators of this offensive and really abject cruelty perpetrated by human traffickers.

H.R. 2219, authored by Chairman Royce and, of course, joined by Mr. Keating, Mrs. Maloney, and Mrs. Love as original cosponsors of the End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2018, will make an enormous difference when enacted into law. It recognizes the very important role the Secretary of the Treasury has to play in the detection and eradication of human trafficking, and it ensures that the Secretary is included in the President's Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, profits drive human trafficking. Profits drive human traffickers to do unspeakable harm to their fellow human beings. Trafficking victims suffer unspeakable cruelty that scars, if they are rescued and are the lucky ones who are rescued, scars that they carry on for the entirety of their life.

This bill goes after the traffickers' profits by turning the Treasury's watchful eye on the traffickers' system for moving and hiding money. The Royce bill will ensure that those working at the Treasury's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing units are ready, willing, and able and empowered legally to detect signs that money may by tied to traffickers and to report their findings to law enforcement.

The bill asks the Secretary of the Treasury to review the Department's systems and tell Congress if any additional legislative changes are needed so that the Department can be effective in the fight against human trafficking.

Finally, the bill adds, as the chairman pointed out in his opening comments, to the minimum standards to combat human trafficking by which we evaluate every country in the world, including our own, whether a government is keeping a watchful eye on financial transactions, putting the issue on the map for countries that have never thought about it and may be unwittingly providing financial cover to the traffickers.

This bill will reduce profits of the traffickers and, again, will set an example for other countries of the world to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Chairman Royce for his bill and hope this body will strongly support it.

Mr. Speaker, on March 22 I chaired a hearing at the Helsinki Commission on the achievements, with a special focus on the unfinished business, of the April 10, 1998 Good Friday Agreement. As Members know so well, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement 20 years ago was truly historic, extraordinarily difficult to achieve, a remarkable framework for peace, and the hope for beginning of reconciliation.

In its most important provisions, the agreement launched a series of challenging protocols, by which the leaders of the nationalist and unionist communities in Northern Ireland agreed to a better governance, and peaceful resolution of differences. Prisoner releases, new government structures, British demilitarization of the North, the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons and systemic police reform were achieved to varying degrees over the last 20 years. In the 30 years between 1969 and 1998, approximately 3,500 people were killed in political violence, while in the 20 years since the Good Friday Agreement fewer than 100 have lost their lives.

I have personally chaired 16 congressional hearings and markups of legislation on human rights issues in Northern Ireland, most of them with a special focus on police reform and the need to establish a public, independent judicial inquiry into state-sponsored collusion in the murder of human rights attorney Patrick Finucane and others who were gunned down or, in the case of Rosemary Nelson, killed by a bomb. I also offered legislation that was adopted by the House of Representatives that put the House on record condemning violence and promoting peace and justice in Northern Ireland and police reform. And I just recently introduced H. Res. 777 which calls for a recommittal of the United States, the British, and all parties, including the Republic of Ireland, to the peace process.

The most contentious of my amendments over the years, one of which became law, resulted in suspending all U.S. support for and exchanges with the British police force in Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or RUC, until standards were met to vet RUC officers who engaged in human rights abuses. Those new standards were set and eventually then-President Bush was able to certify, in accordance with my law, that human rights principles were part of police training going forward, both in the RUC and in its reformed successor, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or PSNI. With the improvements, the police exchanges were resumed.

That is the good news. But as the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement milestone approaches, serious attention and effort to be paid to achieving the dream. First and foremost, the government in Northern Ireland seems unable to consistently function or even constitute itself. Also, after 20 years, despite many obvious successes and benefits of the Good Friday Agreement, and although no one wants to scrap it, no one would want to return to the killing, the reconciliation to some extent has stalled. One of the reasons is that long-standing cases have not been resolved.

Geraldine Finucane, widow of murdered human rights lawyer Patrick Finucane, submitted testimony for my March 22nd hearing. And she points out, and I quote in part, ``My family has campaigned for a public inquiry into Pat's murder, but the British government has repeatedly failed to establish one. Instead, they have instigated one confined investigation after another, claiming to want to examine the facts or get to the truth, but always in a process conducted away from public view. One cannot but wonder at the pointlessness of conducting investigation after investigation that are doomed to fail, no matter how forceful the conclusions, because they lack the transparency required to attain public confidence.''

