Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 2017, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations held a hearing entitled ``Advancing Human Rights to Combat Extremism.'' The hearing focused on ways soft power and human rights diplomacy could effectively combat extremist ideology and policies. I had the privilege to sit down with Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan recently and discuss this issue with him in the context of our ongoing dialogue with the Government of Sudan. Mr. Speaker, Deputy Secretary Sullivan gave a speech at the Al-Neelain Mosque in Sudan before a variety of faith leaders. In the speech, he makes the case for a values-based diplomacy, and holding countries accountable for violations of fundamental human rights, especially religious freedom. I am pleased to include in the Record the speech he gave with his permission:

Asalaam Alaikam. I am honored to join all of you here

today.

I would like to first thank the leaders of the Al-Neelain

Mosque for hosting us today and for their gracious

hospitality.

Many people from different faiths, backgrounds, and

cultures have joined us here today to talk about the

important work they are undertaking in Sudan to embrace

tolerance and further the goal of mutual respect among all

citizens.

It was a great privilege to spend time with many of you

earlier this morning and to learn about the many ways that

interfaith groups are working together to forge a new path

forward in Sudan and to move away from divisions based on

religion and culture. Our discussion was particularly

significant as we continue to build a new relationship

between the United States and Sudan. I want you to know that

the U.S. government and international community stand with

you in this important work.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, in 2018, doctors routinely diagnose and treat illnesses and disabilities suffered by the littlest patients: unborn babies as well as newborns. They enhance both the child's health and longevity.

Abortionists, on the other hand, take a far different approach. They dismember and chemically poison children to death for profit.

For decades, babies have survived later term abortions. A Philadelphia Inquirer story some thirty-seven years ago called baby survival ``the dreaded complication.'' In other words, it is a complication that a child survives.

I got involved in the pro-life movement when I read an AP story of a child who survived a later term abortion. The abortion rights movement then, in 1972, before Roe v. Wade--it was in New York--were apoplectic about it because the baby survived. That should have been a reason for rejoicing.

Dr. Willard Cates of the CDC was breathtakingly candid when he said: ``Live births are little known because organized medicine, from fear of public clamor and legal action, treats them more as an embarrassment to be hushed up rather than a problem to be solved. It's like turning yourself in to the IRS, he said. What is there to gain? The tendency is not to report because there are only negative incentives.''

An undercover investigator asked an abortionist: What do you do? What is your protocol when the child is born alive?

He said: ``I mean the key is, you need to pay attention to who's in the room, right?''

That was what he was quoted as saying.

We are talking about coverup, ensuring that the people who are in the abortion clinic all gag themselves and not speak to the truth of what has happened when a baby has been killed after birth.

The legislation today requires a significant penalty for healthcare practitioners present at the time the child survives the abortion, exercise the same degree of skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child, and then get them to a hospital.

This is humane legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, doctors, today, routinely diagnose and treat a myriad of illnesses and diseases suffered by societies' littlest patients--unborn babies

and newborns--significantly enhancing both the children's health and longevity.

Abortionists, on the other hand, take a different approach. They dismember and chemically kill unborn children for profit. For decades, babies have survived later term abortions. As far back as 37 years ago, a Philadelphia Inquirer story called baby survival ``the dreaded complication.''

Dr. Willard Cates of the Center for Disease Control said live births ``are little known because organized medicine, from fear of public clamor and legal action, treats them more as an embarrassment to be hushed up than a problem to be solved. It is like turning yourself in to the IRS for an audit. What is there to gain? The tendency is not to report because there are only negative incentives.''

Of course, the tendency is not to report.

When an undercover investigator asked another abortion provider from Planned Parenthood about the procedure for checking for signs of life in a baby born after an attempted abortion, the abortionist responded by saying: ``I mean, the key is, you need to pay attention to who is in the room. . . . `'

Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell had a lot of people in the room, but nobody was reporting, as he killed and snipped the spinal cords of hundreds of born babies to ensure that they didn't survive.

All is not well in the abortion clinics either, in terms of their own personnel. The National Public Radio, NPR, did an incisive story featuring former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Huffman, who is now Johnson, who is now pro-life, and her outreach to clinical workers encouraging them to quit their jobs inside the abortion clinics.

Heard on ``All Things Considered,'' Annette Lancaster, a former manager of Planned Parenthood in North Carolina, said her abortion work made her feel ``dark and morbid.'' Annette said she was troubled by the way she and other workers referred to fetal remains. She said: ``I just now started being able to use my deep freezer in my home by going through therapy, because we used to call the freezer the `nursery.''' That is to say for the dead babies.

