Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the Hungarian freedom fighters who rose up against the communist tyranny that was imposed on their country after World War II. Many men and women died in that uprising--a courageous fight against incredible odds, as the Soviets sent in tanks to restore the puppet regime they installed in 1948.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman or Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission I have been on human rights missions to Hungary many times over the years. One of the things that most impresses me about this country is the deeply admirable patriotism of so many Hungarians. By patriotism I mean something very different from nationalism--whereas nationalists resent and are aggressive toward other countries, patriots love and defend their own country and its best traditions, and allow--invite-- other people to love their own countries and traditions.

This summer I visited Hungary on a congressional delegation ably led by my colleague on the Helsinki Commission, Senator Roger Wicker. We met with Prime Minister Orban and others, and it is in connection with this anniversary and our meeting with Prime Minister that I'd like to place into the record a recent interview Prime Minister Orban gave to the Telegraph.

I commend this to my colleagues as the words of a Prime Minister who thinks seriously and speaks frankly about issues facing his country and Europe as a whole.

Viktor Orban Interview: ``Patriotism Is a Good Thing''--The Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, Tells the Telegraph Why His Country Agrees With Britain in Its Campaign Against the ``Creeping'' Power of

Brussels

(By Charles Moore)

15 Oct 2013

Viktor Orban has just had a good meeting with David

Cameron. It was easier than his first with Margaret Thatcher

(in 2001). ``I am not satisfied with you,'' were, he recalls,

her first words. She was angry that Hungary was not doing

more to help protect Nato's soldiers from Serb aggression.

Despite this rebuff, Mr Orban is a Thatcher admirer. His

political career began in 1988 when he was one of 37 young

students and intellectuals founding a party to attack

Communist rule in his country.

``Her role was very important: she was always in favour of

freedom, always anti-Communist. She said, `There is no such

thing as society.' I like that remark very much because in

European politics people were always talking in artificial

sociological language. Social engineering was very popular.''

When he attended Lady Thatcher's funeral in April, he was

pleased that the Bishop of London explained what she really

meant by those famous words. ``The funeral was very moving

and very British--not tragical, as it would be on the

Continent--more of a tribute.''

Young Viktor, a clever boy from a country background, won a

George Soros scholarship to Oxford to study civic society as

seen by liberal political philosophers such as John Locke. He

loved the ``electrifying dance'' of ideas there; but this was

the autumn of 1989 and the Berlin Wall was coming down. Here

was the chance actually to build a liberal civic society at

home. ``I said to myself, `Viktor, what are you doing here?'

and I took the occasion of our first free elections in March

1990 to go back.''

He became prime minister for the first time in 1998, until

2002, and then, after wilderness years, returned to power

with a landslide in 2010. His time in office has been

controversial. He has been accused, often by European Union

officials, of too much nationalism, of suppressing media

freedom, politicising the judiciary and the central bank, and

even of stirring up ethnic tensions. Has the great liberal

freedom-fighter narrowed? Is there a risk that he could

become an authoritarian strongman, the Vladimir Putin of his

country?

``The risk is there,'' Mr Orban rather surprisingly admits,

though it is much smaller if Hungary is economically

successful. He thinks that circumstances have changed.

[Update: The office of the Prime Minister of Hungary has

asked the Telegraph to clarify the reference to Vladimir

Putin in this interview. Mr Orbin intended to assent to there

being a risk that he could come to seem like a Putin of

Hungary, not actually to become one.]

For 200 years, the ``No. 1 motivation'' for Hungarians was

to catch up with more competitive Westerners. Until the

credit crisis, Mr Orban believed that this could only be

achieved by the ``ever-closer union'' of Europe. Now he has

his doubts.

The crisis shows that it is not obvious that the EU can do

better than independent nations. Unlike the British, he

cannot rule out joining the eurozone, because of its

centripetal pull for a small country like his, ``but I don't

urge it. To stand alone on your own feet is more important

than ever.'' Hungary certainly should not join until it

reaches 90 per cent of the GDP of those already in, he

believes; right now it is in the low sixties.

``As I get older [he is still only 50], I tend to be more

sceptical. Values are more important than money. National

sovereignty is more and more important in my mind. The

question `Who is governing us?' is the key question.''

So he supports David Cameron's efforts to change the

European rules: ``We shall need a new basic treaty

eventually.'' He wants to join Britain in resisting ``the

creeping movement of Brussels to eat up national

sovereignty''.

The old answer that everything Westerners did was better is

now ``stupid''. In the 1980s, the question Hungarians faced

was ``how to get rid of things''--Communism, state

oppression, overregulation. Now that should stop. There are

things which should be upheld in the interests of

civilisation, not jettisoned: ``It would be a sad story to

get rid of religious belief, national identity, family and

even sexual identity. That's not freedom.''

In some schools on the continent, the idea has got about

that ``children should not be brought up as girls or guys'',

but to choose their sexual identity later. ``Sometimes there

is a separate changing room for those who don't know who they

are,'' he exclaims.

What does he say to accusations that he is stirring up old

ethnic, territorial passions in the region? Some blame him

for the rise of the fascistic Jobbik party in Hungary. His

answer is based on his belief that ``Xenophobia is dangerous;

but patriotism is a good thing''. Ethnic disputes, often

about land, are ``a part of life in Eastern Europe'', he

says.

``How do we live with this?'' he asks, ``The solution is

not to lie.'' Radicals of both left and right get about 15

per cent of the vote between them. That is too high for

comfort, but ``far away from being a majority''.

At the heart of the problem in Europe, Mr Orban believes,

is the fact that the Communists were never fully defeated.

Communism as an ideology ``has no message for our future'',

but, unlike Nazism, it prevailed for so long (40 years in

Hungary's case) that its leaders, who ``were not stupid

guys'' created a culture which maintained their power. They

upheld envy ``as a perception of life'', making people

``disagree with the world as it is and try to destroy it''.

They also inculcated a belief in ``entitlements without any

personal effort''. In Hungary, Communism brought about what

he calls ``a learned helplessness'', a deliberate destruction

of personal responsibility, which crushed the middle class.

We discuss the row here about Ed Miliband and his Marxist

father. Without commenting on the Labour situation, Mr Orban

says that there is a family tree passing from Communism

through ``the `68 generation'' (such as the former

revolutionary, now MEP, Daniel Cohn Bendit) to Brussels

bureaucrats and the media today.

``The Communist heritage has a marriage with the radical

liberals today. That genealogy exists in Europe.'' He detects

it in the doctrine of European human rights and the attempts

by the European Commission to impose cultural and

constitutional uniformity on member states.

For conservatives, he goes on, this is difficult, because

``we find we must argue, and conservatives generally prefer

just to live. We are shy to invest the energy, but we must do

so at a European level.''

Personally, Vilctor Orban is not shy. He is up for the

fight. ``Boxing is a noble sport,'' he declares pugnaciously.

In the West, politics is often ``just a career''. For him, he

says, it is much more. He remembers the hard times in the

late 1980s when Fidesz, his then tiny party, was opposed by

the Soviets, by trade unions, militias and the state

apparatus. ``We were surrounded, and we won. Compare the risk

now--it's nothing. It's just a peanut.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, first of all, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel for drafting this extraordinarily timely and important legislation. This is an essential bill, and it must be passed and signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, my subcommittee staff director, Greg Simpkins, and I returned from a 4-day trip to Nigeria, including the city of Jos, the scene of recent fire bombings of Christian churches by Boko Haram, a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of Nigerian Christians and some Muslims as well. Boko Haram-- like al-Shabaab, the cowards who slaughtered Kenyans in a shopping center in Nairobi last week--poses serious and escalating threats to indigenous Africans and American personnel overseas.