As Geraldine points out further in her testimony, ``the 1998 agreement represent a new beginning that would mark a point from which the new future for everyone in Ireland, north and south, could be launched. What was not appreciated or acknowledged, however, was the fact that moving forward also meant dealing with the past.'' And of course, that is something that this Commission and my Subcommittee on Human Rights has tried to do for the last 20-plus years.

I would like to just point out too, testimony that's been provided to us by the Committee on the Administration of Justice, again, a very important quote from them, ``In a highly disturbing development, and notwithstanding the reality that only a small number of legacy cases relate to British soldiers, a recent report of the Commons Defense Select Committee called for the enactment of a statute of limitations covering all troubles related to incidents involving members of the armed forces. This concept effectively means a selective amnesty for crimes committed by British soldiers.'' The Commons Defense Select Committee also suggested that it be extended to the RUC and other security force members. This position is, of course, completely contrary to human rights standards and, if were enacted, would probably be found unlawful by the courts. Nevertheless, the U.K. government has said that it will include the proposed in a forthcoming consultation on the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement. That is a dangerous backtracking on the part of the British government. Hopefully it will cease and desist in moving in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, today I remember Dr. Li Baiguang who died

unexpectedly on February 25, 2018. Dr. Li was a father and a husband, a lawyer and scholar, and he was a committed Christian who used his legal skills to defend the poor and oppressed in China. He was a true friend of freedom and a kindred spirit in the fight to protect religious freedom and other human rights in China. Though his work made him a frequent target of harassment and violence, until his death he remained passionately committed to the fight for the rights of Chinese citizens under the law. Dr. Li was truly one of China's best and brightest. He will be missed.

Li Baiguang was born in Hunan province in 1968 and received his doctoral degree in law from Peking University in 1997. Motivated by his Christian faith, Dr. Li defended farmers, migrant workers, and those persecuted by the Chinese government because of their religious belief. In 2006, Dr. Li met with President George W. Bush in the Oval Office. In 2008, he received the Democracy Award from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Dr. Li was in Washington DC, just a few weeks before his death. He expressed concern about the Chinese government's brutal crackdown on human rights lawyers and the possibility that new religious regulations would give the government an excuse to close all Protestant ``house churches.'' I share these concerns and find China's deteriorating human rights situation deeply problematic. President Xi has presided over an extraordinary assault on the rule of law and civil society using repressive policies and new laws that threaten rights defenders in China and challenge both U.S. interests and U.S.-China cooperation and goodwill.

Dr. Li also spoke that day about a savage beating he received in October at the hands of Zhejiang province police. He was taken to a forest and tortured and warned to end his defense of a group of farmers dispossessed of their land by the Chinese government. To his credit, he did not back down from this threat.

He faced such dangers willingly and with a strong Christian faith. He fought daily for what was good and what was right and dreamed of a day when China would be more democratic and free. For his courage, he should be admired as a true champion of liberty and the rule of law.

Dr. Li is survived by his wife, Xu Hanmei, and their eight-year-old son Li Quingxin.

I believe that someday China will be free. Someday, the people of China will be able to enjoy all of their God-given rights. And a nation of free Chinese men and women will honor Li Baiguang as a hero. He will be honored along with all others like him who have sacrificed so much, and so long, for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Harris for his leadership for many, many years. He is an extraordinary physician-- Johns Hopkins and so many other places where he has been an anesthesiologist, and we are so grateful for the expertise and precision that he brings. Doctors can focus in a way that makes it so clear and so nonambiguous.

In defense of life, never has that message been more important than now because there is so much fuzziness, so much distortion, and it is about time clarity breaks out when it comes to the abortion issue. We have never had that national debate.

In a way, we have had it in a minor way, in a micro way. Every time a woman goes in and has an ultrasound, she walks away seeing her baby still in utero. The first baby pictures today, as we all know, are not newborns. On the refrigerators all across America, the first baby pictures happen to be unborn babies, and we all are thrilled when we see our children and grandchildren up on the refrigerator as an unborn baby. That is the first thing they see as they begin to comprehend what they are looking at: ``That is me while I was still in Mommy.''

As Dr. Harris pointed out in his opening, the Supreme Court does take up this case next week, NIFLA v. Becerra, the California law that requires medically licensed pregnancy centers to advertise for the abortion industry by putting up notices. Telling clients where to get free and low-cost abortions is an egregious--an egregious--violation of the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.