The National Abortion Federation, in their textbook for abortionists, says:

``Providers should consider the possibility of a live-born fetus, particularly if fetal death is not induced prior to the procedure and the gestational age is 18 to 20 weeks or more.''

``Besides the emotional and ethical difficulties for patients, their partners, and staff, a delivery with signs of life may have legal implications.''

The problem with existing law, Mr. Speaker, is enforcement--the lack of legal implications.

Marsha Blackburn's bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, requires, under penalty of law, that appropriate healthcare to be given to any child who survives an attempted abortion, not looking the other way, as has been done for decades--Gosnell probably being the most egregious example.

The law prescribes that:

``Any healthcare practitioner present at the time the child is born shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious healthcare practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence . . . ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported to a hospital.''

The bill also establishes strong criminal penalties for practitioners who violate this requirement; establishes a civil right of action for the mother of the child, to enforce the law; and the mother of the child born alive may not be prosecuted under this law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3445, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and Millennium Challenge Act Modernization Act.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 3445, and as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Africa subcommittee, I want to applaud Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Elliot Engel, and the Ranking Member of my subcommittee, Karen Bass, for their commitment to Africa and to enhancing trade, and all the benefits in terms of closer relationships that flow from trade, between the people of the United States and the people of Africa.

The original AGOA Act of 2000 has been called a ``cornerstone'' of our trade policy toward the continent, and it has served us well. Over the years, however, our subcommittee has had numerous hearings--not to mention meetings with African heads of state and ambassadors--on AGOA, increasing exports to Africa, and on cultivating the-rule-of-law reforms necessary to attract business and investment to Africa. In past Congresses I introduced the Increasing American Jobs Through Greater Exports to Africa Act. It has become apparent that, as well as AGOA has served us, there is room for improvement and innovation.

H.R. 3445 marks a step toward that, by emphasizing capacity building and training and encouraging entrepreneurship in Africa. Importantly, it acknowledges that the world has changed since 2000, and that Africa has been targeted by radical extremists such as Boko Haram and al- Shabaab. Recognizing that we now live in a post-2001 world, H.R. 3445 fosters compliance with our counterterrorism initiatives by African businesses and institutions.

Africa, and much of the developing world, has also benefitted from the Millennium Challenge Corporation since passage of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003. MCC is a critical partner, for example, in our Global Food Security strategy, which fosters agriculture-led economic development.

Though MCC has played a key role, there are also room for improvements. Sometimes during the country selection process, narratives about a country become set, and there is not a fresh appraisal of evidence regarding improvements, or backsliding, in the conditions of that country.

I'd like to thank Chairman Royce for working to ensure that MCC remains a vehicle focused on assisting countries with development, and does not become diverted from its original mission.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3445, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and Millennium Challenge Act Modernization Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honor, as we approach the March for Life on Friday, to remember the infamous Supreme Court decision that has resulted in the loss of some 60 million unborn babies and tens of millions of women who have been harmed. Sixty million have been killed, a number that equates with the entire population of England, as a result of that very misguided and sad and tragic decision.

It is my honor, as we open up this Special Order, to yield to Congresswoman Jackie Walorski from Indiana, a distinguished Member of this body who serves on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very strong and powerful statement.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Robert Pittenger from North Carolina, who is the author of the No Abortion Bonds Act, a bill that would close loopholes in the Tax Code that allow abortion providers to finance new clinics and facilities with local bonds that are exempt from Federal taxes. Congressman Pittenger serves on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we do have several physicians who serve in this Congress who are very, very pro-life and very eloquent in their defense of life.

I yield to Congressman Andy Harris, who is associated, obviously, with Johns Hopkins, the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Harris for his very eloquent remarks and for reminding us that this is the greatest human rights struggle on Earth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee. Ms. Foxx has been a lifelong leader on the issue of life and, of course, in leadership, and now as a full committee chairman. I thank the gentlewoman for all she does on behalf of the unborn and their mothers each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Foxx again for her very moving words, which are backed up by her actions each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee.

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), who is a member of the Navy Reserve and who serves on the House Armed Services Committee; the Veterans' Affairs Committee; and the Space, Science, and Technology Committee. He is championing the Patients First Act to prioritize ethical stem cell research that will help patients and do no harm to the youngest members of the human family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), from the Third District, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I just remind everyone this is a total team effort. One of the beauties of the pro-life movement--and I have been in it for 45 years--is that it is filled with incredibly compassionate, selfless people who would do anything to help the weakest and the most vulnerable. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership for all these years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), who is the famous gentleman who serves on the Appropriations Committee where so many of these battles are engaged.