The Embassy Security Act, like the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, a law that I authored, is designed to significantly enhance protection at our missions abroad. Significantly, more than a dozen years ago that law came to the floor on the heels of al Qaeda bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam at our embassies in 1998.

I chaired the hearings following that tragic loss of life. Admiral Crowe, who led the Accountability Review Boards at that time, testified. But it is clear that the promised action following those earlier attacks has not been fully implemented. There are serious, significant security gaps that must be remedied more than a decade later. The Royce bill does that. We seem not to have adequately learned the lessons from the terror attacks against our distinguished ambassador and three extraordinarily brave individuals in Benghazi.

The Royce-Engel bill before us today contains a number of significant provisions, including necessary security upgrades for our embassies and consulates abroad. Our embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, was constructed with the upgrades recommended by earlier legislation. Greg and I saw that firsthand this week. But so many older facilities do not meet those high standards, including lifesaving setbacks from roads and thoroughfares. Chairman Royce's bill will address those gaps in essential security features at our overseas posts.

I'm especially appreciative that the Foreign Affairs committee accepted my amendment that originally passed as a provision of my International Megan's Law 3 years ago--it passed the House, never got through the Senate, we all know that drill--which limits to 1 year or such time as the Secretary of State shall determine appropriate the period of validity of a passport issued to a convicted sex offender.

In 2008, the General Accountability Office found that some 4,500 convicted pedophiles got passports. That's every year. That's almost 50,000 over a 10-year period--the life of a passport. And the evidence suggests some may travel to places with impunity in Bangkok and all over the world and abuse children. Poverty worldwide has made this exploitation even more prevalent--more kids now are at risk. This provision will empower the Secretary of State and the President to mitigate their travel to abuse children.

This is an excellent bill. Again, I commend Chairman Royce and Eliot Engel for working in such a constructive, bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 1507, a bill originally introduced by Representative Markey of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, a hearing that my subcommittee held last week examined the problem of ``India's Missing Girls.'' While for most of us today our attention was drawn to the unfolding crisis in Syria--I was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal Program call-in program and introduced a resolution calling for establishing a Syrian War Crimes Tribunal--other atrocities continue unabated around the world. We cannot ignore these atrocities, among the most egregious of which is violation of the human rights of the girl child and women in India.

Women in India are confronted with a compounding crisis. By most estimates, there are tens of millions of women missing in India due to the devaluing of female life beginning in the womb.

Sex-selective abortion and female infanticide have led to lopsided sex ratios. In parts of India, for example, 126 boys are born for every 100 girls. This in turn leads to a shortage of marriageable women, which then leads to trafficking in persons, bride selling and prostitution.

Perhaps the best figures we have concerning the magnitude of the problem come from India's 2011 census figures, which find that there are approximately 37 million more men than women in India.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has addressed this issue head on, stating ``the falling child sex ratio is an indictment of our social values. Improving this ratio is not merely a question of stricter compliance with the existing laws. What is more important is how we view and value the girl child in our society . . . It is a national shame for us that despite this, female feticide and infanticide continue in many parts of our country.''

Even when they are not killed outright either in the womb or just after birth, this bias against girl children manifests itself in situations where family resources are limited and little food is available, in boys being fed before girls, leading to greater incidents of malnutrition among girls and a mortality rate that is 75% higher for girls below age 5 than for boys.

The desire for a male child can be so great that there is a trend towards sex change operations for girls between ages 1 to 5, a process known as ``genitoplasty.'' Each year, hundreds of girls reportedly are pumped with hormones and surgically altered to turn them into facsimile boys. India's National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has correctly stated that this ``highly unethical'' procedure is a violation of children's rights as well as a ``perpetuation of the age old preferences for boys and biases against the girl child.''

But the roots of the present problem lie not only with cultural factors, but also misbegotten policy decisions--including population control policies that were hatched in the United States--which have had a disproportionately negative impact on India's women.

We learned from our witnesses that this includes policies advanced by the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, and funded by foundations such as

the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, and abetted by non- governmental organizations such as the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

During the debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on a bill to ban sex selective abortion, I noted that for most of us, ``it's a girl'' is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration. But in many countries--including our own--it can be a death sentence. Today, the three most dangerous words in China and India are: it's a girl. We can't let that happen here.

Our witness today, Dr. Matthew Connelly, in his book Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population traces the sordid history of sex-selection abortion as a means of population control. In her book, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, Mara Hvistendahl, elaborates ``[b]y August 1969, when the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Population Council convened another workshop on population control, sex selection had become a pet scheme . . . Sex selection, moreover, had the added advantage of reducing the number of potential mothers . . . if a reliable sex determination technology could be made available to a mass market,'' there was ``rough consensus'' that sex selection abortion ``would be an effective, uncontroversial and ethical way of reducing the global population.''

Fewer women, fewer mothers, fewer future children.

At the conference, one abortion zealot, Christopher Tietze co- presented sex selection abortion as one of twelve new strategies representing the future of global birth control. Planned Parenthood honored Tietze four years later with the Margaret Sanger Award.

Hvistendahl writes that today ``there are over 160 million females 'missing' from Asia's population. That's more than the entire female population of the United States. And gender imbalance--which is mainly the result of sex selective abortion--is no longer strictly an Asian problem. In Azerbaijan and Armenia, in Eastern Europe, and even among some groups in the United States, couples are making sure at least one of their children is a son. So many parents now select for boys that they have skewed the sex ratio at birth of the entire world.''

In the Global War Against Baby Girls renowned AEI demographer Nicholas Eberstadt wrote in The New Atlantis; ``over the past three decades the world has come to witness an ominous and entirely new form of gender discrimination: sex-selective feticide, implemented through the practice of surgical abortion with the assistance of information gained through prenatal gender determination technology. All around the world, the victims of this new practice are overwhelmingly female--in fact, almost universally female. The practice has become so ruthlessly routine in many contemporary societies that it has impacted their very population structures, warping the balance between male and female births and consequently skewing the sex ratios for the rising generation toward a biologically unnatural excess of males.''

Many European nations including the UK as well as several Asian countries ban sex selection abortion. Only four US states--Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania--proscribe it.

Sex-selection abortion is cruel and discriminatory and legal. It is violence against women. Most people in and out of government remain woefully unaware of the fact that sex-selection abortion was--a violent, nefarious and deliberate policy imposed on the world by the pro-abortion population control movement--it's not an accident. The Congress can--and must--defend women from this vicious assault today.

While India has taken steps to curb these practices, passing laws to ban sex selective abortion and temper cultural facts such as the need for brides to provide a high dowry that contribute to parents looking at their daughters as a liability, these laws are irregularly enforced. Moreover, there are laws at the state level which exacerbate the problem, mandating that parents only have two children, penalizing those who exceed this number and denying benefits. This leads inevitably to sex-selective abortion and, particularly in poorer areas, female infanticide, as parents will opt to have a son over a daughter, especially when their first child is a daughter.

We hope that this hearing will better understand how we can play a role in curbing such horrific abuses.

What, for example, can we do to help ensure that companies based in the US, such as General Electric, whose ultrasound equipment is used to determine the sex of the child in utero, take steps to prevent what should be a tool to promote life of both mother and child from being used as an instrument of death?

Given the past role of US agencies such as USAID in coercive population control policies, what oversight do we need to conduct to make sure such abuses do not creep their way into existing programs?

Similarly, to what extent are organizations that receive funding from the United States government implicated in such practices?

What role can our State Department play, beyond compiling information regarding what is occurring in India with respect to what some have labeled ``gendercide,'' to influence positively the Indian government, so that it reforms laws and policies that exacerbate skewed sex ratios, such as two-child laws?