The government should not compel, should not coerce an organization or organizations and the people behind them to facilitate the dismemberment and chemical poisoning of unborn children, which is exactly what abortion is. The sophistry of choice cloaks the deed, and the deed is all about taking that child apart through dismemberment or through a chemical poison.

Dr. Harris spoke earlier about ultrasounds. We know that when abortion is done, many types of abortions, they use an ultrasound. Ultrasound-guided abortions make it easier for them to dismember the child. And it was Abby Johnson who ran a clinic, was director of a clinic in Texas for about 8 years, a Planned Parenthood

clinic, who quit when she finally saw on that screen an ultrasound- guided abortion and was repelled and repulsed by how that child was being killed by a so-called physician. She was repulsed. She became a very strong pro-lifer since then.

Let me say one thing about pregnancy care centers. There are about 2,752 in the country, according to Heartbeat International, and the numbers are growing. There are many in my district, like Dr. Harris said are in his as well.

A few years ago, my wife and I went to a pregnancy care banquet in Middlesex County, New Jersey. Two women got up and spoke so eloquently and with tears in their eyes about how they were scheduled and actually en route to the abortion at the clinic, and there were these compassionate women, selfless women who said: Please reconsider. Please take a look at the alternatives. We will help you.

Both of those women turned around, two different times, and went back and had their babies.

With tears in their eyes, two young girls got up a little later, and at first we thought they were just going to talk about how committed they were to life. They talked about school and sports and boys, but at the end of their talk, they looked at the director of the pregnancy care center and her volunteers and thanked them for being there outside that abortion clinic that day, the day that their moms were scheduled to abort them.

Mr. Speaker, in an amicus brief submitted by a head of the NIFLA v. Becerra oral arguments, 13 women told their stories of the care and the hope that they received from pregnancy care centers, and here, briefly, is Angela's story.

Angela grew up in a very difficult household and turned to drugs when she was 14 years old. Angela continued to wrestle with addiction and, at 31, discovered she was pregnant. Although she made an appointment for an abortion, she decided to keep the baby.

Because of her addiction and the circumstance of her pregnancy, she felt she could not turn to her family for support, so she found a pregnancy care center. This one was in New York.

At her first appointment, staff showed Angela her baby through an ultrasound.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the cofounder of NARAL, who said, ``I have come to the agonizing conclusion that I presided over 60,000 deaths,'' was one of leaders in the sixties and seventies in promoting abortion throughout this country, and was very effective at it. When he became pro-life, he said:

If wombs had windows, if every woman prior to an abortion

would see an ultrasound of her baby, she would run out of

that clinic.

Well, the pregnancy care center people in New York showed Angela the ultrasound, and she was enamored, touched deeply by the baby--her baby--that she saw on the screen.

They met with her weekly as the pregnancy progressed, always staying by her side, and a staff member was with her in the hospital when she delivered.

After Angela gave birth to her son, Cameryn, the staff helped her to enroll in WIC and to reach out to New York's Department of Social Services.

She continued to come to the pregnancy center--this is all in the friend-of-the-court brief--for parenting courses and for support in staying clean of those drugs that had so hurt her life.

She writes:

I always thought that people were fake, but they are

genuine, particularly at the center. This is who they really

are. They will help me. And they are helping to raise my son.

Looking forward to life now, she credits the center with giving her support so that she doesn't turn back to drugs.

Women and children across our Nation share similar stories. I have heard many, many of those stories over my time in the pro-life movement. And every time you meet one of those women--because we argue, Dr. Harris and I and all of those in the pro-life movement, that there are two victims in every abortion. The obvious is the dead child, who is dismembered or chemically poisoned; and the mother.

And pregnancy care centers are all about life affirmation, loving them both. And to be told by California, ``You must advertise how to kill that baby,'' when you are about loving them both, like I said at the beginning, is an egregious violation of the First Amendment. And I do believe, and I know Dr. Harris and others on our side of this issue believe, that the Supreme Court will see that as such and render that law moot.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we held a hearing on China in Africa. The hearing analyzed China's activity and engagement in sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, we looked into what motivates China and how Chinese involvement has affected African countries.