I thank the gentleman for his eloquent statements and remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman). General Jack Bergman is a retired three-star general of the Marine Corps, and he serves on the Veterans' Affairs, Budget, and Natural Resources Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Jody B. Hice), who is co-chair of the Values Action Team. It is worth noting that he is part of the team back home that has now been ranked number 8 by Americans United for Life in what they call the ``Life List'' because of the legislation and the policies that have come forward in Georgia to protect life.

He was a pastor before coming to Congress and has been a leader for religious liberty as well in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), who is from Wisconsin's Sixth District. He is a member of the House Budget Committee, the Education and the Workforce Committee, and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who is the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very eloquent remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He has long pushed for transparency and led a landmark effort on Federal payments to Federal abortions providers. He recently led an amicus brief supporting his State's right not to be forced to fund Planned Parenthood.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Olson for those very strong comments. I feel the same way about his great leadership for all these years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), who serves on the Education and the Workforce Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. His home State of Kansas was just ranked number five as the most pro-life State in the country by AUL's 2018 Life List. I thank him for his leadership all these years as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a pro-life leader who has been a leader in educating members of our Conference about the dangers of assisted suicide. He serves on the Financial Services Committee. He has been, of course, a great leader in defending the unborn and their moms.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham), a member of Armed Services Committee; the Agriculture Committee; and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 676 and in solidarity with the people of Iran who courageously took to the streets in the recent weeks to protest their country's barbaric dictatorship.

I thank my good friends, Ed Royce and Eliot Engel, for their leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. I also thank the chairwoman emeritus for her tremendous work over the years towards Iran in trying to get a policy that respects fundamental human rights and also ends their barbaric reign of terror and terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, tens of thousands of Iranians participated in nationwide protests to condemn the corruption, repression, and brutality that together represent the unique legacy of Iran's nearly 40-year-old authority theocracy.

The regime responded with characteristic coercion, intimidating activists and employing government-sponsored thugs and military units to quell the unrest. Approximately 20 protesters died in clashes with security forces. At least 1,000 people were arrested. I am sure those 1,000 are being tortured as we meet here today. Some estimates place the number closer to 4,000 people.

This unrest is the inevitable consequence of a dictatorship built on brutality and corruption in the service of domestic repression and regional conquest. Ambassador Haley was absolutely right when she told the U.N. Security Council: ``When the rights of the people are denied, the people rightly resist. If the concerns are not acknowledged, then peace and security are inevitably threatened.''

I am very proud of the work this Congress has done over the years. In my subcommittee, we have held hearings on human rights abuses in Iran, including with Pastor Saeed Abedini, who did a tremendous job with his wife in trying to effectuate his relief.

We must hold Iran to account for the treatment of the hundreds of jailed protesters and not let their faith be forgotten with the next news cycle. We must work tirelessly to secure the liberty of our own citizens, including Xiyue Wang, a graduate student from my own State of New Jersey, who has spent the past 519 days in the Evin Prison complex.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of two critical pieces of legislation, H.R. 535 and H.R. 3320. These bills are important to U.S. national security because the spread of pandemics do not respect borders. These bills are also important because they will enhance the position of Taiwan, a true and vibrant democracy, with which we have had longstanding ties.

I commend my good friend and colleague, Mr. Steve Chabot, for introducing the Taiwan Travel Act. Currently, the President of Taiwan, Vice President, Premier, Defense Minister and Foreign Minister of Taiwan are not allowed to come to Washington, D.C. for consultations. These are U.S. self-imposed restrictions that are practiced due to fear of potential Chinese diplomatic retaliation. Restricting high-level visits by senior Taiwanese officials is both insulting and counterproductive. This policy should be changed.

Mr. Speaker, China will never be happy with U.S.-Taiwan policy or the Taiwan Relations Act. Communist China will never be placated by our self-imposed restrictions on travel and consultations. We should not try.

Mr. Speaker, I also stand today in support of H.R. 3320, introduced by my good friend and chairman of the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Ted Yoho.

H.R. 3320 would designate that the Secretary of State devise a plan to include Taiwan in the World Health Organization. Taiwan has been excluded from participating in the WHO due to Chinese pressure, and sadly, the international community has acquiesced.

We here in Congress have been advocating for many years that the U.S. should take action to ensure Taiwan's meaningful participation in the WHO. As a major transport and shipping hub in the Asia Pacific region, with enormous volumes of people and goods passing through on a daily basis, Taiwan's exclusion creates a dangerous gap in the global health and safety information network.