By shining a light on what is happening in India with its missing girls, we hope to move toward a world where every woman is valued and respected because of her intrinsic dignity, and where every child is welcomed regardless of his or her sex.

Mr. Speaker, despite more than a decade of targeted sanctions, Zimbabwe has continued to be a major U.S. trading partner through the Generalized System of Preferences, even though it has been excluded from the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Chromium, platinum and diamonds have enriched Zimbabwe's leaders, but not its people.

Zimbabwe had been one of Africa's leading industrial powers and agricultural producers until its government diminished the ability of the country to sustain its industrial or agricultural production. Illegal and disruptive land seizures resulted in political cronies gaining control of productive agricultural land rather than the black farm workers as promised. Agricultural production suffered, dragging down manufacturers of agricultural equipment--the base of the country's industry. The reduction in tax revenues led to a desperate search for foreign funding to stabilize an economy whose inflation rate reached globally historic levels.

Nevertheless, Zimbabwe is a major player in southern Africa, even more so now that newly reelected President Robert Mugabe has been chosen as Vice Chairman of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the organization's anticipated Chairman next year. Facing international appeals for an end to sanctions on Zimbabwe and threats from the Mugabe government of economic retaliation, the U.S. must devise a policy that safeguards American interests while maintaining our support for democracy, human rights, good governance and economic development. Today's hearing will examine how the process of policy formation is going now and discuss what that policy should look like at the conclusion of that process.

The United States has experienced a troubled relationship with Zimbabwe since this southern African nation achieved majority rule in 1980. Robert Mugabe, the liberation leader who has led his country since 1980, has always resented that our government did not support his war against the previous white minority government. Despite our efforts to establish a mutually beneficial relationship with Mugabe's government over the past couple of decades, his regime has spurned our hand of friendship and flouted international law and convention.

Using colonial-era laws as models, Mugabe's government has eliminated the possibility that the political opposition can credibly challenge his rule. It has limited the ability of the media to effectively report on the news of the day. It has restricted civil society advocates from documenting and verifying the many human rights violations that have taken place in Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

When Congress passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, or ZDERA, it set out a range of aid restrictions requiring U.S. representatives on the boards of international financial institutions to vote against loans or debt cancellations benefitting the Zimbabwean government, pending fulfillment of a range of conditions based on repeal of the limitations on the freedom of Zimbabweans.

Recent annual appropriations laws also have barred U.S. support for international loans or grants to the government, except to meet basic human needs or to promote democracy. Generally, bilateral aid is prohibited, except that pertaining to health, humanitarian needs, education, or macroeconomic growth. Such prohibitions are maintained unless the Secretary of State certifies that ``the rule of law has been restored . . . including respect for ownership and title to property, freedom of speech and association.''

However, Mugabe's August 22, 2013 inauguration marked the end of a five-year period of often uneasy political power sharing with the opposition and partially fulfilled reforms pursued by the Government of National Unity under the Global Political Agreement. The end of the unity government means that unless a deal is struck with the ruling ZANU-PF party, its former partner in government, the opposition MDC-T party will likely no longer play a role in executive branch policy- making.

Past patterns of ZANU-PF governance, along with recent actions by ruling party officials and the MDC-T's new marginalization, indicate that Zimbabwe may be entering a period characterized by a pattern of unilateral exercise of state power potentially accompanied by manipulation of the rule of law in its favor; a lack of national political consensus and the absence of vehicles for alternatives to ZANU-PF policies; continued restrictions on the activities of civil society organizations and opposition activists, including legal and extralegal harassment and violence both by the police and by ZANU-PF supporters, and weak economic growth due to ZANU-PF's pursuit of a nationalist economic agenda focusing on state interventions in the economy.

The Mugabe government has long blamed the United States and Great Britain for hampering its economic growth due to sanctions, but aside from direct aid limitations, most sanctions are targeted toward Mugabe and his government's leadership. SADC is now calling for a removal of sanctions against Zimbabwe and is being joined by a growing international chorus that includes a few voices from within the Congress of the United States. Meanwhile, President Mugabe has threatened to punish Western firms operating in Zimbabwe unless sanctions are lifted.

But questions remain about the willingness of the Mugabe government to take the steps necessary to rescind U.S. sanctions. If Zimbabwe takes a defiant stand, where does that leave U.S.-Zimbabwe relations? The Administration has tried limited relaxation of sanctions only to be met with continued refusal to accept reform. Where does this leave U.S. policy?

However problematic our relationship with Zimbabwe has been, we need to devise a policy that fulfills our national interests, protects the human rights of Zimbabweans and enables this former industrial power to resume its rightful role in Africa's economy and the global economy as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, a dozen years after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the scars from the heinous attack on our country remain. We continue to mourn the loss of the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children, including more than 50 men and women from my own district, the 4th District of New Jersey.

The scars remain, obviously, in the painful void in the lives of the families who have sought in vain to make sense of their tragic loss. And the scars remain embedded in the fabric of our society, which has had to learn to cope with the reality of a world where indiscriminate, vicious attacks on human life are a constant threat.

While recognizing the extraordinary efforts and courage of America's first responders--the firefighters, police officers, and other emergency response personnel, the heroes--it was also apparent from the terrorist attacks that our Nation had much to learn. We had to craft policies to better protect our people.

While progress has been made--we are safer, but still not safe--some lessons have still not been effectively learned by some in our government. One year ago today, unfortunately--on the very anniversary of the original 9/11 tragedy--we lost four Americans in a sustained attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, including the U.S. ambassador to that country.

I was one of those, among so many others, who advocated early and consistently for a commission to chronicle the facts, missteps, and opportunities lost leading up to the original 9/11 tragedy and to develop a well-informed, thoughtful strategy to reduce the risk of an attack. The 9/11 Commission--that was chaired so ably by Governor Tom Kean, the former Governor of New Jersey, and former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Lee Hamilton--issued an historic, incisive report, a comprehensive report which, together with subsequent legislation, was thoroughly examined by House and Senate committees.

Virtually all of the recommendations were enacted into law. The whole thrust, post 9/11, has been to mitigate and, God willing, prevent such a tragedy from ever occurring again on our homeland. We have largely succeeded as several terrorist bomb plots have been prevented, except for the dreadful bombing at this year's Boston Marathon on April 15. Still, the perpetrators of that attack have been captured--one is now deceased fatally wounded in a shoot out with police and the other arrested and facing trial for his part in the bombing.

I wish I could say the Benghazi murderers of the four Americans have met swift justice, but one year later, no one has been arrested, there are no credible leads on the perpetrators, and those deemed by the subsequent Accountability Review Board (ARB) report to be at fault received months of paid leave and are now back at work at the State Department. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed to be responsible, but even though she was directly involved in decisions made during the hours of attacks on the Americans in Benghazi, the ARB didn't even question her and never explained why. A year later, we still don't know who gave the order to our military to stand down from rescue operations while there presumably was still time to save the four Americans who died. Despite House and Senate hearings on the matter, a shroud of silence has descended to withhold the answers to the mysteries still surrounding the events of one year ago today.

Our enemies are constantly searching for our vulnerabilities, and our ability to remain ahead of them is critical to our very survival. However, when Americans lose their lives and no one is culpable for their deaths, our safety in the homeland or abroad cannot be assured. Our enemies must know that justice will surely find them, and our officials must be certain that unjustifiable errors in judgment are not without cost.