While a number of African nations have welcomed Chinese engagement and investment, it often comes at a cost: a focus on extractive industries, entanglement with a neo-mercantilist trade policy and a tendency to adopt ``worst practices'' that prop up kleptocrats and autocrats--such as the DR Congo's Joseph Kabila--while fueling corruption in an effort to win contracts.

China's engagement in Africa once was driven by revolutionary ideology, motivated by competition with the Soviet Union as much as it was directed at ``capitalist roaders'' aligned with the United States. In Angola, for example, in 1975, Soviet-backed Communists bested Chinese-backed revolutionary rivals, including Jonas Savimbi, who was a Maoist before he was reborn in the 1980s as an anti-Communist freedom fighter.

Today, China's one-time Marxist-Leninist-Maoist impulse has been softened to the point of almost--but not quite--disappearing, with revolution replaced by infrastructure projects, trade missions, soft loans and scholarships for promising African students.

While on the one hand Africa needs investment and it needs infrastructure, we see a worrisome trend of African countries sliding into indebtedness to China, accumulating burdens that may be beyond their capacity to meet.

All too often, the roads China builds are meant to allow it access to mineral resources that it can extract and ship to China, or are part of its ``One-Belt, One-Road'' initiative which is designed to benefit China, ultimately, and help it project power. Further, as anyone who has been to Africa has observed, these grand construction projects often utilize Chinese engineers and workers, not Africans.

As we heard yesterday from the witnesses, nowhere in Africa is the problem of indebtedness more pronounced than in Djibouti--a strategically important country in the Horn of Africa which sits astride the Mandeb Strait, and one of only five African countries which Secretary of State Tillerson is visiting on his trip to Africa this week.

A former French colony, Djibouti hosts a French military base, and an American one at Camp Lemonnier. And, since last summer, Djibouti also hosts China's only permanent military base outside of China. Query whether that concession, fraught with geopolitical implications, is linked to leverage China is able to exert due to Djibouti's vulnerability on indebtedness.

China's overall foreign aid and financial leverage on the continent has been difficult to quantify, as has demonstrating how that translates into influence. Yeoman work in this regard has been done by AidData at the College of William & Mary which, in written testimony that was submitted as part of the record today, demonstrates a correlation with how an African country votes at the United Nations General Assembly with how much aid it receives from China.

Another strategically important country with high indebtedness to China that the Secretary will visit is Ethiopia. It is also a country where China has most clearly aligned itself with repressive forces. In addition to assisting the government in controlling information flows, such as via signal jamming of Voice of American and BBC broadcasts, the Chinese Communist Party has engaged with Ethiopia's ruling party on ``training and exchanges.''

As the Brookings Institution has documented, cadres from the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front ``were taught comprehensively how to manage their own organizational structure, ideological work, propaganda system, [and] cadre education.''

Thus, it seems ideology still matters with regard to how China engages Africa. It is no coincidence that Ethiopia has become one of the most repressive regimes on the continent, and the subject of a House resolution focused on Ethiopia's abusive practices that Ms. Bass and I have sponsored, H. Res. 128. Whereas the U.S. emphasizes good governance, it suits China's interest to train its partners in old- style Leninism.

We also heard from one of our witnesses on how China projects power in the form of Confucius Institutes located in close to forty African nations. This subcommittee has held hearings on how China in our own country and elsewhere uses these Institutes to push a Sinocentric narrative which aligns with Communist Party propaganda and curtails academic freedom.

In addition to utilizing Confucius Institutes to train Mandarin speakers and indoctrinate students with a pro-China world view, China is expanding its media presence in Africa. Kenya is the country with the largest penetration of Chinese media and the highest level of brand recognition, according to our Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the Voice of America and which recently conducted a survey of China's media presence in Africa. It should be noted that of five major international networks in Kenya, China's news broadcasts were the least trusted.

Here also is a thought for Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to consider--add Mandarin programming to the repertoire of languages in which you broadcast in Africa. By broadcasting objective news stories in Mandarin, you will expose not only African students learning Mandarin to more truthful media, but you will be able to reach the estimated million or so Chinese living or working in Africa with news that they are otherwise unable to access.

China is also Kenya's largest bilateral lender, and one of the three highest debtor nations to China in Africa, along with Djibouti and Ethiopia. It is also a country where Secretary Tillerson will be visiting. On his trip, he may want to highlight the following anecdote, which I believe aptly contrasts China's Africa engagement with that of the United States.

