Floor Statements

Mr. Gohmert, thank you for your trip there and your concern, which has been throughout your entire career for human rights in general, but also for religious freedom.

This is a serious assault on religious freedom, forced Islamization. Again, those Muslims who do not agree with the extremism are also targeted, but Christians by and large.

At yesterday's hearing, Mr. Ogebe said that, of the 60 churches that have been destroyed, three mosques have been destroyed during that same time period. This is an attack on the Christian faith and it is a slaughter of Christians.

I want to thank you for your leadership on this.

Again, the great urgent needs for the Nigerian military are actionable intelligence and the capacity to know what is going on where, when, in real-time, and training. There needs to be a reevaluation of the vetting process, the Leahy amendment which I absolutely agree with; but when good troops and good soldiers and, especially, good officers are unnecessarily excluded because of a taint that may be ascribed to their unit rather than their individual performance, that needs to be relooked at so that we can train. There is a battalion that is being trained by the U.S., but there needs to be far more training in counterinsurgency.

I would say to my friend, I remember a trip to Darfur. The Nigeria military has been very robust in their peacekeeping. I remember I met with Major

Ajumbo in Darfur who had also been deployed to Sarajevo. I was very active in the terrible Balkan war. I went several times to places, including with Frank Wolf, to Vukovar and other places that were under siege. When the peacekeepers got there, among them were the Nigerians. So peacekeeping is something they had been very generous in deploying their troops to try to help other countries deal with civil wars or wars of aggression and, of course, terrorist activity as we have seen in Darfur, but now that kind of training is not applicable to a counterinsurgency effort. That takes a very specialized type of skill set, and that needs to be ramped up exponentially if this horrific threat is to be mitigated and then eventually done away with.

Not at all.

There are so many very excellent points from my friend from Texas.

They don't want boots on the ground. The Nigerian military, Goodluck Jonathan, the President, what they need is this kind of specialized training, and they need it fast.

As we have seen in Baghdad--and the threat being posed now to Baghdad--and Fallujah, of course, several months ago and now in Mosul, a highly motivated and capable group of terrorists can do extraordinary damage unless you have people facing them down who have the kind of training and motivation that can meet and stop it.

Let me just say, too, Africa is now, you know, the Wahhabi sect and others, extremist elements, are trying to influence Africa to the detriment of moderate Muslims, as you have pointed out, who have gotten along and have been best of friends with the Christian community. Even in Nigeria, there have been bishops and imams who have traveled throughout the country. The country is roughly divided in half. It is the most populous country in all of Africa, about 180 million people, and a very, very important friend and ally of democracy and us. They are at risk because of these extremist elements.

We saw it in Somalia with al-Shabaab and the pain that that terrible organization has inflicted on Somalia. Then as they were being defeated--they are not defeated yet, but as their numbers were lessened, they went over to Nairobi and went into a market and killed large numbers of people and terrorized.

These people eat, sleep, and drink brutality and impose it on innocent people. They blow up children and women and men. As a matter of fact, one of the untold stories is how many of the schoolboys are just being summarily executed, particularly in the three northern states. They kidnap the girls, as you pointed out, sexually abuse them and do horrific things to them and kill some of them, but they just summarily execute the young men.

So there is a reign of terror that is underappreciated around the world with regard to Boko Haram. You and I and others have been raising this for years.

Our Ambassador Sanders yesterday talked about she was Ambassador in 2007-2010, U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, how she had raised so many issues.

In 2011, the U.N. headquarters in Abuja was firebombed by Boko Haram--in Abuja. There was an American there, and yet the Obama administration refused to designate Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization.

I asked Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie Carson at a hearing in 2012 and then again a year later, why. This organization meets the test of a foreign terrorist organization, and why not, especially with the tools that are available through an FTO designation, trying to track the terror money and the means and financing for guns and the procurement of weapons, IEDs and the rest, and they just refused. They named three individuals, but they would not do the FTO for the entire organization. A missed opportunity.

Again, like I said, on the day before my hearing in December, the administration announced Boko Haram as an FTO. We welcomed it. Everybody was glad, but we missed an opportunity for approximately 2 years or more for an FTO designation.

I would just add, finally, that one of the big takeaways--and this was amplified yesterday by Ambassador Sanders-- is that there is a huge psychological toll being imposed upon the victims, and that the PTSD experienced by the families, especially with the Chibok abduction, is enormous. The government of Nigeria, obviously, needs to walk point on trying to ensure that psychological assistance, as well as the faith community, which can provide a tremendous benefit to those suffering trauma and the aftermaths of it, be given.

One of the things that Ambassador Sanders mentioned yesterday that I thought was a very good idea is that President Goodluck Jonathan ought to meet with the families of the Chibok girls. One of the things that George Bush did, and he actually did it in my district as well--not George but his wife, the First Lady, but he did it at the White House and other venues--they met with the survivors of 9/11 and let them know not only that the sympathy and the empathy for their plight was real and the harrowing loss that they endured, but that, as President of the United States, George W. Bush, and his wife, said: We are with you, we have got your back, we care about you.

So, respectfully, I would hope that the President, Goodluck Jonathan, would open his arms and meet with the Chibok family members, the parents who are in utter agony--who wouldn't be?--at the loss of their daughters. Again, I met with one of those dads who lost two of his daughters to the abduction, doesn't know where they are, like the others, and this man, tears flowing down his face. In his case, he was one of the Muslims. There were a few Muslim girls, we don't know how many, at the school--it was mostly Christians, overwhelmingly Christian--but his two daughters were Muslim.

This trauma is real. We know from the work that the VA has done for years of posttraumatic stress disorder--PTSD--that those impacts are lifelong and they need to be addressed. When I sat, like you sat, across from some of those young victims, the lucky ones who were able to escape, this poor young 18-year-old girl that I met with was clearly broken and hurting beyond words, and yet she kept uttering and saying: But I care about my friends, what happened to my friends, where are my friends now? And tears welled up in her eyes several times.

So again, I do thank you.

There is one other idea to put on the table: The victims compensation fund. Nigeria does have significant oil wealth. While there are still huge numbers of poor people in Nigeria, there is also the idea that there are resources available. Certainly helping some people get their lives back together--when I went to the IDP camp--the internally displaced camp--in Jos last September I was struck by the destitute, the extreme poverty compounded by the exodus, and there are hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons, obviously in Nigeria but also in adjacent countries like Cameroon.

So a victims compensation fund would be at least an effort, a gesture, to help out, it would seem to me, those who are suffering from, again, loss of life, abductions, and now no place to live too. It just gets worse and worse and worse.

I also heard harrowing stories of people who leave their homes and hide in the bush at night because Boko Haram at any night can just come knocking on the door, AK-47 in hand, ready to open fire. So the pervasive fear, especially in the three northern states, is bad and getting worse. And again, our former Ambassador yesterday said: This is a long war, and Nigeria needs to understand, and everyone who supports Nigeria, that it is not going to just end with one fell swoop. There needs to be a strategy that takes in a framework to account that this is a long and protracted war, but it has to start now.

I thank the gentleman for his compassion and for bringing these stories forward and for meeting with those families.

I did, too, hear of the false guilt--nevertheless, guilt--shared by some of the families, but what do you do when you are facedown with an AK-47 and you are holding a stick? That is basically what happened.

I have been to Abuja a number of times. I am the author, as you know, of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, America's landmark law in combating sex and labor trafficking, enacted in 2000.

I have been there a number of times, working with members of parliament--their congressmen and their senators--on trafficking legislation. They have a very, very well-written piece of legislation to combat the scourge of modern-day slavery and human trafficking.

There are many fine members of the House and Senate. Part of the problem has been the corruption in some places--in the military, in some cases--in parts of the government, and we have corruption here; so we know how insidious, as you pointed out, that can be, but when the military units that are deployed lack the skill base and the training to deal with a terrorist organization that is highly adept, coupled with the fact they don't have enough munitions, enough capabilities that any military going to war against this kind of threat need to have, it just so hampers their ability to carry on the fight. So that, too, has to change.

We are told something like $6 billion in defense spending by the government is what is going on. It seems to me--and I said this at yesterday's hearing--perhaps they need an urgent supplemental--the way we would do here--to significantly upgrade their materiel.

That was one of the first things that Ambassador Sanders said yesterday. They have the money to buy this. They need to procure it-- and do it yesterday--certainly, today--and not wait any longer--so that these troops are ready, capable and trained.