Mr. Speaker, the full participation of Taiwan in the WHO and other multilateral bodies cannot be overstated as a U.S. national security interest.

China's efforts to exclude Taiwan from international bodies like WHO creates needless blind spots in the international system where terrorism and disease can spread undetected.

Mr. Speaker, Taiwan must join the WHO as a full member. Regaining observer status is

only a first step. Full WHO membership for Taiwan is not only in the interest of Taiwan, it is in the interest of the rest of the world.

I urge my colleagues to pass these critical measures to strengthen the bond between the U.S. and our democratic ally, Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding time to me and for his tremendous bill. It is a great bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, after Superstorm Sandy, I and others saw how leaders and volunteers of churches, synagogues, and other religious centers helped feed, clothe, and shelter tens of thousands of victims, yet they were left out and left behind when it came to repairs of their own facilities.

The FEMA policy was and is unfair, unjustified, and discriminatory. Over 4 years ago, the House came together in the wake of Superstorm Sandy and passed legislation that I authored by 354-72. Surprise, surprise, the Senate never acted, so the policy continues to this day.

I want to thank the chairman for including a provision in this bill that will ensure that houses of worship, churches, and synagogues get the kind of help they need on an equal basis with other nonprofits. I also want to thank him for including language that will get rid of this misnamed duplication of benefits clause.

Imagine this: men and women who are victimized by Superstorm Sandy or any other storm, they go to FEMA, they are advised to take out an SBA loan, then a little later in the recovery time, they are told that there is a HUD grant available, and they are precluded from getting that grant to even pay off the SBA loan.

Mr. Speaker, today the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a markup of very important pieces of legislation. I wish to commend Chairman Royce and the Ranking Member for the bipartisan approach to advancing a number of important measures.

Briefly, I want to comment on the Chairman's H.R. 2219 on increasing the role of the financial industry in combatting human trafficking.

This bill will force an appraisal of best practices to stop the flow of funds from human trafficking and integrate the Treasury Department into a whole-of-government effort to combat the scourge of human trafficking. In this regard, it echoes provisions in H.R. 2200, which passed the House earlier this year.

Wisely, it takes a ``follow the money'' approach, and asks the question, why do traffickers traffic? Because that is where the money is. Unlike hard to transport drugs, which are sold only once to end users and then consumed--human traffickers cynically see people as a commodity which can be bought and sold, used and exploited, over and over again. This will help staunch the flow of funds from such exploitation, and thereby disincentivize those whose greed drives them to reduce their fellow human beings as a means to an end.

Last week our subcommittee held a hearing on Advancing Human Rights to Combat Extremism. One of the takeaways underscored the need on supporting key allies in the Muslim world who bravely stand up against the extremists. In this fight, we have no more important an ally than Jordan. I, therefore, strongly support the Chairman's ``United States- Jordan Defense Cooperation Extension Act.''

The War Crimes Rewards Expansion Act, an amendment to the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, is yet another effort to provide for the means to punish those who engage in genocide or war crimes. Since we continue to see such crimes committed in countries such as Syria, Iraq and the Central African Republic, we must continue our efforts to apply justice to those who so heartlessly take the lives of entire groups of people.

While there is an International Criminal Court, and regional tribunals have been established to punish these criminals in countries such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, these criminals too often manage to escape punishment. Russia or China often block our efforts to engage the ICC, and even when the court is empowered to move forward, very little is accomplished.

That was why I introduced the concurrent resolution in the last Congress to create a special court for Syria. Unfortunately, while the House overwhelmingly passed that measure, the Senate declined to consider it.

Nevertheless, we must continue to press forward with efforts to make it easier to bring perpetrators of genocide and war crimes to trial-- both to bring justice for their victims and as a warning to others that their actions don't provide for impunity. That is why I support Representative Foxx's bill.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I made the following remarks at the hearing held by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China which I co-chair with Senator Marco Rubio:

This hearing is the second in a series looking at China's foreign influence operations and the impact on universally-recognized human rights. With the Congress and U.S. public focused on Russian influence operations, Chinese efforts have received little scrutiny and are not well understood. This must change.

Attempts by the Chinese government to guide, buy, or coerce political influence, control discussion of ``sensitive'' topics, and export its authoritarian practices globally are widespread and pervasive.

Long-time allies Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have been rocked by scandals involving Chinese sponsored influence operations targeting politicians, businesses, and academic institutions.

Australia in particular is in the midst of a national crisis and all like-minded democratic allies should be supporting their efforts to root out those elements intended to corrupt or coopt Australian political and academic institutions.