This is a very solemn day for America. There are now two tragedies associated with this day, and the most recent one remains painfully unresolved.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the subcommittee that I chair held a hearing on U.S. Africa programs and found that the unitary water budget line item had been ``zeroed out.'' Needless to say, members of our subcommittee were astonished that such an important segment of our foreign policy was seemingly being abandoned. We were assured that the money for international water programs did not disappear, but was merely redistributed among several programs. The hearing that we held yesterday was intended to look at how effective this strategy has been and to look at how our government's international water programs will be implemented in the future.

Water is undeniably important to health and the very survival of human beings. Water comprises more than two thirds of human body weight, and without water, we would die in a few days. The human brain is 95% water, blood is 82% and lungs 90%. A mere 2% drop in our body's water supply can trigger signs of dehydration: fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on smaller print, such as a computer screen. Water is important to the mechanics of the human body. The body cannot work without it, just as a car cannot run without gas and oil.

It is, therefore, troubling that so many people in the world do not have ready access to water. According to a 2012 report released by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund, roughly 780 million people around the world lack access to clean drinking water, and an estimated 2.5 billion people (roughly 40% of the world's population) are without access to safe sanitation facilities. Tainted water and unsanitary practices are at the root of many health problems in the developing world and are hindering U.S. and international global health efforts.

In a June 27th hearing on neglected diseases, the subcommittee heard testimony on the WHO list of 17 neglected tropical diseases--three of which are primarily water-borne. However, there are dozens of other diseases transmitted through contaminated water, including botulism, cholera, dysentery, hepatitis A, polio and SARS.

WHO estimates that more than 14,000 people die daily from water- borne illnesses, which cause:

More than 1 billion cases of intestinal worms, 1.4 million child diarrheal deaths and 500,000 deaths from malaria.

Moreover, water is at the root of international conflict. A growing number of conflicts are exacerbated by limited access to water. Increasing demand and greater variability in rainfall can inflame tensions, such as the concern Egypt has expressed about the impact of the Nile's flow due to Ethiopia's proposed Grand Renaissance Dam.

Although water circulates, returning to availability through various natural processes as evaporation, clouds and rain, only about 2.5 percent of the planet's water is fresh rather than salty, and less than half that amount is available in rivers, lakes and underground aquifers. Pollution consumes some of the available water from industrial or agricultural runoff. An estimated 40 percent of U.S. rivers and 46 percent of U.S. lakes are considered unfit for fishing, swimming or drinking, and we are a developed country with significant resources. Developing countries too often don't keep adequate track of the extent of pollution nor have the ability to adequately do something about it. Other constraints on the global supply of water include efforts to privatize water systems in the developing world and the encroachment of salt water into fresh water systems.

The challenges to ensuring that clean water is available to people in developing countries are serious. That is why new legislation is being developed--The Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2013--intended to support the original 2005 act by strengthening and refining its implementation. The new bill calls on USAID to continue to observe the Water for the Poor Act of 2005 in the implementation of its Water and Development Strategy. The bill would elevate the positions of our first two witnesses today--the USAID Global Water Coordinator and the State Department Special Advisor for Water Resources to report directly to the Administrator of USAID and Secretary of State respectively. Among other provisions, the bill requires local consultation on water management and usage and encourages local contracting on water, sanitation and hygiene projects. I am co- sponsoring this legislation because water is life, and we must be as efficient as possible in our efforts to provide clean water to those in need worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank Chairman Royce for offering this urgent and necessary bill, and Eliot Engel for his good cooperation on this important bill.

The Iranian government is estimated to be a little more than a year away from developing nuclear weapons, an unprecedented and absolutely unacceptable threat. Iran's repeated threats to annihilate Israel are unconscionable and constitute a direct and public incitement to commit genocide in violation of article III of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei speaks of Israel as a cancerous tumor, calls for the annihilation and destruction of the Jewish state, and the leveling of Tel Aviv and Haifa. These are not idle threats. President- elect Rouhani, the past master of using negotiations as a cover to move Iran's nuclear program forward, is now being presented as a moderate, yet last year referred to Israel as the ``Great Zionist Satan.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill dramatically ramps up sanctions pushed so effectively by Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen last Congress not only to pressure Iran to negotiate, but also to mitigate Iran's emerging capability to launch the genocidal war against Israel it has been threatening for years.

This is a bipartisan bill, and it sends a clear, unmistakable message to Iran that we mean business. Those loopholes need to be closed, and Iran needs to be told that we want the sanctions to work. This tightens those loopholes and moves us in that direction.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank, first of all, you for your very kind remarks, but also for moving this legislation very swiftly through the full committee, along with Eliot Engel's full support, and the chairwoman emeritus, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you for your steadfast support for human rights, now presiding over this session.

And, Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you for being a champion on behalf of the dissidents, the bloggers, the religious dissidents, political and religious in Vietnam, who suffer daily beatings at the hands of an increasingly absurd and worsening dictatorship.

Vietnam is in a race to the bottom with some of the dictatorships around the world, including Cuba, including China, Somalia, and other places where people's human rights are systematically trashed by the regimes.

I do rise to ask, respectfully, that Members support the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2013. The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is simple: to send a clear, strong, and compelling message to the increasingly repressive communist regime in power in Vietnam that says that the United States is serious about combating human rights abuse in Vietnam.

Underscoring the worsening situation in Vietnam, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch testified at a June 4 hearing that I chaired, and he noted that ``in the first few months of 2013, more people have been convicted in political trials as in the whole of the last year.'' And that has only gotten worse as each week passes in Vietnam.

Reporters Without Borders have put out their numbers, and there's at least 35 netizens, bloggers, journalists who write online who have been incarcerated by this dictatorship.

I'll never forget, on one particular trip to Vietnam, I met with Dr. Pham Son; I met with his wife. He was in prison. And what was his crime? He went on U.S. Embassy Hanoi, took an essay entitled, ``What is Democracy?'' translated it, and rebroadcast, resent it out online, and for that he got a multi-year sentence in jail.

I met with his wife, who lived in great fear that they would go after her as well. And certainly, when I had dinner with her one night, sitting as far away as Chairman Royce, at the next table at a hotel were three bully boys from the--three thugs from the secret police of Vietnam, very, very visibly standing up and taking pictures to let us know that they were watching. Of course, I took their picture as well. But that's the kind of intimidation campaign this wonderful wife of a dissident was experiencing.

Boat People at the SOS suggest that there are well over 625 political prisoners and religious prisoners, as we meet here tonight, who are suffering. And of course that number often goes up. One might be let out, two more incarcerated by this dictatorship.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1897 is designed to promote the development of freedom of democracy in Vietnam. The bill will bring much-needed scrutiny to a seriously deteriorating situation. It stipulates that the United States can increase nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam above the 2012 levels only if the President is able to certify that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress in establishing a democracy and promoting human rights, including respecting religious freedom and the release of political prisoners and religious prisoners, repealing and revising laws that criminalize peaceful dissent, respecting human rights of members of all ethnic groups--there's an enormous amount of racism in Vietnam, particularly directed at people who happen to be Montagnard, and others--taking all appropriate steps, including the prosecution of government officials to end government complicity in that nefarious practice called human trafficking. There are also very clear benchmarks articulated in the legislation.

Madam Speaker, in the last 4 months alone, on April 11 and June 4, I've held two more congressional hearings on this deteriorating situation. We heard stories about individuals and groups who are being persecuted in a variety of ways. Their testimony confirmed that religious, political, and ethnic persecution has worsened, and that there is complicity by leadership, by the people who are in the Government of Vietnam, in human trafficking.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, in 2013, in their report, noted:

The Government of Vietnam continues to expand control over

all religious activities, severely restricting independent

religious practice and to repress individuals and religious

groups it views as challenging their authority.