So I really appreciate your point. They do have a number of fine laws. Their legislature is functioning in many ways very well. There are gaps that particularly need to be addressed. Three northern states have some serious problems. So I do think we need to be a true ally and friend.

As Professor Pham said yesterday, we will keep our footprint very light. Nobody wants U.S. troops on the ground. That is very clear, but we need to help them help themselves, especially since the Nigerians have been so generous in deploying peacekeepers to troubled areas throughout Africa and, like I said, in places like the Balkans, in Bosnia.

So much.

So much good--the family, the faith community. I spent some time with a number of Catholics and evangelicals. They love God. They really want to do His will on Earth, as it is in Heaven, as we are admonished in the Lord's prayer, but they face many crippling challenges. On the sickness side, malaria is endemic. They have made major gains on the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

They have so many issues that they are trying to address and in comes this horrific Boko Haram organization, which has taken brutality to a new low. They are capable--and let's not kid ourselves. This is a gang, but it is a well-trained gang that is bloodthirsty.

We have seen it before. Look what happened in Liberia and Charles Taylor, who brutalized Sierra Leone and Liberia. Thankfully, he got a 50-year prison sentence by the special court of Sierra Leone and now is in prison, but the pain that he unleashed through his terrorism--and he was the President of that country.

Here, you have a situation where a group of thugs, well trained, are unleashing hell upon wonderful people. Again, that is why we can be of help, especially in the area of intelligence and in the area of training--of course, on the humanitarian side, sharing best practices, especially psychological trauma type of interventions.

Mr. Gohmert, I want to thank you, again, for your leadership and for taking the time to go to Lagos to meet with all the families and to, again, amplify the message that we must do more. There is more that we can do.

I was extraordinarily impressed with our people that are on the ground. They are totally can-do, both our Embassy, as well as our military people. They want to help. We have got to make sure that we are resourcing them sufficiently as well.

The Government of Nigeria and President Goodluck Jonathan need to listen to the international chorus--the U.K. is there, the French are trying to be helpful on the intelligence side as well--but they own the leadership of this. They need to step up to the plate. Again, I can't emphasize enough the specialized training that could really enable their troops to efficaciously combat Boko Haram.

It needs to be done so urgently and so comprehensively. They need a comprehensive strategy.

I thank my good friend.

Again, I say--and you emphasized it with your lifelong love of the Nigerian people and your knowledge of them--I think most Americans would be very encouraged to know just how strongly faith-filled the Nigerian people are. Whether they be evangelical, Catholic, or Muslim, they take their faith seriously. They are very ethical people, great people, very good business people.

If infrastructure and roads and bridges and the like were to become even more accomplished throughout Nigeria--as Nigeria goes, so goes the rest of Africa, it is often said--they will be a great trading partner. They are already a huge trade partner of the U.S., but that will grow exponentially, going forward.

Again, I have always been impressed with the faith of so many Africans, in general, but the Nigerians' faith in God is extraordinary.

Before you got here, I think, at least, I raised the issue of Habila Adamu. He was a man whom I met in an IDP camp in Jos in September of last year. He did tell the story about how Boko Haram broke into his house, dragged him outside, with a terrorist holding an AK-47 right to his nose area.

With his wife weeping, pleading with this man not to shoot her husband, he said: You convert or else I will shoot you.

He said: I am ready to meet my Lord.

So the trigger was pulled, and he blew his face away. You can see it on the other side that he has had some reconstructive surgery.

Not only was this man a living martyr because he survived it--they left him for dead because he was bleeding so profusely--but when I met him in Jos, he didn't have a scintilla--the slightest--of malice towards the gunmen. He said he prays for them. I mean, you are talking about Christian love overcoming a terrible hatred, the likes of which we can't even understand. When he testified here--because I invited him to come to Washington to testify before my subcommittee--you could have heard a pin drop. A lot of the press, including the Associated Press, led with his story.

That is transformative, I believe, to see someone who, almost like our Lord from the cross, says: Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.

Here was this man who was a living martyr, and I couldn't have been more moved, inspired.

I saw him again on this most recent trip, and the joy that he radiates--he radiates Christ; you see it in his eyes when he speaks-- was just extraordinary and humbling because none of us know and I don't know if I could ever react like that. I hope I never do. He had that peace that surpasses all understanding. He was there, and he could have died right that day.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Venezuelan Human Rights and Democracy Protection Act and to thank my distinguished colleague, Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her bold leadership in calling attention to the deplorable human rights situation in Venezuela and for creating this meaningful diplomatic tool to assist the Venezuelan people in resisting tyranny; first, the tyranny imposed by Hugo Chavez, and now that of his understudy in oppression, Nicolas Maduro.

At its core, this important initiative authorizes targeted sanctions to those who are responsible for violence and abuse, namely, members of the Maduro regime. The regime's silencing of democracy advocates, such as Leopoldo Lopez, is a violation of fundamental human rights and is an example of what makes this piece of legislation so fitting and so necessary.

I also support the bill's redirection of funds towards supporting civil society groups in Venezuela involved in promoting respect for democracy and fundamental freedoms, most importantly, the respect for the right to life, expression, and the right of religious liberty.

Indeed, I want to underscore the church's role as a voice independent of the State of Venezuela and how it has been unafraid to speak up on behalf of the oppressed and those protesting injustice. The Maduro regime has sought to silence the church, which remains a force independent of the government and a witness to the truth. The House of Representatives honors and deeply respects the key role that the church and faith-based civil society groups are playing in the fight for democracy and human rights in Venezuela.

As we all hope to see a free and democratic Venezuela, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Ros-Lehtinen legislation, H.R. 4587.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4028 introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), which adds desecration of cemeteries as a violation of religious freedom identified in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.

Sadly, such an addition is necessary because we have seen repeated acts of desecration of cemeteries occurring throughout the world, especially in Europe, but also in the United States, including my own State of New Jersey.

Jewish cemeteries seem to be a particular target of desecration. By some counts, attacks on Jewish cemeteries have been on the rise over the last several years. We have tried to document that again and again in our work at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Organization for Security Cooperation itself.

A number of Jewish organizations as well have come forward with extraordinarily demoralizing numbers of cemeteries, as well as synagogues that have been attacked, as there is a rising tide of anti- Semitism.

I chaired a hearing on May 22 on the International Religious Freedom Act with a focus on the Commission on Religious Freedom, and one of the things that was brought forward in vivid detail has been the lack of enforcement and the lack of due diligence on the part of the administration when it comes to the International Religious Freedom Act. Not since 2011 has there been a designation of what we call country of particular concern, CPC status, or the dishonorable status that it conveys ought to be done every year.

Congressman Frank Wolf, the author of IRFA, the International Religious Freedom Act, made it very clear it is law, and I would point out for the record that I chaired all of the hearings in the House as that bill was working its way through the House. We have had, I believe, a dereliction of duty on the part of the administration to do what it has to do under IRFA.

There has been no designation since 2011. The commission pointed out that there are eight countries that ought to be so designated, followed by eight others, including Vietnam, that needed to be added to the list, making a total of 16 countries that are then liable to sanctions, the 18 or so sanctions that are prescribed in the legislation, again, authored by Mr. Wolf.

I am so glad Ms. Meng is adding this to the list, but the list itself and all of the other violations need to be taken seriously by the administration. Hope springs eternal. I hope they do it sooner rather than later--like today--but I won't hold my breath.

I say this because it is a very, very serious issue, and that was brought forward at our hearing just the other day.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are other groups, including the Ahmadi religious minority in Pakistan. We heard testimony on May 22 about how their gravestones are being violated as well.

By far, Jewish people have their cemeteries desecrated and others as well, and it is a terrible and despicable act of violence against individuals and religious freedom.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left?

Mr. Speaker, it has been 25 years since China's Government crushed the peaceful demonstrations we remember by the name ``Tiananmen Square.'' The resolution before us honors the extraordinary sacrifice endured by hundreds of thousands of peaceful Chinese democracy activists who rallied for almost 2 months in Beijing and in over 400 other cities in China in a heroic quest for liberty and human rights. It has been estimated that over a million people took part.

Tiananmen has also come to symbolize the brutal lengths China's Communist Party will go to remain in power. When the tanks rolled into the square on June 4, 1989, mothers lost sons, fathers lost daughters, and China lost an idealistic generation of future leaders.