All countries pursue soft power initiatives to promote a ``positive'' global image and build goodwill, but the Chinese government's use of technology, coercion, pressure, and the promise of market access is unprecedented and poses clear challenges to the freedoms of democratic societies.

An example of Chinese rewards given to companies and individuals for abiding by the Chinese government's rules is the case of publisher Springer Nature, the world's largest academic book publisher.

Springer Nature removed more than 1,000 articles from the websites of the Journal of Chinese Political Science and International Politics in order to comply with China's censorship directives and was later ``rewarded'' for its censorship by signing a lucrative strategic partnership with the Chinese tech giant Tencent Holdings.

In addition to academic publishers, the Chinese government is going to school on college and universities. American institutions are being seduced by the promised infusion of much-needed wealth from China.

But one always has to pay a price--play by China's rules, don't ruffle feathers and don't discuss or write about ``sensitive topics.'' Universities committed to academic freedom are bound to run into problems eventually.

I have held two hearings on the threat to academic freedom posed by Confucius Institutes and the creation of U.S. campuses in China.

We should all be for creative research partnerships and expanding educational opportunities for U.S. students, but not at the cost of fundamental freedoms.

I have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate academic partnerships between the U.S. colleges and the Chinese government. The first report came out last Spring.

The GAO is now in the process of conducting investigations of Confucius Institutes. I have written to all U.S. colleges with Confucius Institutes and asked them to make their contracts public and available for public inspection.

Many foreign businesses in China have already faced similar dilemmas. Some, like Apple, which recently removed from its Chinese app store applications that help users

bypass China's ``Great Firewall.'' The networking site LinkedIn agreed to censor content and Facebook is promising to do the same in order to get access to the Chinese market.

Chinese operations to curtail the activities of dissidents and critics of the Communist Party are also pervasive, troubling, and must be stopped. We have heard multiple stories from U.S. citizens and foreign nationals living in the U.S. about efforts to intimidate, censor, and silence them.

The case of Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui is just the latest example of egregious behavior. High-ranking Chinese security ministry officials, in the US on transit visas no less, met with Mr. Guo multiple times in order to threaten and convince him to leave the U.S.

Chinese agents have repeatedly violated U.S. sovereignty and law according to the Wall Street Journal report on the incident.

These incidents and those we will discuss today are just the tip of the iceberg.

The Commission's 2017 Annual Report contains several recommendations to counter Chinese foreign influence operations--including expanding the mandate of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) to include Chinese government media organizations and think-tanks, expanded Internet Freedom initiatives and efforts to counter Chinese propaganda and disinformation at the State Department. I encourage those interested to look at our recommendations.

As we start to grapple with the scale and scope of Chinese influence operations, we will be looking for new legislative ideas and I hope our witnesses today can provide recommendations for the Commission's action.

We must be clear from the outset that we support better relations with the people of China and the United States. The issues we are discussing here today are part of influence operations conducted by the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government.

President Xi Jinping, who has concentrated more power than any Chinese leader since Mao, is determined to make the world safe for authoritarianism. Beijing is intent on exporting its censorship regime, intimidating dissidents and their families, sanitizing history, and stifling critical discussions of its repressive policies.

These actions pose direct threats to deeply held core values and fundamental freedoms enjoyed by all democratic societies. We must find ways to effectively and resolutely push back. Doing so should be a critical national interest.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I held a hearing on the current situation facing North Korean asylum seekers and assessed both China's obligation to protect refugees and the effectiveness of global efforts to stop what the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea called crimes against humanity experienced by refugees.

At a recent House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, North Korean defector Ambassador Thae Yong-ho testified about the strategic value of both disseminating information into North Korea and the protection of North Korean refugees in China.

Drawing on an analogy about the fall of the Berlin Wall, Ambassador Thae claimed that there may be a similar result if China stopped repatriations of refugees and the U.S. and the international community expanded ``soft power'' news and information flows into North Korea.

As the Congress continues to look at ways to best apply maximum diplomatic and financial press on the regime of Kim Jong-un, this hearing explored the strategic relevance of further pressing the Chinese government to protect North Korean refugees and evaluate the impact of surging outside information into North Korea.

Amid escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula, we cannot forget those suffering under the North Korean regime and those North Korean refugees who are in China

North Korean asylum seekers are at imminent risk of repatriation, torture, sexual violence, forced abortions, hard labor and even execution. China's repatriation of North Koreans is a stark violation of both the spirit and the letter of the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol to which China has acceded.