The Commission says very candidly that Vietnam ought to be a country of particular concern--a CPC designation--pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Unfortunately, that was removed by President Bush--a misguided move on his part--in 2006, when it was thought that the bilateral trade agreement and the

permanent normal trading relations might lead to a matriculation from a dictatorship to a democracy. Things actually have gotten worse since this government got this trade benefit. Rights have suffered and people--real casualties--have endured unspeakable hardships.

Mr. Speaker, on several human rights trips to Vietnam, I have met, as has Chairman Royce and other Members--and I know when you meet these people you are forever moved--courageous leaders who struggle, sacrifice and endure numbing hardships, including torture, to promote fundamental human rights in their beloved country. Many of these remarkable individuals hale from virtually every denomination of faith, whether it be Christian, Falun Gong, or Buddhists, and suffer, again, horrifically because of their faith.

I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do, under pagoda arrest--a great Buddhist leader who has been relegated to his pagoda. He couldn't step one foot outside of that pagoda without the secret police rushing in. He told me if he took one step out with me to say good-bye, there would be an onslaught of these bully boys who would push and shove or mistreat him.

I met with Father Ly when he was under house arrest before being re- arrested. He was a great democracy activist who was being so callously mistreated by this dictatorship. And he is only one of many.

It is not just the religious leaders in particular or individuals who are victimized by the government. Entire communities are also targeted by the regime. Mr. Tien Tran testified at our April 11 meeting and told my subcommittee of the brutality experienced by the Con Dau Catholic Parish, which has been repressed like you can't believe, Mr. Speaker. Individuals have been beaten to a pulp. Some have died. And they have confiscated their property. So they're kleptomaniacs as well.

Also, at the April 11 meeting we heard from the sister of a Vietnamese woman who was forced to work in a brothel in Russia with 14 other Vietnamese women. When there was an effort made by the Russian Government to liberate those women, it was the Embassy of Vietnam in Moscow that tipped off the traffickers--because they were complicit with them--to ensure that these women were not liberated but continued to be hurt by the traffickers. There was another one dealing with women who were trafficked to Jordan. Those officials of the Vietnamese Government were complicit in that as well.

Again, that's only the tip of the iceberg of this terrible complicity with heinous crimes against women.

I think the State Department report on trafficking was a good one, but they made a gross exception when it came to Vietnam, and actually improved their grade, when the information even in the narrative about Vietnam and the TIP report would have suggested otherwise.

I'm the prime author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and worked to create those minimum standards. It's appalling that Vietnam is not where it ought to be, a Tier 3 country, an egregious violator subject to sanctions.

This will be the fourth time, if this bill passes, Mr. Speaker, that we've been able to get the Vietnam Human Rights Act passed. In 2004, 2007, and last year, 2012, iterations of this bill have gotten over to the Senate, only to die through holds and other very non-democratic means of suppressing the will of the Senate in working on this bill. I hope that changes.

We have seen a deterioration, as my colleagues and I have all pointed out tonight, in the human rights situation in Vietnam. It is time to stand with the oppressed people who are yearning to be free in Vietnam and to stand up against this dictatorship. It's time to meet with them, talk with them, and talk to President Sang, who was here last week to meet with President Obama, and lay down very specific benchmarks on simple respect for the fundamental liberties of people in Vietnam who just yearn to be free and to experience their God-given rights.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations held the second in a series of hearings on the Trafficking in Persons report and U.S. efforts to combat human trafficking. In April, the subcommittee took a close look at the records of 6 countries which had exhausted all of their allotted time on the Tier 2 Watch list and must, by law, be moved to Tier 2 or Tier 3 in this year's Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report.

As discussed by experts in the April 18 hearing, the trafficking records of China, Russia, and Uzbekistan were particularly worrisome. An upgrade to Tier 2 would have been completely unmerited and would have damaged the credibility of the TIP Report.

The TIP report was released late last month, and I was pleased to see that it is one of the best yet--and that it faithfully reported and graded the records of China, Russia, and Uzbekistan, which had been skirting accountability for far too long. Now, the Administration is faced with next steps including what sanctions might be imposed to press these nations to reform.

When I wrote the law--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000--that created not only this report, but also the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons in the U.S. Department of State, and several other provisions to prevent both sex and labor trafficking, protect victims, and prosecute traffickers, it was hoped this report would become the international gold standard and primary means of anti- trafficking accountability around the world. It has. From the halls of parliaments globally to police stations in remote corners of the world, this report is today being used to focus anti-trafficking work in 186 countries.

But with the power of this report to improve situations came the risk that it could also be used to whitewash the truth about a country's trafficking record--it could fail to report accurately and inadvertently give cover to negligent or complicit governments.

I am happy to say that the 2013 report is one of the best ever produced. Special thanks are especially in order for Ambassador Luis CdeBaca and his dedicated staff for faithfully highlighting the good, while exposing the bad and the ugly. The TIP report is faithful in and reflects the hard, meticulous work and leadership of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. This office not only analyzes whether a country is complying with the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking, but also sets specific recommendations for how a country can move forward.

With this report, countries should have no question about where they rank, or how they can improve. Many countries have publically or privately credited the report as the impetus for real improvement in their trafficking laws and policies. Since the TIP report's inception, more than 130 countries have enacted anti-trafficking laws, and many countries have taken other steps required to significantly raise their tier rankings.

This year, China, Russia, and Uzbekistan finally have to confront their records. The report tells it like it is. For instance, the TIP report states that: ``The Chinese government's birth limitation policy and a cultural preference for sons, create a skewed sex ratio of 118 boys to 100 girls in China, which served as a key source of demand for the trafficking of foreign women as brides for Chinese men and forced prostitution. Women from Burma, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Mongolia are transported to China after being recruited through marriage brokers or fraudulent employment offers, where they are subsequently subjected to forced prostitution or forced labor . . . Traffickers recruited girls and young women, often rural areas of China, using a combination of fraudulent job offers, imposition of large travel fees, and threats of physical or financial harm to obtain and maintain their service in prostitution.''

Because tens of millions of girls have been systematically killed by sex selection abortion over the past three decades--resulting in an unprecedented number of ``missing'' women and girls--demand for prostitutes and so-called ``brides'' is exploding in China.

As a direct consequence of the barbaric one child per couple policy in effect since 1979, China has become the global magnet for sex traffickers. Women and young girls have been and are today still being reduced to commodities and coerced into prostitution. Without serious and sustained action by Beijing, it is only going to get worse.

The TIP Report also makes clear that ``Chinese law remains inadequate to combat all forms of trafficking . . . and the Government of China's efforts to protect trafficking victims remained inadequate . . .'' In addition, China's ``government continued to perpetuate human trafficking in at least 320 state-run institutions.''

I, along with Congressman Frank Wolf, visited one of those state-run institutions in the early 1990's--Beijing Prison #1. We were shocked to observe the horrific conditions imposed on inmates including more than 40 Tiananmen Square human rights activists. The report makes clear that state-sponsored forced labor is part of a systemic form of repression known as ``re-education through labor. The government reportedly profits from this forced labor, and many prisoners and detainees . . .''

With this report, we have done right by the millions of trafficking victims in China. With this report, we are holding China to account for its complicity in profits off of modern-day slavery. It is my sincere hope that the truth will turn the tide in China.

However, I was disappointed to see that Vietnam was not downgraded to the Tier 2 Watch List or Tier 3. Vietnam's labor export companies-- most of which are owned by or affiliated with the Government of Vietnam--have been engaged in practices that lead to debt bondage and forced labor. The Government of Vietnam has yet to pay millions of dollars in damages to Vietnamese labor trafficking victims found in the United States and its territories, as ordered by U.S. courts.