You know, Mr. Speaker, some may prefer to look past or even trivialize the wanton slaughter by Chinese soldiers. The memory of the dead and those arrested, tortured, and exiled requires us to honor them, respect their noble aspirations for fundamental freedoms, and recommit ourselves to the struggle for freedom and human rights in China.

Former President Jiang Zemin said in an interview that Tiananmen was ``no big deal.'' But it was a very big deal that has left an enduring mark on Chinese society and on U.S.-China relations.

The Government of China continues to go to astounding, even bizarre, lengths to censor and ban open discussion of Tiananmen. This resolution sends the right message: we will never forget Tiananmen, ever, especially so as long as the Chinese people cannot discuss it and its significance openly without harassment or arrest or torture.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most enduring symbols of the Tiananmen demonstrations was the unveiling of a facsimile of the Statue of Liberty on May 30, 1989. It was a moment that thrilled freedom advocates around the globe. There was this enduring symbol of freedom facing the portrait of Mao Zedong hanging in Tiananmen Square.

This moment was extraordinary because it showed that when the Chinese people are able to speak publicly and freely, they ask for greater freedoms, democracy, and justice. These are universal liberties that can be found in demonstrations for liberty worldwide. We see it in Cairo and Caracas, Turkey and Tunisia, Kabul and Kiev.

There was a moment when we all believed that Tiananmen Square demonstrations would be a triumph of freedom and democracy. Later in 1989, the Warsaw Pact nations started to crumble, and eventually the former Soviet Union fell as well, but the Communist leaders of China sought to cling to power through unbelievable brutality and force. They sent tanks and soldiers into Beijing to ``clear the square'' on the evening of June 3 into June 4. The

beatings, the bayonetting, the torture and murder of students and the ubiquitous display of tanks turned the dream of freedom into a bloody nightmare.

Mr. Speaker, in 1991, I was able to visit Beijing prison number 1 on a trip with my great friend and colleague Frank Wolf. It was a bleak gulag, where some 40 Tiananmen Square demonstrators were being unjustly detained. We saw firsthand the price paid by brave and tenacious individuals for peacefully petitioning their government for freedom, and it was not pretty. They looked like walking skeletons of Auschwitz, and they worked grueling hours making products, some of which ended up in U.S. markets.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 25 years, the Tiananmen demonstrations have shaped the way the Chinese Government deals with dissent. Despite the country's stunning economic growth over the past two decades, Beijing's leaders remain terrified of their own people. China's ruling Communist Party would rather stifle, imprison, or even kill its own people than defer or embrace their demands for freedom and rights.

President Xi Jinping's tenure as President, which started with so much promise of new beginnings, has instead ramped up the repression. China today is in a race to the bottom with the likes of North Korea.

Last year was the worst year since the 1990s for arrests and imprisonment of dissidents. Over 230 people have been detained for their human rights advocacy, and those are the ones we know about. There are many, many more. In the past month leading up to the Tiananmen anniversary, Beijing has detained some two dozen activists for seeking to commemorate the anniversary, even criminalizing private gatherings and art installations.

China remains, as we all know, one of the worst offenders of human rights overall. It remains the torture capital of the world. Religious freedom abuses continue with absolute impunity, and ethnic minority groups face repression when they peacefully seek rights of culture and of language.

Hundreds of millions of women, Mr. Speaker, have been forced to abort their precious babies because of a draconian attempt to limit population growth in effect since 1979. China's one-child policy is a human rights disaster without precedent, and it is a demographic nightmare as well. Brothers and sisters in China, Mr. Speaker, are illegal, and the preference for having boys has led to a gender imbalance and a mass extermination of the girl child.

This is not only a massive gender-based crime, Mr. Speaker, but a security problem as well. Experts are coming to the conclusion that China's unprecedented gender imbalance will lead to more crime, social instability, worker shortages, and even possibly war. Of course it has had a horrific impact on sex trafficking.

Last year, China was rightfully demoted to a tier 3 country under the provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act because of the missing girls and daughters, so those slavers are now buying and selling women as commodities because women don't exist relative to the number of males in the People's Republic of China all because of a cruel one child per couple policy.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, repression has not dimmed the desires of the Chinese people for freedom and reform. There is an inspiring drive in China to keep fighting for freedom under very difficult and dangerous lethal conditions. This drive is the most important asset in promoting human rights and democratization.

When democratic change does come to China, it will come from within, not because of outside pressure; although that pressure needs to be applied, and it needs to be applied judiciously and effectively. U.S. policy, in both the short and long term, must be, and seem to be, supportive of advocates of peaceful change. We can't abscond in our responsibility. Lists need to be tendered every time we meet with Chinese leaders, whether it be the White House or any Members of Congress, of political prisoners.

I believe that someday China will be free. Someday the people of China will be able to enjoy all of their God-given rights. As a nation of free Chinese men and women, we will honor them and they will be celebrated someday as heroes of Tiananmen Square and all of those who sacrificed so much and for so long for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

First of all, let me begin by thanking our distinguished chairman, Ed Royce, for his leadership on combating human trafficking in general and for his strong support for this legislation today. To him and his staff, I am deeply, deeply grateful.

Then, to Eliot Engel, the ranking member, we work as a team, and he works as a team, and it is one of the most bipartisan committees, probably, in the House.

Thank you for your leadership on this as well and for your kind words a moment ago. I do deeply appreciate it.

Madam Speaker, protecting women and children from violence and predatory behavior is among the highest duties and responsibilities of government.

So today is truly a historic day--a historic day in the struggle to end human trafficking and to protect the weakest and must vulnerable from modern-day slavery.

As prime author of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as well as reauthorizations of that law in 2003 and 2005, I believe the five bills under consideration by the House today will significantly prevent the horrific crime of human trafficking, protect and assist victims, and prosecute those who exploit and abuse.

Madam Speaker, as we all know, legislative priorities in the U.S. House of Representatives don't happen by default, nor by happenstance. I especially want to single out Majority Leader Eric Cantor for his extraordinary leadership in ensuring that these five bills--and there will be others, I am sure, in their wake--were brought to the floor.

There were multiple referrals to committees and subcommittees. I know that our bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee--we worked very closely with the Judiciary Committee and their staff--as well as Homeland Security, which also was very supportive. It is that kind of coordination and leadership that makes what looks like an easy walk-- and this has not been an easy walk for these bills; it never is--to come to the floor today with all of the differences of opinion.

We are united on the floor of the House of Representatives today in saying in a bipartisan way absolutely ``no'' to this crime of human trafficking.

So thank you Eric Cantor for that leadership. It is deeply, deeply appreciated.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4573, the International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking, is a serious attempt to mitigate child sex tourism by noticing countries of destination concerning the travel plans of convicted pedophiles. And to protect American children, the bill encourages the President of the United States and everyone else, like the Secretary of State, to use bilateral agreements and assistance to establish reciprocal notification so that we will know when a convicted child abuser comes to the United States.

Madam Speaker, in 1994, a young girl in my district, then my hometown of Hamilton Township, was lured into the home of a convicted pedophile who lived across the street from her home. Megan Kanka, 7 years old, was raped and murdered.

No one, including Megan Kanka's parents or any of the other neighbors, knew that their neighbor across the street had been convicted twice and jailed for child sexual assault.

The combination of concern for at-risk children and outrage towards those who abuse them led to enactment of Megan's Law--public sex offender registries--in every State in the country. In 2006, Chairman Sensenbrenner nationalized the whole idea and concept of the registry as part of his historic law, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we take the lessons learned on how to protect our children from known child sex predators within our borders and expand those to children globally. Child predators thrive on secrecy, a secrecy that allows them to commit heinous crimes against children with impunity and without any meaningful accountability. Megan's Law, with its emphasis on notification, must go global to protect American children and children worldwide.

Let's not forget the prevalence or the size of this abuse. Nobody knows for sure exactly how many, but the International Labor Organization estimates that 1.8 million children are victims of commercial sexual exploitation around the world every year.

Madam Speaker, it is also worth noting that in 2010 the Government Accountability Office issued a report entitled, ``Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders.'' They found that at least 4,500 U.S. passports were issued to registered sex offenders in fiscal year 2008 alone. The GAO emphasized that this number is probably understated due to the limitations of the data that it was able to access and analyze.

Thank you, Chairman Royce.

Meanwhile, the law enforcement and media reports continue to document Americans on the U.S. sex offender registries who were caught sexually abusing children in East Asia and Central and South America and everyplace in the world. It is the same horror movie replayed over and over. We must do more to warn destination countries so that they can, in turn, protect their children from sex tourism. We have the information and technology that is employed to protect children.