Health commodities supplied by USAID, including life-saving anti- retrovirals distributed as part of our PEPFAR program and anti-malarial commodities, used to be shipped to and stored in a warehouse near Nairobi for distribution not only throughout Kenya, but also in neighboring East African countries as well.

Then in July 2013, Kenya's parliament imposed a 1.5 per cent levy on all imports to Kenya to help pay for a nearly $4 billion railroad from the port of Mombasa to Nairobi built by the state-owned China Road and Bridge Corporation. Donated goods--including anti-retrovirals for Kenyans living with HIV/AIDS--were subject to this levy to help pay Kenya's debt to China.

As a result of this, the flow of life-saving commodities into Kenya and neighboring countries was burdened and slowed. Kenya's Ministry of Health offered to step in and pay the levy, but their payments were often delayed by some two months. Meanwhile, demurrage charges attributable to clearance delays continued to accrue, and had to be paid by the U.S. taxpayer.

Ultimately, over a year later, Kenya's parliament amended the legislation to exclude donated goods from the Chinese railway-payment levy, but the damage had been done. Today, due to this experience and other factors related to logistics and a new USAID implementing partner, USAID no longer uses a warehouse in Kenya. Storage and distribution has been moved offshore, to a location less-

centrally located but one hopes less prone to disruption.

How did this warehouse episode, borne out of Kenya's need to repay debt to China, benefit Kenyans suffering from HIV/AIDS? How did it affect the ability of Kenya to serve as a regional distribution hub for East Africa, with all the collateral economic benefits that accrue from this purely humanitarian initiative paid for by U.S. taxpayers? More broadly, where is China's PEPFAR, or the equivalent of the President's Malaria Initiative?

These are questions which Africa's leaders, and the African people, need to consider.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we held a hearing on Zimbabwe. The hearing has been a long time in the making--for some 37 years since the birth of the modern nation of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe dominated the political landscape of this resource rich and promising country, first as Prime Minister, then as President, always as Strongman. It was a 37-year rule which, sadly, betrayed the post- colonial aspirations of freedom, one which was marked by misrule, mismanagement and mistreatment of Mugabe's fellow citizens.

For many Zimbabweans, and for many years, envisioning a ``Zimbabwe after Mugabe'' was considered a fool's errand. Elections--some more flawed than others--had come and gone, opportunities for reform fallen by the wayside, and through it all the domineering presence of one man haunted the dreams of his countrymen.

Then, in a matter of weeks, culminating last November, the landscape changed. The once-invincible ruler in October 2017 set into motion a series of events which left him not only ousted from the Zimbabwe National Union-Patriotic Front party, or ZANU-PF, but pushed off his presidential perch.

The drama began in earnest when Mugabe sought to prop up his wife Grace's standing as his designated successor by ousting one of his two Vice Presidents, Emmerson Mnangagwa, presumably to elevate his wife to the position, while simultaneously moving against Mnangagwa's allies in the government and in ZANU-PF, promoting a younger generation aligned with Grace.

Mnangagwa was part of an older faction in ZANU-PF, the generation that fought for liberation, with roots and strong connections in the military. As Rhodesian Bush War veterans and political survivors, Mnangagwa and his comrades could draw upon a reservoir of experience and cunning; they were not to be so easily pushed aside.

So while Mugabe sought to tighten the reigns of control in favor of his wife and her allies, the other Vice President and head of the Zimbabwe Defense Force, Constantino Chiwenga, made a bold statement on November 13, saying in ``matters of protecting our revolution, the military will not hesitate to step in.'' This was declared ``treasonous,'' but before Chiwenga himself could be arrested, the Zimbabwe Defense Forces did in fact step in and confined the long- serving President to his quarters while taking control of key points around the country.

What followed were spontaneous popular demonstrations against Robert Mugabe, indicating that a spell had been broken. ZANU-PF convened a meeting which declared Mnangagwa to be interim leader of the party, and in the face of impeachment proceedings against Mugabe, the 93-year-old President reluctantly stepped down, allowing Mnangagwa to assume the vacancy. This series of actions preserved a veneer of constitutional process, such that neither our country nor the African Union would label the events that took place a ``coup;'' indeed, if it were a coup, it was a popularly supported one, and one which subsequently received High Court ratification.