Vietnamese trafficking victims in other countries report that the Government of Vietnam sides with the traffickers to keep them in bondage when the victims seek help. Other reports indicate that the Vietnamese embassy in Russia is actively working with organized crime to enslave Vietnamese nationals in sweatshops and brothels, and the TIP report itself notes reports that officials at border crossings and checkpoints accept bribes from traffickers. Some notable trends in the 2013 include: Tier 1: 30 countries (as compared with 33 in 2012); Tier 2: 92 countries (as compared with 93 in 2012) Tier 2 Watch List: 44 countries (as compared with 42 in 2012); Tier 3: 20 countries (as compared with 17 in 2012).

The Africa region increased its prosecutions by 45% (labor prosecutions by 500%), its convictions by 16%, and its victim identification by 13%. Africa is the region with the greatest number of Tier 3 countries, and does not contain any Tier 1 countries.

The East Asia and Pacific region saw a 23% decrease in prosecutions, but a 28% increase in convictions and a slight increase in the number of victims identified. The number of victims identified remains alarmingly low (8,521) in a region where the International Labor Organization believes there are nearly 12 million enslaved individuals. The number of labor convictions (103) also remains extremely low in the region of the world most plagued by labor trafficking.

The Europe region saw a slight drop in prosecutions, but a 13% increase in convictions and a 17% increase in victims identified. The European region identified the most victims out of all regions in 2013.

The Near East region saw a 19% increase in prosecutions in 2012, and more than doubled its conviction rate (largely due to efforts in the United Arab Emirates). The Near East region also more than doubled its number of victims identified. This region has the greatest relative proportion of Tier 3 countries.

The South and Central Asia region saw slight, but appreciable increases in its prosecutions (7%), convictions (5%), and number of victims identified (13%). India, one of the first countries to be moved off of the Tier 2 Watch List under the TVPRA of 2008 two-year rule, maintained a questionable Tier 2 ranking for a second year. Out of nearly 2 billion people, only 4,415 victims were identified.

The Western Hemisphere region, in which the United States is included, prosecutions increased by 72%, and convictions increased by

44% (including a 650% increase in labor trafficking convictions). However, victim identification decreased by 15% (although there was a significant increase in the number of labor trafficking victims identified). Eight countries in this region improved their anti- trafficking laws in 2012. Cuba is the only country in the region to be Tier 3. Colombia and Nicaragua share Tier 1 status with the United States and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, which I chair, held a hearing that examined the neglected diseases that affect a relatively small but significant number of children around the world.

These diseases are not only debilitating for their victims but are too often fatal when untreated. Such diseases largely impact poor people in poor countries. They are not only small in numbers, but they are unable to pay market prices for treatments and are unlikely to lead social movements to force action on their diseases. That means that research on detection, vaccines and drug treatment for their ailments does not receive the priority that diseases such as HIV/AIDS, often seen in pandemic levels, are given.

The World Health Organization has identified 17 neglected tropical diseases or NTDs. The list ranges from chagas to rabies to leprosy to dengue fever. However, there are others not on this list of 17 diseases that also receive less attention. These include such diseases as polio and smallpox, which have largely been eliminated from the planet, and fatal, fortunately rare NTDs such as kuru and ebola.

This hearing will consider the current U.S. government handling of these neglected diseases to determine what more can or should be done to address this situation. Current U.S. law favors research on those diseases threatening the American homeland, but in today's world, diseases can cross borders as easily as those affected by them or the products imported into the United States. For example, chagas is most prevalent in Latin America, but it has been identified in patients in Texas, and cases of dengue fever have recently been reported in Florida. We cannot afford to assume that what may seem to be exotic diseases only happen to people in other countries. Ten years ago, West Nile Virus, another NTD, was not seen in the United States or anywhere else outside the East African nation of Uganda, but in less than a decade, it has spread across this country and much of the rest of the world. Last year, 286 people died from West Nile Virus in the United States alone. As recently as the mid-1990s, this disease was seen only sporadically and was considered a minor risk for human beings.

Generally, NTDs affect the health of the poor in developing countries where access to clean water, sanitation, and health care is limited. Roughly 2 billion people are being treated for at least one NTD, although most individuals are infected with several NTDs at once. Several NTDs are difficult to control by drug treatment alone because of their complicated transmission cycles that involve non-human carriers such as insects. Furthermore, some of the drugs have significant side effects (including death) and cannot be used by young children or pregnant women.

A study done in 2001 found that research and development of drugs to treat infectious diseases had ground to a near-standstill. From 1975 to 1999, the report stated, 1,393 new drugs were brought to the market globally, but only 16, or 1.1 percent, were for tropical diseases (including malaria) and even tuberculosis, although these diseases represented 12% of the global disease burden. A 2012 update of that study found that the gap between the percentage of research and development on NTDs and their percentage of the global disease burden had narrowed, but there is still a long way to go to reach an adequate balance. Of the 756 new drugs approved between 2000 and 2011, 29 (or 3.8 percent) were for neglected diseases, although the global burden of such diseases was estimated at 10.5 percent. Of these, only four were new chemical creations, three of which were for malaria, but none for tuberculosis or neglected tropical diseases.

It is unprofitable for companies to create treatments for diseases with few victims and no certain way to recover research and development costs. Our heart goes out to those who suffer from these neglected diseases, and we want our government to speed up research and development in cooperation with universities and private companies. However, research and development take time and effort and costs money that private companies cannot easily justify to their stockholders, including many of us, without incentives. We should consider such incentives and look at the system in place to forge successful efforts to deal with NTDs.

We had with us representatives from the National Institutes of Health, which was established to understand, treat, and ultimately prevent the many infectious, immunologic and allergic diseases that threaten millions of human lives. Their government partner in the system for developing solutions to the problem of NTDs and other diseases is the Food and Drug Administration, which, among other responsibilities, is charged with protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of prescription and over- the-counter pharmaceutical medications, vaccines and biopharmaceuticals.

Also joining us yesterday were representatives from a network specializing in providing medicines at the lowest possible cost to those suffering from NTDs, a major pharmaceutical company that develops new drugs for the treatment of diseases rare and otherwise, and a new organization seeking to extend the benefits of proven interventions to improve the lives of the poor in developing countries. If a solution to the gap between existing research and development and successful strategies to

meet the challenges of NTDs is to be found, it will take the collaboration of the organizations represented here today, as well as numerous others.

What yesterday was a disease affecting a tiny population in a remote area of the world can tomorrow become an unexpected, global epidemic. We must be better prepared to deal with new challenges to public health.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I chaired a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. We turned our attention to an overlooked aspect of the crisis in Syria--the religious minorities caught in the middle of the conflict and apparently targeted by government forces as well as rebel groups.

More than 93,000 Syrians have been killed in this horrendous and seemingly endless civil war. More than 4.25 million people are displaced within Syria, with millions more fleeing to safety in the surrounding countries of Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq. It is disturbing to note that one in five of the refugees is Christian although Christians in Syria make-up one in ten of the pre-war population of 22 million people. This would seem to indicate that Christians are even more fearful for their lives and safety than other segments of the Syrian population.

Before the war, Syria was a fairly pluralistic society, with Alawites, Shias, Ismailis, Yezidis, Druze, Christians, Jews, and Sunnis living in relative peace, side by side. The situation was far from perfect, as President Bashar al Assad's regime had a vast security apparatus in place with members inside each of the religious communities to monitor their activities.

The Assad government was guilty of serious human rights violations, including the summary imprisonment and execution of political opponents. But relations between the various religious groups were generally not violent.