The Chinese government has a lot to answer for. It is no wonder that the UN Commission on Inquiry for North Korea Human Rights concluded that the Government of the People's Republic of China is aiding and abetting in crimes against humanity by forcibly repatriating North Korean refugees.

As many as 90 percent of North Korean women refugees in China fall prey to traffickers who sell the refugees into sexual slavery or forced marriages.

Labor trafficking is also pervasive The government of North Korea and the government and businesses in China, Russia, and elsewhere in the world, profit from the trafficking of North Korean laborers.

In recent months, Chinese authorities reportedly deported hundreds of South Korean missionaries and NGO workers who have provided crucial help to the North Korean refugees in China.

The international community--especially the United Nations, the Trump Administration and the U.S. Congress--must insist that China honor its treaty obligations and end its egregious practice of systematic repatriation of North Korean refugees.

Chinese officials and businesses, complicit in repatriation of North Korean refugees or those who profit from the labor trafficking should be held accountable.

The Congress has given the Administration the sanction tools that if used would send the right message--whether through the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act, the Global Magnitsky Act, or those sanctions attached to China's Tier 3 designation for trafficking in persons.

All should be used strategically and swiftly to send a clear message. For too long the world has tolerated China's failures to protect refugees. Those complicit in the repatriations of refugees and those who profit from the trafficking of North Koreans will be held accountable.

The ending of repatriations should be a bellwether for judging China's willingness to curtail Kim Jong-un' s nuclear ambitions.

In addition to the protection of North Korea refugees, this hearing also assessed global efforts to surge news and information into North Korea.

Expansion of existing efforts to disseminate information into North Korea is critically important if for nothing else than to tarnish and undermine the Kim family's cult of personality.

The Kim family cult must be taken seriously as a national security threat and a barometer of Kim Jong-un's power. This cult of personality--sometimes called Juche--has inspired devotion from the North Korean people because of the cradle to grave propaganda they endure.

We must undermine the Kim family cult and the propaganda that grants Kim Jong-un almost god-like status. This status has allowed three generations of the Kim family to starve and abuse the North Korean people and divert scarce resources to the military and nuclear programs.

We must have an information surge into North Korea. Human rights groups are smuggling DVDs and USB sticks with video about the Kim family's sins into North Korea right now. Balloons are launched across the border with promises of a better life in South Korea. Radio programs broadcast daily messages and news, urging North Korea's ``elite'' to defect and turn against Kim Jong-un.

We know some of these efforts are having effect. We saw several high- level defections of diplomats, military officers, and the families of North Korea's elites in the last year. The number of asylum-seekers, depressed for several years by upgraded security efforts in China, has again begun to rise.

Efforts to get information into North Korea must be expanded dramatically. Washington should be leading this covert effort, working primarily with North Korea defectors groups in South Korea and with other human rights organizations.

The North Korean defector groups should be front and center in this effort--they know North Korea and they know the minds of its people. They know what information is needed to permanently tarnish the Kim family cult and what will motivate military leaders to defect.

Yesterday's hearing took place amid growing tensions on the Korean Peninsula. We must seek all viable options to deal with and resolve the North Korean issue, not only in military/diplomatic terms, but also in terms of human rights and freedom of the North Korean people.

I welcome and thank all of our witnesses. I valued hearing their observations and insights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, introduced by my friend Roger Williams. This bill is critical to Congress' sustained effort to roll back the most egregious concessions from the Obama Administration's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times about how the Iran deal endangers our national security, namely by acquiescing to Iran's ambition to become a nuclear threshold in less than a decade. As if this concession--and the woefully inadequate inspections regime President Obama agreed to--were not troubling enough, the deal came with dozens of additional sweeteners for Iran that were folded into the main text of the agreement and an unknown number of side-deals.

These inducements were wrong on principle and they are downright dangerous in practice. On principle, Iran should not be gently incentivized to come clean about its nuclear program--it should be strictly compelled to comply with international norms. In practice, these numerous U.S. concessions to Iran effectively handed the world's largest sponsor of terrorism more resources to advance its campaign for regional hegemony. By providing $115 billion in sanctions relief, a $1.7 billion ransom payment, and an $8.6 million payment for excess heavy water that violated the terms of the deal, the Obama Administration's calamitous deal generated a windfall for the Iranian regime.

Mr. Speaker, one especially troubling concession was the Obama Administration's agreement in the text of the deal to sell commercial passenger aircraft to Iran while at the same time lifting sanctions on Iran Air, a national carrier notorious for ferrying Iran's military manpower and materiel around the region. Iran Air was sanctioned by the United States in July 2011 under Executive Order 13382 for ``for providing material support and services to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.'' Lest we believe Iran Air has straightened up its act since 2011, the Washington Free Beacon reported in August on images from this summer showing Iranian militiamen flying Iran Air to join the civil war in Syria.