So where does that leave us? Who is Emmerson Mnangagwa, the man who was sworn in as Zimbabwe's President on November 21?

Critics call him ``the Crocodile,'' and recall his role as Mugabe's right-hand man and confidant, including during the brutal period in the early 1980s, when in the newly independent nation Mugabe waged an internal campaign of repression against fellow revolutionary leader Joshua Nkomo, killing thousands of ethnic minority Ndebele followers of Nkomo. During this time, Mugabe was assisted by military advisors from East Germany and North Korea, and by his Minister of State Security, one Emmerson Mnangagwa.

Others, more charitably, admit that Mnangagwa was indeed once the Crocodile, but maintain that he has changed, undergoing a religious conversion to Evangelical Christianity. Indeed, his rhetoric since ascending to power has been reassuring, stating that he will restore democracy, rule of law, economic prosperity and trade while addressing endemic corruption. On the issue of land tenure, he said he would end the seizures of property that Mugabe had used to punish enemies and reward cronies.

So we stand at a crossroads, perhaps facing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity where Zimbabwe can chart a new course. Yet one cannot be Pollyanna, nor disregard the wise words of Pete Townshend, who once sang ``Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss . . . We won't get fooled again.''

On the issue of land seizures, for example, one notes that the newly- retired general and, as of December 28, 2017, the new Vice President, Constantino Chiwenga--who issued the ``treasonous'' challenge that led to Mugabe's ouster--is alleged to be a beneficiary of Mugabe's past largess with other people's land.

Indeed, as we attempt to read the tea leaves and discern what the entrails portend, we will be assisted by a stellar panel. While the State Department is unable to send a witness due to the immediacy of issues concerning the budget and Secretary Tillerson's impending trip to Africa, we have with us a former Ambassador of the United States to Zimbabwe as well as one of the key implementers of our democracy promotion policy in Zimbabwe. We also have two Zimbabweans with us, who are extremely versed and involved in contemporary events in the country.

Yesterday's hearing looked at the prospects for true democratic and governance reform, as well as the potential restoration of rule of law.

We truly hope that the arrival of a new government signals an opportunity for establishing a mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Zimbabwe, and that as the near future unfolds, events will allow us to reevaluate some of the sanctions that were imposed during the Mugabe years.

Mr. Chair, the internet was never meant to be a zone of impunity for traffickers and their accomplices, including classified ad websites, that turn a blind eye to or actively facilitate to profit from the sex trafficking of children. Yet we are seeing the internet used as a virtual slave market.

Today, because of Ann Wagner's tenacity, her courage, her legislative skill and compassion, and this bipartisan effort that, again, comes to the floor to make a major change in law, we begin taking back the internet from traffickers by passing H.R. 1865. This legislation will also allow those who have been hurt to sue. It empowers women, especially women, to take their cases into court and to get remedies there as well.

Today we say no to the status quo that allows our children to be bought, abused, and sold again with impunity online. Today we say no to courts slamming the door on trafficking victims who want to sue website owners complicit in sexual abuse and cruelty.

Mr. Chair, the statistics of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children show that backpage.com is the subject of the majority of the child trafficking tips that are received in the United States. In documents obtained by subpoena that backpage.com originally refused to share--and I see that Mrs. Maloney will be speaking in a moment; she and I worked very hard on that as well--Congress has found that backpage.com was removing telltale words and signs of likely human trafficking from advertisements on its

website but still posting the advertisements and making money. They made it harder to detect.

Backpage.com actively prevented U.S. law enforcement from detecting children being trafficked. Backpage wasn't prosecuted. Judges across the country wouldn't even allow civil suits by trafficking victims who were sold through backpage.com, as was pointed out by Ann Wagner just a moment ago, all because of a law that was written before the internet or human trafficking was really understood: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Today, Congress will change that law. God willing it passes in the Senate and it will be signed by the President.

Today we can protect our children and free speech, too. H.R. 1865, as amended, will allow State prosecutors to prosecute, and it empowers trafficked women, victims, to sue the middleman who facilitated and profited from their slavery.