Madam Speaker, I ask Members to support this legislation. It is the second time that we have brought this bill to the floor. It is slightly different than it was in 2010. It passed then. It got no action in the United States Senate.

I hope all five of these historic bills are taken up in a very timely fashion by the U.S. Senate because protecting the weakest and the most vulnerable--women, children, and especially the at-risk population-- from this cruelty must be an imperative. And the Senate needs to act, as we are acting.

I would like to thank the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for their support of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for swiftly bringing this important resolution, H. Res. 573, to the floor. I thank Congresswoman Frederica Wilson for her sponsorship and also Eliot Engel for the bipartisanship that has been exhibited on behalf of this very, very important and timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 2 months ago, a large group of uniformed men, Boko Haram terrorists, kidnapped nearly 300 schoolgirls from the Chibok Government Girls Secondary School. This case has recently caught the attention of the international community, and people worldwide are now--and belatedly, I would suggest--calling for swift action to recover these innocent young women.

Unfortunately--and perversely--Boko Haram now basks in its international attention and continues to release videos to demonstrate the leverage they believe they have gained by this and other kidnappings. Meanwhile, boys caught by these terrorists are not kidnapped; they are summarily executed. Fifty-nine of them were killed in one school alone in Borno State just this past February.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Nigeria continues to be slow to react to this outrageous situation, even after accepting much-needed international security assistance.

It is only since the uproar in Nigeria and outside the country that the Nigerian Government has asked for international assistance in addressing this situation. That request has triggered a U.S. interagency team consisting of personnel from the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, USAID, AFRICOM, and the FBI.

That team was led by AFRICOM commander General David Rodriguez and Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Sarah Sewall, who will testify tomorrow at Chairman Royce's hearing.

This enhanced engagement is welcomed in light of weak efforts by the Nigerian Government and a police-military-security apparatus that we have found to operate in a very divided manner and make enemies among the Nigerian public by their clumsy and sometimes brutal response to Boko Haram terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting here that, for years, many of us--and this has been bipartisan--have been calling on the Obama administration to declare Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization.

I held a hearing back in 2012 and asked, rather pointedly, of then- Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson why Boko Haram was not so designated, particularly in light of the killings that occurred at the U.N. facility in Abuja. There were no good answers. We tried again. I finally went on a factfinding trip in September of last year.

We went to Jos, Greg Simpkins, my staff director and I, and met with people who were the survivors of firebombing attacks that occurred in their churches while they were at mass or at church service on Sunday. We heard harrowing tales.

We even brought one of the survivors, a man named Ikenna Nzeribe, who came and told how an AK-47 was put to his jaw. He was told: You either renounce your faith in your Jesus or you die. He said: I am ready to see my Lord.

The trigger was pulled, and he lost half of his face and was left for dead.

I say that because the brutality of this organization--which now has some 300 young, innocent women that are probably being raped and abused in so many ways--just underscores the need for concerted action, first and foremost, by Nigeria and, secondly, by a

full assist by the international communities.

Earlier today, five mutually reinforcing bills to combat human trafficking passed on this floor of the House of Representatives. This is another vivid, extraordinary, hard example of human trafficking, of stealing young girls right from their school, putting them in trucks, and then taking them into the bush where horrible things are being done to them.

We need to leave no stone unturned, and if that means lifting in the sense of only working with those troops that are human rights certified to assist the military of Nigeria, parts of the Leahy amendment may have to be waived, we have to provide that command and control and that ability for the Nigerian military to find and bring these young girls back to safety.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are really speaking with one voice tonight, and that is on behalf of the young women, the young girls, who have been abducted by Boko Haram. Thankfully, there is absolutely no divide between Republicans or Democrats, and really the world. The world is speaking out.

This is absolutely outrageous, but it is part of a trend and a surge that is happening in many parts of the world, including in Africa. Al- Shabaab in Somalia. We know the terrible killing spree that went on in Kenya, in Nairobi, not so long ago. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Ansar-al-Dine and Mujao in Mali. And then, of course, Seleka in the Central African Republic. And then, of course, Boko Haram.

Number nine of the whereas be it resolved ``calls on the President to provide Congress a comprehensive strategy to counter the growing threat posed by radical Islamist terrorist groups in West Africa, the Sahel, and North Africa.''

They are bad, Mr. Speaker, and they are getting worse. Many of us have been calling in a bipartisan way for years that Boko Haram be designated a foreign terrorist organization, and it was belated. It took years to designate this organization, this cruel, insensitive, and murderous organization. Thankfully, at least now everyone gets it, but unfortunately there are many, many victims who are suffering.

The war on terrorism, Mr. Speaker, remains largely unfinished. My hope is that this resolution and the commitment of the U.S. Government, the French, and the European allies, and frankly people around the world, even the Chinese know because they were recently hit as well, will understand that Boko Haram has to be stopped. All means necessary have to be employed to mitigate--no, not mitigate--destroy this threat to children, to women.

Let's not forget: here is a group that targets schools, literally abducts children, kills the men, the boys, and abducts the young girls. Just in May and April they conducted the worst attack on bus stations throughout Abuja. The worst hit. It barely made the papers, Mr. Speaker.

Boko Haram is a murderous organization, and it is about time we all did our part to ensure that they end their rein of terror.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in a little more than two weeks, Ukraine will be holding presidential elections while Russia continues its campaign of aggression and destabilization. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the pro-Russian separatist militants that have been operating in parts of eastern Ukraine act at the behest and direction of the Russian government. President Putin has already said that the Ukrainian elections are illegitimate.

Yesterday Putin softened his tone with respect to the May 25 elections. Yet at this point words mean little unless they are matched by deeds. Putin has also claimed that the tens of thousands of troops deployed on Ukraine's border are being pulled back, yet so far there is no evidence that this is happening.

The upcoming elections are legitimate--and more than legitimate. They are heroic--many people will be taking real risks of future reprisals in voting. Yet according to a recent IRI poll, an overwhelming 84 percent of Ukrainian citizens said they will definitely or are likely to vote in the elections, including a substantial majority in the two regions in which the militants are active. The vast majority of Ukrainians do not support the separatist movement, and wish to remain in a united Ukraine. It is up to the Ukrainian people--and only the Ukrainian people--to decide their own future through democratic means. It is not up to Russia--whose President famously said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a ``major geopolitical disaster . . . a genuine tragedy''. These are views shared by few of the people living in Ukraine, whether they consider themselves Ukrainian or Russian, and few of the people living in the other non-Russian former Soviet republics.

The real tragedy here is the suffering of so many innocent people at the hands of militants, extremists, and hooligans--including the OSCE military monitors who were held hostage by the pro-Russian militants for more than a week. The militants have murdered a number of pro- Ukrainian activists and have kidnapped, threatened and intimidated others, including journalists who simply favor democracy and free speech. Some 40 people are in captivity in the separatist hotbed of Sloviansk alone. Minorities also have reason to be concerned--militants have attacked the Roma community and among Russian special forces in Ukraine are members of neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups. And over the weekend, we saw the terrible clashes in Odessa that resulted in the deaths of more than 40 people.

We must not forget Crimea, where the Russians are consolidating power and taking measures against Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians The revered long-time Crimean Tatar leader and former Soviet political prisoner, Mustafa Dzhemilev, has been banned from returning to his homeland. Other activists have been attacked and threatened.

An overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens, even in the two regions where the pro-Russian separatists are most active and where most of the violence is taking place, don't wish to join Russia, and certainly don't want war.

I welcome U.S. and international assistance to Ukraine's democratic and economic development, including for the upcoming elections. Especially important is helping Ukraine strengthen the rule of law and overcome the devastating legacy of corruption left in the wake of the ruinous Yanukovich regime.

The U.S. and international community should redouble efforts to counter Russian aggression and to support the Ukrainian people's overwhelming aspirations for peace, freedom, democracy and economic well-being. We must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those who want dignity, peace and freedom, in solidarity against those seeking to impose foreign autocracy and imperial rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for bringing this important resolution forward and also Congressman Frank Wolf, who has been tenacious in insisting that there be a select committee.

There are serious gaps. We all know it. The people who lost their lives who died unnecessarily their loved ones and the American people deserve to know the truth about Benghazi.

When Secretary Clinton came before the Foreign Affairs Committee, I asked her point blank:

You have said, Madam Secretary, that you take full responsibility. How do you define ``full responsibility''?