Mr. Speaker, it's also clear that Iran has never had a greater incentive than it does today to double down on its hegemonic schemes as it expands its footholds in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere in the region. We have long known of Iran's genocidal intentions toward our critical and democratic ally, Israel. For years Iran has poured money and resources into Hizballah and Hamas to develop proxies that can threaten Israel on its borders. Today, however, Iran is closer than ever to achieving its own toehold near the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights from which to menace Israel and terrorize its people.

Why, in this context, would the United States knowingly furnish Iran with aircraft it needs to move its military assets around the region? Yet, as we speak, a sale of 80 Boeing aircraft to Iran Air, worth as much as $16.6 billion, is on track to proceed unless the Administration wisely intervenes or Congress hits the brakes.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324 is crucial to applying necessary and thorough scrutiny to this deal or others like it. This bill will require the Department of the Treasury to certify that the beneficiaries of any such deal do not include Iranians known to be involved in transporting materiel or other resources for designated individuals or groups. Given Iran Air's sinister past, it is only logical to demand this sort of certification.

Furthermore, the bill would require the Treasury to certify that any such transaction does not pose a ``significant money laundering or terrorism financing risk to the U.S. financial system.'' Again, considering that Iran remains the world's largest financier of terrorism and on the Financial Action Task Force's blacklist of countries that pose a high risk of money laundering, it is only responsible to establish this sort of standard for major U.S. transactions with Iranian companies.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to support H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, introduced by my friend Bruce Poliquin. This bill requires common sense reporting to Congress on the terrorism financing and money laundering threat posed by Iran to help us address it more effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these timely and critical measures.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Montana, for yielding and for the support that he and the ranking member provided for this important legislation.

It is an honor to bring H.R. 3655 to the House today to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1300 Main Street in Belmar, New Jersey, as the Dr. Walter S. McAfee Post Office Building.

Dr. Walter McAfee was a scientist, educator, and adviser to the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command and the Fort Monmouth community.

Mr. Speaker, I reached out to the leaders of the Information Age Learning Center, also known as InfoAge, several months ago and asked them if they could recommend a member of their community who they believed ought to be honored in this way, and they recommended Dr. McAfee.

As some of you may know, InfoAge has been the leading organization preserving scientific history, innovation, and communications located at the former Army camp, Camp Evans, and subpost of Fort Monmouth.

Dr. McAfee was instrumental in the success of Project Diana, an effort by scientists at Camp Evans that pierced the Earth's outer atmosphere with high frequency signals, in other words, radar. It was his mathematical calculations that enabled the team to bounce the first radio signals off the Moon's surface. Without the success of his calculations that allowed for communication to occur between Earth and space, the achievements of launching the satellites into space or sending a man to the Moon would have not been possible.

It is the achievement of this extraordinary man that actually helped launch us into the space age. During his time at Fort Monmouth, Dr. McAfee also developed sensors which were used to detect and track enemy movements during the Vietnam war. He served as director of a NATO study on surveillance and target acquisition, high-priority technologies, during the Cold War.

Dr. McAfee was the first African American to be promoted to GS-16, a supergrade civilian position in the U.S. Army Materiel Command, AMC, and to be inducted into the AMC Hall of Fame. Throughout his lifetime, his achievements were recognized through dozens of awards and honors that he received for his contribution to science and to the defense of the United States and our allies.

He was known for his love of learning, his high ethical standards, and great sense of humor.

He passed away in 1995 in Belmar, New Jersey. He and his wife, Viola, were married for close to 54 years and are survived by their daughters, Diane Mercedes McAfee and Marsha Bera-Morris.

I thank my colleagues for their anticipated support for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I held a hearing on advancing human rights to counter extremism. Today's hearing explored ways to combat violent extremism by advancing fundamental human rights--in particular, freedom of religion.

Advancing freedom of religion, both as an end in of itself and as means to achieve peace, stability and human flourishing, should be a core objective of U.S. foreign policy.

Religious liberty is opposed, however, by extremists who seek to impose their vision of an ideal society upon all. Oftentimes, the ``choice'' they give to those who seek to adhere to the beliefs they were raised in boils down to convert or die.

This clash manifests itself in numerous parts of the world, in varying degrees of intensity, but is particularly acute in certain Muslim-dominated regions, where groups such as ISIS, al-Nusra, Boko Haram and al-Shabaab seek to bring all under their sway.