That civil co-existence has ended with the war. In February of this year, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic reported that, ``The conflict has become increasingly sectarian, with the conduct of the parties becoming significantly more radicalized and militarized.''

This followed on an earlier Commission report stating that, ``Entire communities are at risk of being forced out of the country or of being killed inside the country. With communities believing--not without cause--that they face an existential threat. . . .''

We know that early in the civil war, Assad came to view the Christian minority with suspicion, accusing churches of laundering money and goods for opposition forces and forbidding banks from transactions for certain churches.

There is also evidence that the Assad regime encouraged sectarian tensions in order to maintain power--perhaps believing that if the people were afraid of Islamists commandeering a nominally secular state, the people would be more likely to support Assad over the opposition.

In December 2012, Time Magazine reported allegations that the Assad regime was paying individuals to pose as opposition supporters and chant slogans at protests including ``The Christians to Beirut, the Alawites to the grave.''

Our own government has voiced concern about the particular threat posed to Christians

in Syria. According to the State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2012, ``The regime continued to frame opposition actions as targeting the Christian population. At the same time, it increased its own targeting of Christian and Alawi anti-regime activists in order to eliminate minority-voices that might counter its narrative of 'Sunni-Sponsored violence'.''

Religious minorities seem to fear the opposition forces. Some prominent opposition groups (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) have a religious basis which has been seen as threatening to Syria's Alawite and Christian minorities.

Smaller opposition factions, such as the al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadist al-Nusra Front, take explicitly sectarian positions. There are reports of incidents in which rebel forces engaged in sectarian violence, such as burning Shi'ite mosques.

Christians are perceived by many in the opposition to be Assad loyalists, possibly due to Assad's aggressive recruitment of Christians into the regime militias at the start of the civil war. Other reports indicate that the Christians attempted to remain neutral either out of pacifism or concern about their rights under opposition forces.

Christian neutrality was perceived by some opposition groups as loyalty to the regime. In December 2012, a rebel force believed to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood released a Youtube video entitled, ``Warning mainly Christian cities in the province of Hama'', and promising attacks if they continue to support and house the pro- Assad forces.

Christian leaders have been targeted, such as the April 2013 kidnapping of Mor Gregiorius Yohanna Ibrahim of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Bishop Boulos Yazigi of the Greek Orthodox Church-both men still have not been returned.

The Druze community reports being targeted as well. In March 2013, a Druze leader reported to Christian Solidarity International, ``Our people get stopped at checkpoints and are asked which sect they belong to. Once the militias hear that they are from Swaida [a province where 90% of the population is Druze], our men disappear.''

The al-Nursa Front, a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, has been blamed for much of the sectarian rhetoric and violence, but dozens of the opposition groups ascribe to Islamist or Salafist-jihadist ideologies and mingle with the Free Syrian Army-- which the U.S. may now be supporting.

Over the last three years, the United States has committed to providing $250 million to various opposition groups in Syria--at least $117 million of which has already been funded, largely to the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces. With the chemical weapon red line crossed, the Administration has also agreed to provide ammunition and small arms.

It is not clear whether any of this new lethal assistance will go to the Free Syrian Army and its worrisome opposition groups.

The Administration has also committed to send an additional $300 million in humanitarian aid to ``vulnerable groups'' in and surrounding Syria. It is not clear whether distribution of this aid will be informed by the plight of religious minorities.

I am very concerned that the Administration may not be taking seriously the targeting of religious minorities. Too often, we have heard from this Administration that they have bigger issues to deal with than the vulnerability of religious minorities.

In the last two appropriations cycles, we have directed the Administration to condition aid to Egypt ($1.3 billion dollars) on certification that Egypt is acting to protect the religious freedom of its minorities. The Administration (both Secretaries Clinton and Kerry) refused to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly, the government of Egypt continues to allow attacks on Coptic Christians with impunity.

Money talks. The United States should be using assistance to ensure recipient countries and entities have a plan that is implemented to protect vulnerable religious minorities. This is all the more critical in situations like Syria, where we are providing lethal aid in what has become sectarian tinderbox.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, which I chair, held a hearing that examined the human rights and governance situation in Ethiopia, and the status of U.S. relations with Ethiopia. Given Ethiopia's important cooperation in opposing Islamic militants in Somalia, as well as its cooperation in other counter-terrorism and peacekeeping efforts, the administration has been reluctant to seriously hold the Ethiopian government to account for persistent, egregious human rights violations, including the inability of the opposition political parties to function, restrictions on civil society organizations and journalists that prevent them from operating freely and forced removals of citizens from their lands.

According to the USAID's Assistant Administrator for Africa Earl Gast, ``USAID believes that open channels of communication with the Ethiopian government create opportunities to influence democracy, rights, and governance issues.'' However, Amnesty International testified last week that ``[s]ince 2005 the human rights situation in the country has deteriorated still further, with significantly increased restrictions placed on freedom of expression, association and other rights. Sadly the Ethiopian authorities have not acted in a vacuum during this period. The United States and others in the international community have failed to raise concerns over the government's systematic violation of human rights and flouting of its international obligations. The failure to speak out and press for change has emboldened the government and also allowed Ethiopia to set a dangerous example for other governments in the region to emulate. It is critical that the United States and other members of the international community press the Ethiopian authorities to address human rights concerns and repeal and reform key legislation and policies.''

Amnesty International also noted in its testimony today that ``[f]or Ethiopians held in detention, conditions continue to be extremely harsh. Torture is regularly reported to take place during interrogation in the initial stages of detention, often before the detainees have access to their families or to legal representatives. Prisoners have been slapped, suspended from the walls and ceiling by their wrists, beaten with various objects, denied sleep, electrocuted, and had weights suspended from their genitalia. Solitary confinement for extended periods is often reported. Within prison facilities, sanitation was often reported to be poor. Amnesty International has received reports of medical resources being withheld, and reports of deaths in custody. Food and water is often in short supply, and is supplemented by visiting family members where access is permitted.''

Ethiopia is Africa's second most populous country, after Nigeria, and the United States considers its government to be an important development and regional security partner. Ethiopia plays a key leadership role in the region, hosts the African Union (AU) headquarters, and is a major troop contributor to U.N. peacekeeping operations.

According to the State Department, the three pillars of the bilateral relationship with Ethiopia are economic growth and development; democracy, governance, and human rights; and regional peace and security. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Karen Hanrahan stated in an October 2012 speech that ``advancing democracy and human rights is one of our highest priorities in our engagement with Ethiopia.'' Nevertheless, it has been difficult to get cooperation from the current and previous administrations in confronting the

Government of Ethiopia on its shortcomings in observing democratic principles and human rights in that country.

In June 2005, following a contentious election in which then-Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and his party seemed to suffer unexpected losses in the legislature, demonstrators, led by college students, took to the streets to protest a delayed release of election results. The government's reaction was to deploy snipers who shot and killed protesters and to jail hundreds of others. An increasingly violent response to protests took place in November of that year. The death toll resulting from both protests was 193, but the numbers arrested has never been confirmed.

In the summer of 2005, I travelled to Ethiopia to assess the situation and met with Prime Minister Meles, members of his government, political opposition leaders, including one of our witnesses today-- Berhanu Nega--civil society representatives, the religious community and the diplomatic community. What I found was a government leader who was arrogant in his certainty that he could arrest his political opposition whenever he wanted. I also found a political opposition convinced that they had won a majority in the legislative elections that year.

Unfortunately, the government's view won the day. Mr. Nega and other political leaders and human rights officials were arrested and held in jail for more than a year on charges that had to continually be changed due to the repeated failure to convict them. Some of them who managed to be released from jail, found themselves forced to live outside their home country, such as Mr. Nega.