She defined it from the day of, and all that preceded Benghazi is precluded from that definition.

Despite the fact that there was one cable after another, suggesting that there were serious gaps in security, all of that seemed to have not made its way to either her or her senior staff. That is very much of a lack of attention to detail, and a light needs to be brought to that.

I asked two of the people who headed up the ARB, the Accountability Review Board, why they did not interview Secretary Clinton. They had no good answer. I asked them twice--no good answer.

Back in 1998, when we got hit in Dar es Salaam and in Nairobi, I chaired the hearings of the Accountability Review Board. We looked painstakingly at all of the gaps that existed and I wrote the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999.

There were lessons learned. Those lessons were not applied the way they should have been to Benghazi. Requests were made for help. We still don't know the truth. The new select committee will leave no stone unturned. It will get answers.

Again, those who died, their loved ones, and the American people deserve to know the truth.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engle, thank you for introducing this important legislation H.R. 2548, the Electrify Africa Act, which my subcommittee Ranking Member Karen Bass and I have joined you in sponsoring. We acknowledge the importance of this legislation, and we hope our colleagues share our enthusiasm for what this bill can accomplish.

Congress' interest in Africa is not only longstanding, but also varied. Some of focus on development, and some are more interested in trade. Others are keen to meet the humanitarian needs of the continent, while still others believe education is the key to Africa's future success. All of those elements are important, but none of them can be accomplished fully without electricity, which is in far too short a supply throughout Africa.

In Africa's largest cities, there are plenty of lights, and in Lagos, Accra, Nairobi, Dakar, Johannesburg, Addis Ababa or Lusaka the modern way of life is thriving--day or night. Unfortunately, in many other cities, electricity is fleeting, and in too many rural areas it is simply scarce. Generators provide the power by which many companies are forced to do business, and in many homes, generators are needed to ensure that modern activities can continue when the government-provided power flickers out. This is so expensive that many Africans are forced to rely on more basic means of providing light once night approaches, but in the 21st century, the people of Africa must not be dependent on the sun or candles and lanterns to deliver their light. Certainly, these means cannot power their cell phones, televisions or other technology on which today's societies thrive.

We all want Africa to join in the development the rest of the world enjoys, yet that is not possible without a steady source of energy. Manufacturing is only a notion without the power to move assembly lines and

produce goods. Vaccines and other medicines will last only so long without refrigeration, and that requires steady electrical power. A student studying by candlelight or by the light of a lantern is a quaint notion that can no longer be the reality of young Africans striving to build a better life.

H.R. 2548 will improve access to affordable, reliable electricity in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than two-thirds of Africans lack access to electricity. This bill does not provide electricity as a gift; it facilitates cooperation between our government and African governments in finding the most efficient and effective means of establishing electric power for their citizens. By requiring our Administration to create a comprehensive multiyear strategy, H.R. 2548 ensures that there is a mutually agreeable plan that can be implemented by future Administrations and Congresses in collaboration with willing African partners. This bill also calls on U.S. representatives to international institutions to leverage other international support for providing electricity to Africa.

I call on my colleagues to join with us in voting for H.R. 2548. In doing so, we will not only provide power for Africa, but we also will energize our dreams for Africa's current and future development.

Mr. Speaker, I, as no doubt all of you, have been shocked by images of horrific human rights violations, including summary executions, torture, rape, and chemical weapon attacks in Syria. Since the Syrian Civil War began, perhaps as many as 150,000 people may have been killed and more than 9 million people have been forced to leave their homes, 6.5 million of them internally displaced. By the end of last year, it is estimated that neighboring countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq were holding nearly 3 million Syrian refugees.

Who is culpable for such heinous acts, and how can they be held accountable, be they members of the Assad regime or Islamist radicals from neighboring countries? Those who have perpetrated human rights violations among the Syrian Government, the rebels, and the foreign fighters on both sides of this conflict, must be shown that their actions will have serious, predictable, and certain consequences. They need to learn the lesson that Charles Taylor learned when he got a 50- year sentence when he was brought to trial and convicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

H. Con. Res. 51, introduced on September 9, calls for the creation of an international tribunal that would be more flexible and more efficient than the International Criminal Court to ensure accountability for human rights violations committed by all sides.

Such a tribunal would draw upon past experience, creating a justice mechanism robust enough to hold perpetrators accountable for the most egregious wrongs, yet nimble enough not to derail chances for peace due to rigidity.

Beginning with the Nuremburg and Tokyo tribunals, a body of law has developed concerning war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen examples of ad hoc tribunals in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and hybrid mechanisms such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone. As chair of the subcommittee on human rights, especially during the 1990s, as well as the Helsinki Commission Chairman, I held a series of hearings on the Yugoslav courts, and those that were in Sierra Leone and Rwanda, and often had the chief prosecutors testify at those hearings, including Carla Del Ponte from the Yugoslav court and others from the Special Court for Sierra Leone, including David Crane. We brought David Crane back this past October 30 to ask him what his view would be on such a court, and he gave riveting testimony, as did other experts, as to the absolute need for the immediate establishment for this kind of flexible court.

Each of these tribunals has achieved a level of success that has escaped the International Criminal Court. The Yugoslavia tribunal has won 67 convictions, the Rwanda tribunal has won 47, and the Sierra Leone tribunal has won 16 convictions. Meanwhile, the ICC--costing about $140 million annually--has thus far seen only one conviction.

One thing we do not want to do is go down the ICC route. The ICC process is distant and has no local ownership of its justice process. It is far less flexible than an ad hoc tribunal, which can be designed to fit the situation. The ICC requires a referral. In the case of the President and Deputy President of Kenya, it was Kenya itself that facilitated the referral. That is highly unlikely in the case of Syria. Since Syria is a Russian client state, this U.N. Security Council member would oppose any referral of the Syria matter to the ICC, but might be convinced to support an ad hoc proceeding that focuses on war crimes by the government, as well as the rebels--one that allows for plea bargaining for witnesses and other legal negotiations to enable such a court to successfully punish at least some of the direct perpetrators of increasingly horrific crimes. And Syria, like the United States, never ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC, which raises legitimate concerns about sovereignty with implications for our country, which this panel also addresses.

There are issues that must be addressed for any Syria war crimes tribunal to be created and to operate successfully. There must be sustained international will for it to happen in a meaningful way. An agreed-upon system of law must be the basis for proceedings. An agreed- upon structure, a funding mechanism and a location for the proceedings must be found. There must be a determination on which and how many targets of justice will be pursued. A timetable and time span of such a tribunal must be devised. And there are even more issues that must be settled before such an ad hoc tribunal can exist.

Those who are even now perpetrating crimes against humanity must be shown that their crimes will not continue with impunity. Syria has been called the world's worst humanitarian crisis. One might reasonably also consider it the worst human rights crisis in the world today. Therefore, the international community owes it to the people of Syria, and their neighbors, to do all we can to bring to a halt the actions creating these crises for Syria and the region.

We have the opportunity to give hope to the terrorized people of Syria. The subcommittee I chair held a hearing last October 30 where we heard from some of the most experienced voices concerning international justice mechanisms. We have met several times with the State Department, and we have worked diligently with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs--especially Ranking Member Eliot Engel and Chairman Ed Royce--in shaping a lean, muscular resolution that can be adapted to address the situation in Syria as it currently exists, providing broad latitude for the administration to conduct foreign policy.

The suffering of the Syrian people must end, and we have the opportunity to help

achieve that. H. Con. Res. 51 is a means to that end, and again, those who are committing these horrific crimes need to know that they face the certitude of punishment.

Mr. Speaker, a hearing that I held earlier this week addressed an extremely critical topic: the worsening crisis in the Central African Republic, where untold lives hang in the balance and the window for action is narrowing each day.

It was not the first hearing we have held on the CAR. It follows up a hearing that we held last November when the situation already appeared dire, as well as numerous meetings and interventions with bishops, humanitarian NGOs, diplomats, and interested parties. At our November hearing, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Robert Jackson stated that the CAR was in a ``pre-genocide'' stage.

Since the time Mr. Jackson last spoke to us, the situation appears to have gotten demonstrably worse. We will hear again today from Mr. Jackson, who will update us not only on the situation on the ground, but also on a change of policy that I believe reflects a course of action that we had recommended the administration undertake last November, namely, that United Nations peacekeepers be introduced into the country as the existing African Union force has been serving too many vested interests.