To personalize this, let me tell you about a victim of Boko Haram that I have gotten to know.

On a trip to Nigeria, at an IDP camp in Jos, I met Habila Adamu.

Dragged from his home by Boko Haram terrorists, he was ordered to renounce his faith.

With an AK-47 pressed to his face, he was asked ``are you ready to die as a Christian.''

With amazing courage Habila answered, ``yes, I am ready to die as a Christian.''

He was asked a second time and he repeated his answer--``yes I am ready to die as a Christian.''

This time, the terrorist pulled the trigger. A bullet ripped through Habila's face. He crumpled to the ground, left for dead.

By some miracle, he survived.

I asked Habila to come to Washington, D.C. to tell his story. At a Congressional hearing I chaired, Habila told my committee--``I am alive because God wants you to have this message--knowing Christ'' is so much ``deeper'' than merely knowing Boko Haram's story of hate and intolerance.

He closed his testimony with this--``do everything you can to end this ruthless religious persecution. . . but know Christ first''

It should be stressed that extremist groups such as Boko Haram coerce and oppress not only members of other faiths, but also and in particular members of the Muslim faith whose interpretation of Islam differs from that of the extremists. They also target converts, whose consciences lead them to choose a different path.

To combat these extremists, the ideological battlefield is just as important as the territorial one. By emphasizing human rights principles, we counter extremist messaging, support moderate voices and promote the popular aspirations of people around the world who simply want to live in peace and freedom.

Last year, an important weapon in the fight against extremism was passed by Congress and signed into law: The Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act. This law provides tools and resources to our State Department to integrate religious freedom into our diplomacy the world over in order to counter violent extremism abroad.

In building upon the landmark International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, this law addresses the changed circumstances in the world since 1998 by designating non-state extremist groups such as Boko Haram and ISIS as ``violent non-state actors,'' making it easier to ostracize and apply financial sanctions against their members, thereby helping starve extremists of resources.

The law strengthens the ability to investigate and monitor religious persecution, creating a ``Designated Persons List'' of violators while also setting up a database of those detained, imprisoned and tortured for their faith, so that the victims are not forgotten, but rather can be more readily advocated for. Indeed, the Frank Wolf Act elevates the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, thereby enhancing the ability to advocate on behalf of victims of religious persecution.

Finally, the Act requires that our Foreign Service Officers undergo training in religious liberty, so that they are able to integrate this important tool into their daily work.

Before we move on to my colleagues' remarks, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Francis Rooney, the former United States ambassador to the Holy See, for his interest in this subject Today's hearing was brought about in large part due to his persistent interest in these themes, and I want to thank him for joining our subcommittee for this hearing today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 90. The discrimination and violence imposed on the Rohingya ethnic minority in Burma is brutal, horrific, and preventable.

I do welcome, like the rest of my colleagues, the administration's determination that the attacks against Rohingya are ethnic cleansing, because it certainly is, but I would respectfully submit it certainly rises to the level of genocide.

The Genocide Convention couldn't be clearer: If you look to destroy an ethnic group--there are other categories as well, but it is all about the group--in whole or in part, and even the thought, the contemplation of doing so can rise to genocide.

Here it is actually happening, and it is happening because of who they are as a group.

I think there needs to be a further refinement of that determination to the point of being genocide.

The responsibility for this humanitarian crisis falls squarely on the Burmese military and, to some extent, on the endemic and widespread intolerance expressed in Burmese society for the Rohingya.

After the State Department's determination of ethnic cleansing, it should not hesitate to impose sanctions against the Burmese military leaders and all others who are responsible for this bloodbath.

Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am deeply concerned that this crisis may destabilize the National League for Democracy's ruling coalition and set back Burma's democratic transition.

I am concerned about China's interests in Burma, because a robust democracy on China's border does not fit the goals of the Chinese leadership, including Xi Jinping.

I am concerned that outside jihadi groups will exploit this situation to open yet another front.

I am concerned, like my colleagues, about the stability of Bangladesh, whose fragile economy must now host well over 500,000 new refugees.

Of course, we are all most concerned about the Rohingya women, children, and men who suffer horribly during this crisis.

The roots of this humanitarian crisis are long. A durable solution for the Rohingya in Burma will be a difficult task, but we must make the effort. As we all know, there are other ethnic minority groups in Burma, including the Karen, the Karenni, and others, who have also faced atrocities over the years at the hands of the Burmese military.

A democratic and multiethnic future should be Burma's best hope for prosperity and stability. The Burmese military remains the obstacle to that future.