The political space for opposition parties continues to be constricted. The imprisonment and prosecution of political leaders has dissolved parties and caused reformulations that also weren't able to continue. Mr. Nega founded Ginbot 7, a new political party in Ethiopia, but two years ago, it was declared a terrorist organization by the Meles government, and not only was it unable to operate openly, but Ethiopian journalists were prevented from reporting on the party or its statements.

Similarly, the Government of Ethiopia, according to the State Department's human rights report, continued to imprison more than 400 opposition leaders, activists, and local journalists by the end of 2012, many on vague national security-related charges.

As of 2011, the Ethiopian government had completed long-term cheap land leases on more than 3.6 million hectares (equivalent to the size of the Netherlands), mainly to large-scale foreign agricultural investors, and an additional 2.1 million hectares of land has since been made available for such leases to foreigners. An estimated 1.5 million Ethiopians in four regions have been displaced, many of them subject to a supposedly voluntary program known as ``villagization.'' Others displaced due to these land leases or because of major dam projects now reside in refugee camps in Kenya.

Despite an unacceptable political and human rights environment in Ethiopia, we hold out hope that the post-Meles government may yet change the direction the government has taken for so long. Earlier this month, thousands of Ethiopians protested political repression in the capital city of Addis Ababa. Under the late Prime Minister Meles, such a show of defiance likely would have been met with official violence and mass arrests, but the government of current Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn did not react in that way. This is an encouraging sign that the current Ethiopian government may consider changing its course and allowing its citizens to effectively express themselves-- including at the ballot box.

Our witnesses last week included the former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia, the U.S. official in charge of our significant aid portfolio to Ethiopia, the former elected mayor of Addis Ababa, a member of the first U.S. delegation to meet with the current government and a longtime Ethiopian activist on human rights issues.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, pain, we all dread it. We avoid it. We even fear it. And we all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration.

Madam Speaker, today, there are Kermit Gosnells all over America inflicting not only violence, cruelty, and death on very young children, but excruciating pain as well.

Many Americans, including some who self-identified as pro-choice-- were shocked and dismayed by the Gosnell expose' and trial. Perhaps the decades-long culture of denial and deceptive marketing has made it difficult to see and understand a disturbing reality. Even after 40 years of abortion on demand and over 55 million dead babies and millions of wounded moms, many--until Gosnell--somehow construed abortion as victimless and painless. That has changed.

The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies-- euphemistically called ``snipping'' by Gosnell--has finally peeled away the benign facade of a billion-dollar abortion industry.

I note parenthetically, and it may come as a shock to many, but according to the Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund, the U.S. is among only four nations in the world that allows for abortions for any reason after viability, and one of only nine nations that allows abortions after 14 weeks. We're in some pretty bad company, Madam Speaker, because that includes China and North Korea. We are far outside the global mainstream.

I would note, Madam Speaker, that like Gosnell, abortionists all over America decapitate, they dismember, and they chemically poison babies to death each and every day. That's what they do. Americans are connecting the dots and asking whether what Gosnell did is really different than what other abortionists do. I would note to my colleagues that a D&E abortion, a common method after 14 weeks, is a gruesome, pain-filled act that literally rips and tears to pieces the body parts of a child.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a modest but necessary attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old--and pain capable--from having to suffer and die from abortion.

I would note to my colleagues that a majority of Americans are with us trying to protect lives. According to a recent Gallup poll, 64 percent of Americans believe that abortion should not be permitted in the second 3 months of pregnancy; 80 percent say abortion should not be permitted in the last 3 months of pregnancy. The polling company found that 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain. The women get it, and they have so polled when asked if they are against this kind of pain for babies.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recognizes the medical evidence that unborn children feel pain. We are not living in the Dark Ages. One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee stated in his expert report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice:

It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability

to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not

earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more

intense than that perceived by term newborns or older

children.

Surgeons today entering the womb to perform corrective procedures, Madam Speaker, on unborn children, have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from sharp objects and incisions.

Surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb. We now know that the child ought to be treated as a patient, and there are many anomalies, many sicknesses that can be treated while the child is still in utero. When those interventions are done, anesthesia is given.

Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at the Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in May of 2012 said:

When we speak of infants at 20 weeks post-fertilization we

no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound imagery,

because such premature patients are kicking, moving and

reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal

intensive care unit.

In other words, there are children the same age who, in utero, can be killed by abortion who have been born and are now being given lifesaving assistance.

She went on to say:

In today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this

age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.

She says:

I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to

horrific procedures such as those that involve limb

detachment or cardiac injection.

Mr. Fortenberry, thank you for your extraordinary leadership. This has been a very tough fight. You have been walking point, and doing it with great class and with great precision. I think your opening comments for this Special Order which you have sponsored just summed up the issue so eloquently. I want to thank you for your leadership. It is making a difference. And while we may not have success on the short-term, I do believe on the intermediate and long-term we will prevail over time, and I thank you for your leadership, Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama today is using the coercive power of the state to force tens of millions of people of

faith and people of conscience to violate a fundamental conviction or suffer a severe penalty. What Mr. Obama has done is unconscionable, unprecedented, and violates religious freedom. By coercing all insurance plans, including those offered by faith-based institutions, to pay for drugs and devices that are contrary to their deeply held beliefs, including subsidizing abortion drugs like Ella and Plan B, President Obama demonstrates a reckless disregard for conscience rights.

Everyone must comply, regardless of moral convictions or religious tenets, simply because his administration says so. Mr. Obama's means of coercing compliance--absolutely ruinous fines of $100 per day per employee that total up to over $36,000 per year per employee. Just people listening at home, our Members who may be listening to today's important Special Order, $36,500 per employee per year.

When faith-based organizations refuse to comply, Obama's mandate will impose incalculable harm on millions of children educated in faith- based schools, as well as the poor, the sick, the disabled, and frail elderly who are served with such compassion and dignity by faith-based entities.

Even Notre Dame, which heaped praise and honors and an honorary degree on President Obama in 2009, will be crushed by this cruel mandate. Astonishingly, it was President Obama in his 2009 speech at Notre Dame University, who said:

Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with

abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause.

Mr. Speaker, another promise broken; more empty, misleading rhetoric from the President who has excelled at that.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is approximately 4,600 employees are covered under Notre Dame's self-insured health plan, which means that Notre Dame will face fines of over $100 million a year when they refuse to comply with the Obama mandate.

If Mr. Obama's attack on conscience rights isn't reversed, faith- based employers will be discriminated against and fined, and employees who today benefit from health insurance plans provided by their faith- based employer will be dumped into government health exchanges. And even when they do that, the fines to faith-based organizations are also without precedent. If a faith-based entity scraps its own insurance coverage because of the Obama mandate, they are then fined $2,000 per employee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Obama's attack on conscience rights fits a dangerous emerging pattern. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had a Federal grant to assist human trafficking victims under a law that I wrote, known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and did an absolutely superb job, according to all professional reviews, assisting trafficking victims in this country. In 2011, however, the USCCB, or the Conference of Catholic Bishops, was blatantly discriminated against and thrown out of the program simply because they would not refer for abortions. That was it. Throw it out of the program.

The Health Care Conscience Rights Act reasserts and restores conscience rights, Mr. Speaker, by making absolutely clear that no one can be compelled to subsidize certain so-called services in private insurance plans contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Fortenberry. He had introduced the legislation in the last Congress and was the first individual in this House to come out of the blocks to recognize just how damaging the Barack Obama anticonscience initiative really is. We need to move on this. We need to protect those men and women of conscience, those of religious belief who will not bow and will not go in the direction that this administration is demanding.