Hopefully, such an intervention will not come too late, because as we are witnessing a country in rapid disintegration, apparently descending from a ``pre-genocide'' stage to one characterized by a word almost too painful to articulate: genocide.

In a country that for decades had been characterized by brutal misrule and brazen

corruption, we are seeing for the first time sectarian divisions such have never existed before. Economic tensions and rivalry over land used for grazing versus planting have always existed, but these have given way to butchery based on religious and ethnic affiliation.

This is happening at a time when we mark the twentieth anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. When that country was being turned into a massive killing field, the world stood idly by. Both President Clinton and then-U.N. Peacekeeping Chief Kofi Annan had actionable intelligence information that could have prevented or at least mitigated the Rwandan genocide but chose callous indifference that enabled slaughter of unprecedented proportions. When the blood stopped flowing, the world looked at the corpses piled high and was shocked, ``never again'' was the phrase that was on everyone's lips.

It is happening again. The question before us is whether the phrase ``never again'' is one that we simply use to pay lip service while doing nothing, or whether we are going to act.

We had two witnesses from the U.S. Government at the hearing, as I mentioned, Acting Assistant Secretary Jackson, and also Anne Richard, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration. While the State Department sending two people to testify is encouraging, as it shows a heightened commitment to the issue, the questions I asked them to answer were not only about ``what are we doing,'' but also whether or not ``we are doing enough?''

In 2012, the Obama administration, to much fanfare, created an Atrocities Prevention Board, following a Presidential Study directive which stated that ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.'' The APB is supposed to provide early warning of mass atrocities, and mobilize interagency resources to stop such atrocities.

But where has this Board been? Did we take our eyes off the ball in the CAR, perhaps because we are confronted by so many other crises?

While we have taken some steps, including authorizing $170 million in humanitarian and peacekeeping aid--are such resources adequate given the magnitude of the problem?

We have a situation where in a country with a population of roughly 5.2 million people, 1.3 million are in risk of starvation, while 2.5 million in total are estimated to need some form of humanitarian assistance. That is nearly half the country.

We are seeing ethnic cleansing, whereby whole villages are being emptied and the countryside laid waste. There are more than 600,000 internally displaced persons in the CAR, plus more than 320,000 others who are refugees in neighboring countries. Illustrative of how the situation has worsened, the total number of those displaced has doubled since the time we held our hearing last November.

We are told that an estimated 2,000 people have been killed since December, but I believe that number is a conservative estimate.

What reports we do receive, however, are bloodcurdling. Human Rights Watch reported on an attack on a Muslim neighborhood in the town of Guen in the early morning hours of February 1 by so-called anti-Balaka forces. A father recounted how as the family was fleeing he saw his ten-year-old boy shot in the leg and fall down. The child was set upon by men with machetes, who hacked at him until he was dead. Four days later, in what was reminiscent of the massacre in the former Yugoslavia, anti-Balaka forces came upon a group of Muslims who were hiding. They separated the men from the women and small children, and executed the men: 45 of them, using machetes and then shooting those who lay wounded.

Though for decades the CAR has been beset by violence and misrule, such religious based violence is something that is a new phenomenon.

But how did the country get to this point?

What began as a political coup d'etat in March 2013 against former President Francois Bozize by Michel Djotodia quickly took on religious and ethnic overtones.

As was detailed in our November hearing, Djotodia--who, thankfully, has now been replaced by interim President Catherine Samba-Panza--came to power with the military backing of Seleka, a militia of about 25,000 men, up to 90 percent of which come from Chad and Sudan and therefore constituted a foreign invasion force in the eyes of many. They did not speak the local language, and are Muslim in a nation that is over 80 percent Christian or otherwise non-Muslim. They destroyed churches, executed priests and stirred up sectarian hatreds where little to none had existed previously.

What we began to see happening last November in response to Seleka was a reactionary backlash by anti-Balaka, self-defense gangs. Since then, retaliatory outrages committed by anti-Balaka forces have escalated, and Muslim civilians who had nothing to do with Seleka became targets. As in the case of Guen, whole neighborhoods in the capital city of Bangui, and whole villages, have been cleansed of their Muslim populations.

As we heard from our witnesses, there are numerous causes contributing to grievances, including a fight for control over conflict minerals. Guen, for example, is in a mining area, and thus there are economic motives at work as well.

Insofar as the conflict can be described as religious on one level, it is also true religious fervor and dedication that provides the greatest hope for peace in the Central African Republic.

Some of you will recall how a few months ago three great religious leaders came to Washington and New York to meet with Congressional and U.S. Government leaders, as well as United Nations officials. One was a Muslim imam, another an evangelical Christian leader, and a third the Catholic Archbishop of Bangui--Imam Omar Kobine Layama, Archbishop Dieudonne Nzapalainga, and the Rev. Nicolas Guerekoyame-Gbangou. The three of them spoke with one voice about their efforts to preach reconciliation in their country and to end the violence. They also asked for our help before it became too late.

Finally, I want to relate to you a story about another man of God, someone whom those of you who attended our November hearing, will remember. Two weeks ago was Holy Week, and on Holy Thursday, Bishop Desire Nongo of the Diocese of Bossangoa and one of the witnesses at our last hearing, was visiting an outlying parish along with three of his priests.

The car he was traveling in was stopped on the road by Seleka gunmen whose leader had for a period occupied Bossangoa. He accused Bishop Nongo of having thwarted his plans and working with international peacekeepers. He then sentenced him and the other three priests to death. The gunmen removed his Episcopal ring and the large pectoral cross which you might remember Bishop Nongo wore. The four men were placed in a truck and were to be driven north to the border with Chad for the order to be carried out.

On the way to the gallows, their truck was stopped yet again by Seleka gunmen, this time commanded by another warlord who also knew Bishop Nongo and his good work in Bossangoa, where the Bishop provides care for over 35,000 people displaced by the violence. He ordered the Bishop and his priests freed and, through the efforts of international aid organizations and the peacekeepers, they were helicoptered back to Bossangoa in time for Good Friday.

This story really hit home with me. Here is someone who shared coffee with me in my office, who sat in that witness chair over there and gave a powerful defense of the weakest and most vulnerable, someone I especially know and deeply admire and respect, who just two weeks ago today was about to be killed until Providence intervened.

But be it a bishop or a farmer, every precious life has value. Far too many have died, and, unless we act, far too many more will likely die.

Recall the words of the Presidential Directive I cited earlier: ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.'' I believe this is true, but such sentiments are empty if they are not backed up by action.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I held a hearing on the power of holding countries accountable in the annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report, including its tier rankings, for government successes or failures in the fight against human trafficking.

Experts have observed that there are more slaves in the world today than at any previous point of human history. With the Trafficking in Persons Report and tier rankings, the United States is also ensuring more accountability and progress than ever before in the fight to rid the world of slavery.

Many of those who attended the hearing have been in this fight for more than a decade from the year 2000 when a law I authored--the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act (TPVA)--created a comprehensive policy that not only established the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons at the Department of State, but also the annual Trafficking in Persons Report.

The success of the TIP Report and rankings is beyond anything we could have hoped for at the time. From presidential suites to the halls of parliaments to law enforcement assets and police stations in remote corners of the world, this report focuses anti-trafficking work in 187 countries on the pivotal goals of prevention, prosecution, and protection.

Much of the praise for the success of the TIP Report is due to the incredibly effective Ambassadors-at-Large who have led the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (J/TIP) and their highly dedicated staff. Ambassador Mark Lagon is one of them and he testified at our hearing this week.

Each year, the trafficking office evaluates whether the government of a country is fully complying with the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking, or, if not, whether the government is making significant efforts to do so.

The record is laid bare for the world to see and summarized in a tier ranking narrative. Tier 1 countries fully meet the minimum standards. Tier 2 countries do not meet the minimum standards but are making significant effort to do so. Tier 3 countries do not meet the standards and are not making significant effort to do so. Along with the embarrassment of being listed on Tier 3, such countries are open to sanction by the U.S. government.

Over the last 14 years, more than 120 countries have enacted anti- trafficking laws and many countries have taken other steps required to significantly raise their tier rankings. Some countries openly credit the TIP report as a key factor in their increased and effective anti- trafficking response.

We created the Tier 2 Watch List In the 2003 TVPA reauthorization. This list was intended to encourage good-faith anti-trafficking progress in a country that may have taken positive anti-trafficking steps late in the evaluation year.