The status quo of rampant child online sex trafficking is more than unacceptable; it is absolutely abhorrent to anyone who believes in human dignity and human rights. This is a tremendous bill. Mr. Chair, again, I thank Ann Wagner for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3542, the Hamas Human Shields Prevention Act, introduced, sponsored, and authored by my good friend and colleague Joe Wilson; and we are all very grateful he has brought this important legislation to the floor.

H.R. 3542 is a critical and commonsense measure that addresses Hamas' cynical and well-documented practice of endangering civilian lives for the sake of its terror campaign against the State of Israel.

Many independent observers attest to the Palestinian terrorist group's strategy of locating military equipment and installations amidst civilian infrastructure. A 2015 Amnesty International report, Mr. Speaker, entitled, ``Unlawful and Deadly,'' exposed this reprehensible conduct by the Palestinian terrorist groups during Israel's 2014 Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip. The report documented examples of ``attacks launched from the vicinity of civilian buildings or from residential areas'' in addition to the use of ``civilian buildings and facilities for other military purposes, such as storing munitions.''

In one instance chronicled in this report, a foreign journalist captured footage of a rocket launcher ``located some 50 meters from a hotel frequented by international correspondents, 100 meters away from a U.N. building, and very near several civilian homes.'' The footage additionally showed ``children playing next to the rocket launcher.''

Amnesty further documented the discovery of ``Palestinian munitions in three . . . vacant''--UNRWA--``schools in the Gaza Strip'' during the conflict. One of these schools, although vacant, had ``two UNRWA schools on either side of it''--that--``were each hosting around 1,500 displaced civilians.''

Mr. Speaker, Hamas' perverse practice of using U.N. installations to shield military infrastructure has not abated since the 2014 Gaza war. UNRWA discovers military infrastructure in the immediate environs of its school on an alarmingly regular basis. Last year alone, the agency reported discovering two militant tunnels located under its schools in the Gaza Strip.

Of course, human rights reports and UNRWA statements account only for a limited scope of violations that are observed and documented by international organizations, media correspondents, and credible NGOs. The real scope of Hamas' human shield policy is almost certainly far greater. Israeli authorities, for example, reported that out of 3,600 Palestinian rockets launched in the first month and a half of Operation Protective Edge, 1,600 of those rockets, nearly 45 percent, were fired from civilian areas.

H.R. 3542 rightfully calls on the administration to use its voice and vote in the United Nations Security Council to impose multilateral sanctions on Hamas for this disgraceful pattern of exploiting innocent civilians, including women and children, so that it can rain indiscriminate rockets on innocent Israelis with greater impunity. This bill would also impose U.S. visa bans and asset freezes on individuals and entities that direct or facilitate Hamas' use of human shields.

By supporting this measure, Mr. Speaker, this House can advance the cause of civilian protection for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Wilson for this excellent bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Sam Johnson's resolution and join the House in honoring a truly heroic man who has suffered so much for our country, and I thank him for that.

I would say to my colleagues, having read and observed Sam for so many years, words are inadequate--they are truly inadequate--to describe his courage, his tenacity, his faith in God, and his valor. He is really a hero who stands above with few peers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Sam for his leadership and for being who he is. I also thank his family. It is just a privilege to know him and to be up here supporting legislation that he has sponsored for a full and thorough accounting of all of our POWs and MIAs.

As Members know, access to the battlefield during and after war is important. With regards to Japan, Italy, and Nazi Germany, we had access after the last shot was fired. Indeed, today we are close friends and allies. So those who are missing in action or POWs are more likely to be presumed dead if not found.

That is not the case, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to North Korea, where there is no access to the theatre of operations in the North and where we remain and the families remain in agony for decades about what happened to their loved ones.

With regards to Vietnam, there were many live sightings of POWs especially after prisoners like Sam and others came home, people who were observed on the ground. I was part of the POW/MIA task force in Congress in the 1980s. Jerry Solomon and others and I traveled to Vietnam to talk about those live sightings and the fact that the Vietnamese did not provide a full accounting. Many who were observed went missing, and we think they may have been executed by the Vietnamese long after the peace treaty was signed.

We do have some cooperation, as we all know, to crash sites and the like. That is all good. It is certainly not enough. We do not have unfettered access to the battlefield, and that remains a reason why our great and distinguished colleague, Sam Johnson, is offering this resolution. We need to redouble our efforts.