Unfortunately, some countries made a habit of last minute efforts and failed to follow through year after year--effectively gaming the system. To protect the integrity of the tier system and ensure it worked properly to inspire real progress in the fight against human trafficking, Congress in 2008 created an ``automatic downgrade'' for any country that had been on the Tier 2 Watch List for two years but had not taken significant enough anti-trafficking measures to move up a tier.

The President can waive this automatic downgrade for two additional years if he certifies ``credible evidence'' that the country has a written and sufficiently resourced plan, which if implemented, would constitute significant effort to meet the minimum standards.

Last year was the first test of the new system--and it worked. China, Russia, and Uzbekistan ran out of waivers and moved to Tier 3, which accurately reflected their records. In the hearing, we evaluated whether these countries have made any significant progress over the last year.

I am particularly concerned that China's trafficking crisis continues unabated. The recent U.N. Commission of Inquiry Report on North Korea provides horrifying evidence of the trafficking of North Korean women to China-for sex, brides, or labor. An estimated 90 percent of North Korean women seeking asylum in China are trafficked for these reasons. Thousands of women a year leave desperate situations in North Korea only to end up in a brothel or forced marriage--a tragic and astonishing fact.

China's response has not been to provide protection for victims or to prosecute traffickers, it is to hunt down and repatriate North Koreans, sending them back--to hard labor, long imprisonments, and possible execution.

North Korean women are not the only victims. By 2020, more than 40 million Chinese men will be unable to find wives in China because of China's short-sighted and abusive one-child policy, which, coupled with modern abortion technology, has triggered the mass abortion of tens of millions of baby girls. A human rights abuse in and of itself, sex- selective abortions have also created a huge trafficking magnet, pulling victims into forced marriages and brothels from countries in proximity to China and beyond.

China's extremely modest and overly hyped suggestion that it might relax the draconian one-child policy for some couples is unlikely to mitigate the disaster and may be further counteracted by the spread of abortion sex selection technology to more of rural China. Whether the birth limitation is one-child or two-child in special cases, birth limitation policies constitute abuse, cruelty, and exploitation without precedent or parallel for baby girls and society.

The Government of China is failing not only to address its own trafficking problems but is creating an incentive for human trafficking problems in the whole region. Although she could not join us in person at the hearing, renowned author Mara Hvistandahl, author of Unnatural Selection, Choosing Boys over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, submitted testimony for the record specifically on the effect of the sex ratio imbalance as a cause of human trafficking and the proliferation of ``marriage agencies'' in China, which traffic women from poorer countries into China and sell them into marriage.

During the hearing, we also looked at a second set of countries that, this year, must be automatically downgraded unless they have made significant efforts to fight human trafficking. These countries include Thailand, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Chad, Barbados, and Maldives. Burma may receive a Presidential waiver in order to avoid downgrade to Tier 3 but the facts on the ground don't justify that course of action.

Cutting across Burma, Thailand, and Malaysia is the tragic plight of the Rohingya minority. Rohingya are leaving Burma by the thousands to escape religious persecution. However, according to a report put out by Reuters, Thai authorities are selling Rohingya to human traffickers, where they are held in ``tropical gulags'' until relatives pay ransom. Those who cannot pay the ransom are sold into sex slavery or hard labor and many die from abuse or disease. Thai authorities have done little to stop this practice, their efforts at prevention and prosecution are said to be ``losing steam.''

Rohingya are often trafficked to Malaysia where they are exploited for labor. The sad fact is that many Rohingya, a persecuted Sunni Muslim minority in Burma, hope to find refuge in Malaysia, a majority Muslim country.

Burma is the source of Rohingya trafficking in the region. Policies of discrimination, child limitation, forced birth control, and violence push the Rohingya minority to leave Burma and leave them vulnerable refugees. The Burmese government is culpable in Rohingya trafficking and the regional problems their policies create.

The Burmese Government also has done little to stop trafficking of Rohingya within Burma. Reports indicate that authorities profit from the sale of Rohingya to traffickers, Rohingya women are held at military bases as sex slaves, and Rohingya men are used for forced labor. Though these practices have gone on for many years, they are underreported in the State Department's TIP Report.

Displaced by war with the Burmese military, women and children from the Kachin tribe in Burma are also subject to trafficking. Roi Ja, an 18-year-old woman living in IDP camp in northern Burma, was lured to China with a promise of a restaurant job. Once in China she was bused to a rural village and locked in a room. According to her testimony, she cried for three days and begged those around to let her go. She was told to just ``give up'' and was sold as a bride for $5,312.

We hear constantly about Burma's success democratic reforms, but peel away the layers of good news, and many of the same human rights problems and human atrocities remain. I understand that the administration has started a ``Human Trafficking Dialogue'' with Burma. Diplomatic engagement is important, but not enough to warrant an upgrade in Burma's status. For that we have to see concrete results, not Rohingya trafficked for sex and labor.

The importance of accurate Tier rankings and TIP Report country profiles cannot be

overstated. Again and again, we have seen countries turn 180 degrees and begin the hard work of reaching the minimum standards after the TIP Report accurately exposed--with a Tier 3 ranking and truthful country report--each country's failure to take significant action against human trafficking. By the same token, a premature boost to Tier 2 may not only undermine progress, but fail to inspire it among countries actually doing the hard work.

I won't deny that there are at times diplomatic costs to accurate tier rankings--but it is the price of freedom for the men, women, and children caught in human trafficking. They remind us that each of their lives is priceless and must be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act. This bipartisan legislation is urgently needed to address yet another poorly-conceived provision of Obamacare that will harm American workers and further slow economic growth.

Under Obamacare, ``full-time'' work is defined as a 30-hour work week--a quarter less than the traditional 40 hour work week. Because the law imposes certain penalties on businesses based upon their number of full-time employees, many businesses are forced to move a number of their employees from full-time to part-time work. This is a dangerous and fundamental change that will result in less hours and lower paychecks, affecting millions of Americans who plan their budget around the traditional 40-hour work week.

We cannot continue down a path that disincentivizes full-time employment, yet this is exactly where we are headed. While part-time work is a great option for many, it should not be the norm for those who have the desire and ability to work full-time. There is a serious problem when the government creates a complicated regulatory maze that increases inefficiency and incentivizes businesses to reduce their full-time workforce. As a Chicago Tribune editorial stated, ``[p]art- time work does become a problem when Washington tilts the balance of incentives against full-time work. Not only will Obamacare raise costs for the government, it stands to make one of the most competitive features of the U.S. economy--a flexible labor market--less efficient. One more reason to rewrite, or halt, Obamacare.''

Obamacare was sold to the American people with affordability as its centerpiece. We were promised time and time again that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it,'' and ``if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'' Instead, reports of sticker-shock and mass cancellations of plans have been the norm. Many are finding that their preferred doctor is now out-of-network and thus out of their coverage. A recent survey conducted by the Associated Press found that many of our nation's world-class cancer hospitals are off-limits to those with certain insurance carriers.

Now, in addition, workers are seeing their hours cut and their paychecks lowered. A recent study by the Hoover Institution found that 2.6 million workers are vulnerable to work hour reductions under 30- hour work week definition--with women and low-income Americans especially vulnerable. Last August, a township in my district cut the hours of 25 employees due to the new definition. My colleagues and I continue to hear from our constituents from both sides--those who cannot afford to keep full-time workers, and those who have had their hours reduced.

Last July, the leaders of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), and UNITE HERE sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warning that Obamacare could ``destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.'' The letter states that ``[t]he unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.'' Further, ``[n]umerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly.'' They stressed the same point we have stressed here today: ``[t]he impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.''

This commonsense legislation we are voting on today will simply restore the definition of full-time employment to its traditional 40 hour work week. I have long believed that the federal government must play an appropriate role in providing a health care safety net for those in need of support. That goal can be achieved without the burdensome rules, regulations, and definitions imposed by Obamacare such as the one addressed today.

Mr. Speaker, this week I convened a subcommittee hearing entitled The First One Thousand Days: Development Aid Programs to Bolster Health and Nutrition.

There is perhaps no wiser investment that we could make in the human person than to concentrate on ensuring that sufficient nutrition and health assistance is given during the first one thousand days of life: A thousand days that begins with conception, continues throughout pregnancy, includes the milestone of birth and then finishes at roughly the second birthday of the child.

Consider this: According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), 6.6 million children died before reaching their fifth birthday in 2012; an average of roughly 18,000 daily deaths among children under five years old. Among the factors contributing to such a grim tally are malnutrition, obstructed newborn breathing, pneumonia, and diarrhea. All these, and other causes, are ones which we are capable of addressing, if we apply resources and political will to the problem.

The hearing I held complements various hearings our Global Health Subcommittee has held over the past several years. It was inspired in part by what I experienced at the UN Millennium Development Goals Summit in New York in September 2010.

There I had the privilege of participating in an extraordinary roundtable meeting of First Ladies of African nations that concluded with the signing of a declaration to end maternal and child malnutrition, with particular emphasis on ``the first 1000 days in the life of a child from the moment of conception.'' The roundtable focused on that great killer of children, malnutrition.

The roundtable concluded that undernutrition alone remains ``one of the world's most serious, but least-addressed problems--killing an estimated 3.5 million children annually.'' In other words, food insecurity is a plague which ravages our future, ending the lives of little boys and little girls throughout the developing world well before their time. The roundtable also pointed out that 60 percent of the world's chronically hungry are women.

According to the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, or GAIN, cosponsor of the roundtable, malnutrition's most devastating impact is actually in the womb, often causing death or significant mental and physical disability to the precious life of an unborn child.

Children who do not receive adequate nutrition in utero are more likely to experience lifelong cognitive and physical deficiencies, such as stunting. UNICEF estimates that one in four children worldwide is stunted due to lack of adequate nutrition.

Children who are chronically undernourished within the first two years of their lives also

often have impaired immune systems that are incapable of protecting them against life-threatening ailments, such as pneumonia and malaria. Adults who were stunted as children face increased risk of developing chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Mothers who were malnourished as girls are 40% more likely to die during childbirth, experience debilitating complications like obstetric fistula, and deliver children who perish before reaching age five.

We must take a holistic, mother-and-child approach to the problem.

By helping women throughout pregnancy receive adequate nutrition and supplemental micronutrients--such as iodine, Vitamin A, and folic acid--and ensuring that they are well-fed while nursing, both children and mothers thrive.

In addition to addressing undernutrition, there are a number of other interventions that can make an impact. About 44% of all under- five deaths occur within the first month of life, during the neonatal period. Among newborns the greatest threats to survival are prematurity and failure to breathe at birth, known as birth asphyxia. Following the neonatal period through the first five years of life, child survival is imperiled primarily by pneumonia and diarrhea.

The solutions are often readily at hand. Most neonatal deaths can be prevented at little to no expense with neonatal resuscitation, prompt administration of antibiotics, and nutrition supplementation. Inexpensive interventions like oral rehydration salts (ORS), which cost $0.05-0.10 per dose, are also effective in curbing diarrheal deaths.

Nor must we ever pit the survival of the child against that of the mother, as both are complementary objectives. Curbing child mortality in the womb and at birth also goes hand-in-hand with reducing maternal mortality.

Best practices to radically reduce maternal mortality can and must be life-affirming--protecting from harm both patients, the mother and the child in the womb. Of course, we have known for more than 60 years what actually saves women's lives: skilled birth attendants, treatment to stop hemorrhages, access to safe blood, emergency obstetric care, antibiotics, repair of fistulas, adequate nutrition, and pre-and post- natal care.

Political will is absolutely essential to address this problem and to make sure it is adequately resourced. It is one thing that I hope this hearing will bring to light, that such interventions in the first 1000 days of life is not only morally imperative but also cost effective.

One group of Nobel Laureate economic experts ranked efforts to address undernutrition as the single most cost-effective investment in foreign aid. The economists concluded that each dollar spent on reducing undernutrition could yield a $30 benefit.

One other thing I hope this hearing will highlight is the importance of Faith Based Organizations in fighting this battle, and to underscore the need for our aid programs to work with such organizations. We will hear from representatives from two such organizations, Food for the Hungry and World Vision, to discuss their insights.

Faith Based Organizations play an absolutely critical role in places such as Africa, which one can say is a Faith Based Continent. Matthew 25--``when I was hungry, you gave me food, when I was thirsty, you gave me drink, when I was naked, you clothed me''--inspires these and other great organizations such as Catholic Relief Services, just as it inspires the work of this subcommittee.

For example, in 2004, along with my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, I sponsored an obstetric fistula resolution, seeking to address one debilitating factor that wreaks havoc on the lives of mothers and their children. The following year I was able to amend the Foreign Relations Authorization Act to fund twelve centers in the developing world to treat and prevent obstetric fistula, as well as to provide funding for skilled-birth attendants. Importantly, I was also able to remove restrictive language from the original bill that would have prohibited faith-based hospitals in the developing world from receiving funding. Again, I must stress, that it is these faith based organizations that are doing yeoman's work on the ground to address child and mother mortality, and they must be supported.

In this Congress I introduced H.R. 3525, the International Hydrocephalus Treatment and Training Act. Hydrocephalus, or ``water on the brain,'' is a disease which affects three to five out of every 1000 newborns in developing countries, who are either born with it or acquire it due to neonatal infections in the first few months of life. For such children, it is often a death sentence. Doctors--assuming there is even a doctor around--often do not know how to treat it.

Moreover, if they do treat and use the traditional surgical procedure which requires the life-long use of a shunt, such shunts often become infected, leading to death a few years later.

Our bill would train doctors in Africa in a new and proven technique which does not require a shunt and is effective in at least two thirds of the cases of infants with hydrocephalus. It is ideally suited to conditions in the developing world. The amount required to make a difference in the lives of these children and their parents is relatively little--an estimated $15 million over 5 years. I invite my colleagues who are present here to join in co-sponsoring this legislation, as one way to address the problem of child mortality.

Initiatives such as these are ones which should gather support across the political aisle--they are life-affirming, and can save the life of both mother and child. We have common ground here.

By addressing health during the first 1000 days of life, beginning at conception, we help ensure that over the next 25,000 days--or whatever the number is that our Creator has allotted--our brothers and sisters the world over can best reach their potential, leading fulfilled lives of health, vigor, and dignity.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ukraine Support Act. I want to thank my friends and colleagues, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel, for introducing this comprehensive legislation to support Ukraine in its urgent effort to meet its current crisis, including by building up its democratic institutions.

Mr. Speaker, Russia's landgrab in Crimea violates the core principles of several bilateral and multilateral agreements and treaties between Ukraine and Russia, the Budapest Memorandum, and the United Nations Charter, as well as the Helsinki Final Act. This legislation includes strong sanctions against Russians directly responsible for the aggression.

H.R. 4278 also authorizes targeted sanctions against Ukrainians involved in undermining the democratic processes and provides assistance to the Ukrainian Government for identifying and recovering stolen assets. It is, after all, these criminal officials, including and especially Yanukovych and his cronies, who have so harmed the Ukrainian people and placed the country in the vulnerable position which Russia has exploited.

Another key provision of the bill provides support for Ukraine's democracy and civil society; and I want to here recognize the importance of supporting, as well, the faith-based groups and organizations that played such a prominent role, particularly on the humanitarian side, in supporting the movement for democracy and the rule of law.

The Ukrainian democracy movement is, in large part, a religious movement. Orthodox and Catholic clergy, for example, were prominent in the protests, and the drama of priests carrying icons confronting soldiers became as much a symbol of the democratization movement as anything else. And, again, when people were wounded and when people were being dragged away, it was the clergy that tried to step in to mitigate the violence against them.

Let me also point out a Catholic News Service article that just hit the wire that points out that members of the Ukrainian Catholic Church are fleeing Crimea to escape threats of arrest and property seizures.

Father Milchakovskyi, a parish rector in Crimea, said:

The situation remains very serious, and we don't know what

will happen--the new government here is portraying us all as

nationalists and extremists.

The article also says:

Officials from Russia's Federal Security Service, or FSB,

had called him in for questioning about his community and to

ask whether or not he ``recognized the new order.''

He pointed out that one priest in particular was actually beaten by Russian forces. And, again, Members will recall, and I remember during the 1980s when I first came here, how so many within the church, including the orthodox church, were beaten and sent to the gulag because of their religious faith. This could be the harbinger of a new wave of repression against people of faith. The Ukrainian Catholic Church, by way of reminder, was one of those churches that was outlawed during Soviet times, and now we see the same kind of repetition of that kind of repression.

This legislation is a clear step in the right direction. No piece of legislation will do it all. We have to appeal to the Russians to stop this, but, again, to cease their persecution of people in the Crimea.