I would just point out for the record that Sam Johnson flew 62 combat missions in the Korean war and 25 missions in the Vietnam war before being shot down. He was in the Air Force for 29 years. He commanded two air bases, among other things. He is a lifelong fighter, student of war, combat warrior, a leader of men, and, of course, a prisoner of war.

He spent, as my colleagues and I have all noted, nearly 7 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, where torture was systematic. He endured that, overcame that, and, of course, with his faith, became a great inspiration to all of us as someone who has suffered so much, yet continues to have a strong faith in God and a faith in humanity.

As he pointed out in a statement, he was 140 pounds when he was released and repatriated. He also pointed out that during his incarceration he was in solitary confinement and in leg stocks, like the pilgrims, as he put it, for 72 days. Then, the following day after he was let out, he couldn't walk. He was then put in leg irons for 2\1/ 2\ years: a tight metal cuff around each ankle, with a foot long bar connecting the legs. He still has little feeling in the right arm and his right hand after those 2,500 days of horrific captivity.

Again, he saw a silver lining because he still had a dream and hope for the future, which some people would have lost a long time ago and just given up--what an inspiration for today's generation of a man who has suffered so much, has overcome so much, and remains an optimist deep in his heart.

Again, words are inadequate to describe our colleague. Sam Johnson is the definition of courage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3851, the War Crimes Rewards Expansion Act, which targets perpetrators of genocide or war crimes, and commend my friend Virginia Foxx for authoring it. The War Crimes Rewards Program, administered by the State Department, has helped apprehend perpetrators of atrocity crimes on the run from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. But our current law does not explicitly authorize rewards to enable prosecutions in the United States or domestic courts in other countries. This bill would make it clear rewards can be used to support domestic prosecutions.

Tribunals like those for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda have done yeoman's work and we should continue to support them. That is why I have called for the United States to support and help stand up a Syria war crimes tribunal. But domestic courts are also essential for prosecuting perpetrators. With so many fugitive terrorists who committed atrocity crimes in Iraq or Syria, and can be tried in the domestic courts of their home country or another country, this legislation is especially timely.

I support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I call on the Senate to finally vote on and pass H.R. 390, the Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act.

This House passed it unanimously last June 6 and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed it last September 19. The Committee Chairman, Senator Corker, has since been holding it hostage and will not permit it to proceed to the full Senate for a vote.

The bill would authorize the State Department and USAID to direct some aid to Christians, Yazidis and other religious and ethnic minorities targeted for genocide to enable them to survive in their ancient homelands. It would enable oversight to ensure the career bureaucrats are fully implementing the policy of the Administration and provide clear, detailed authorization for appropriations.

H.R. 390 also authorizes the State Department and USAID to support organizations conducting criminal investigations into ISIS perpetrators of atrocity crimes and collecting evidence that can be used in domestic courts and tribunals. This advances our counter-terrorism initiatives and justice for the victims. The House voted on H.R. 390 and the Senate should be given the same opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me begin by thanking Chairman Harper for this outstanding bipartisan legislation, and Mr. Brady as well. This is what this place can produce when we do come together.

Obviously, it provides congressional employees with comprehensive protection from abuse, including zero tolerance for sexual harassment.

The bill significantly increases transparency on Member conduct by publishing reports on awards and settlements, and it holds Members personally financially responsible, ending the charade of having taxpayers foot the bill for abuses.

Very, very significantly, the new Office of Employee Advocacy, which the legislation creates, will provide free legal services to congressional employees. That is absolutely critical, Mr. Speaker, that House employees have a dedicated advocate to consult, assist, and to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Harper for including my bill, H.R. 4393, as section 303 of this bill. This section makes clear that employees of the Helsinki Commission and the China Commission, both of which I co-chair, are covered by the CAA.

In 2011, Mr. Speaker, an employee, a woman employed by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, filed suit making sexual harassment and workplace retaliation allegations directed to a former chairman of the commission. When I learned that the woman was being told--the woman who lodged the complaint--that the CAA did not apply to her, I immediately, as chairman, changed that policy. I deemed it. Thankfully, I checked with the House counsel, and I had the full backing of the House counsel.

I thought it was unconscionable that this person was told not only did she not have representation, which, again, the Harper bill now provides, but the CAA itself did not cover her. That was a terrible, terrible wrong. That will be rectified forever by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Chairman Harper for his leadership. This is a remarkable bill, an important bill, and will protect employees from abuse.