Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers for advancing this bill through the Judiciary Committee. And, I'd like to offer my appreciation and thanks to my friend Congressman Steve Chabot for introducing the Child and Elderly Missing Alert Program Act.

This is a very innovative and timely program, utilizing telephone and cellular alerts to help in the rapid recovery of missing children, elderly individuals, and the disabled. The bill specifically includes within the definition of disabled those diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. As we know cellular phones are ubiquitous and expanding the use of that technology in missing persons programs promises to greatly increase the programs' effectiveness.

As a co-chairman of congressional caucuses for both Alzheimer's disease and autism, I am familiar with the widespread occurrence and the dangers of wandering for these populations. Sixty percent of the millions of Alzheimer's sufferers wander at some point in their illness, many are habitual wanderers. Most of us are also well aware of the skyrocketing rates of autism, and again wandering is a serious concern.

But this bill will assist Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement in their efforts to help so many other individuals including victims of family abduction and victims of abduction for sexual exploitation. As the author of the first federal law to combat human trafficking, I am grateful that Mr. Chabot's legislation specifically provides for grants to combat human trafficking. Human trafficking is a multi-billion dollar industry that touches every country in the world, including the United States. Victims, primarily women and children are stripped of their dignity, robbed of their human rights, and forced into bondage and sexual servitude.

This legislation increases the likelihood that the disabled wanderer will be found and reunited safely with his or her loved ones. It will help runaways to be reunited with their families or at least to be provided a safe environment. And it will make it much more difficult for family abductors and human traffickers to avoid detection and to rescue their victims.

I thank Mr. Chabot, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers for advancing this bill through the Judiciary Committee. And, I especially want to thank Congresswoman Maxine Waters for her commitment and hard work over the years in support of the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program.

Alzheimer's disease robs millions of individuals in the U.S. of their ability to recognize once familiar places and faces or even to remember their names and addresses.

Not everyone with Alzheimer's wanders, but an estimated 60% wander at some point in the disease, and many of those wander repeatedly. They easily become disoriented and lost, even in their own neighborhood. While wandering is common, it also can be extremely dangerous, particularly for the unprotected and the mentally and physically vulnerable. If not found within 24 hours, up to half of those who wander risk serious injury or death. And their friends and familieis are beside themselves with worry.

Since its inception in FY1996 and the awarding of a grant to the Alzheimer's Association, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program has been a literal life-line, helping in the safe return of many thousands of wanderers.

The program has been funded every year since 1996 and funding has been used to establish a nationwide emergency response service for individuals with Alzheimer's or another dementia who wander or have a medical emergency, including an identification and enrollment system.

H.R. 2800 reauthorizes for five years this Department of Justice Program that provides grants to nonprofit organizations to operate programs designed to help local communities and law enforcement officials quickly identify wandering dementia patients and reunite them with their families.

The program has a 98% success rate for safely returning program enrollees who were reported missing. The program also assists individuals with dementia who are not enrolled, with an 88% success rate. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentlelady, our good chairwoman, for her leadership on this important issue and so many human rights issues around the globe. Thank you, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for again bringing to the floor a very important bill and series of bills, many of which are directed at human rights.

And to Mr. Berman, thank you for your kind comments and your strong support for this effort to try to bring freedom and hope to the people of Vietnam--who, while as you pointed out so rightly, have enjoyed some economic progress, regrettably, political rights, human rights, fundamental rights have gone in the opposite direction--and so thank you for that.

I want to thank the original cosponsors of the bill--Mr. Royce, Mr. Wolf, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, and Ms. Loretta Sanchez--for being original cosponsors of this legislation, and I hope the membership will roundly and soundly back its enactment or its passage today.

Mr. Speaker, many of us on both sides of the aisle have been trying for decades to help the Vietnamese people secure their fundamental human rights and their democratic institutions. From assisting the boat people in the 1970s and all of the human rights work that was done to help so many Vietnamese, individuals who were in reeducation camps and who were dealt with so severely by the dictatorship in Hanoi, Congress and the Presidents over the years have tried nobly to assist them, as have other human rights activists around the world.

As far back as 1996 I sponsored the Human Rights Restoration Act, PL 104-319, which included an important

provision directing the U.S. Information Agency to take steps to provide opportunities for human rights and democracy leaders of Vietnam to come here for educational and cultural exchange programs. We found that so often it was the communist leaders and their families and friends who were benefiting from these trips to the United States, not the people who were the best and the bravest and the brightest of Vietnam.

I visited Vietnam on several occasions, met with dissidents throughout the country in Quay, Ho Chi Minh City, as well as Hanoi; met with pastors--Catholic, Protestant, Evangelicals--and have met with, as some of my other colleagues have as well, the venerable Thich Quang Do, who's done a magnificent job speaking up for the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, which has been outlawed by the dictatorship in Hanoi.

Regrettably, our efforts, and especially, those heroic efforts by the women and men in Vietnam itself, have not resulted in respect for fundamental human rights.

I would note, parenthetically, that Bloc 8406, a great group of individuals who signed on to this charter of human rights, one by one have been singled out after signing that charter, believing that an easing was taking place, signed on. It was just like Vaclav Havel's Charter 77 and many other great statements made by the East Bloc countries during the dictatorships of that era. Bloc 8406, that is to say, April 8, 2006, one by one those individuals have been hunted down, and many of them have found themselves in prison.

The Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee, which I chair, heard from witnesses at a hearing earlier this year that the Vietnamese Government remains an egregious violator of a broad array of human rights. Their testimony confirmed that religious, political, and ethnic persecution continue and in many cases is actually increasing, and that the Vietnamese officials are still laying out the welcome mat for forced labor and sex traffickers.

For example, we heard from Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang, the executive director of Boat People SOS who had recently traveled to Thailand to investigate human rights trafficking violations and other violations in Vietnam. Dr. Thang testified that the Government of Vietnam has not investigated, let alone prosecuted, a single human trafficking violation by Vietnamese labor export companies, many of which are state owned. Instead, police have interrogated and threatened victims who have spoken out against this modern-day slavery.

Almost routinely, according to Dr. Thang--and his information comports with other information our subcommittee has received--the Vietnamese Government has sent its officials from Hanoi to trouble spots, including American Samoa, Jordan, and Malaysia, in order to silence the victims, take sides with the traffickers, or to impede justice.

The subcommittee also heard testimony of a Vietnamese woman who courageously fought for her own rights and those of her coworkers when they were trafficked to Jordan with the complicity of the Vietnamese Government officials. In addition, our witnesses provided deeply disturbing photographs, evidence of torture, and showed a video of the Vietnamese military destroying an entire village of Hmong Christians.

It is imperative that the U.S. Government send an unequivocal message to the Vietnamese regime that it must end its human rights abuses against its own citizens.

I would note, Mr. Speaker, that negotiators of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes Vietnam, are currently meeting in nearby Leesburg, Virginia. Within the next 2 years, or a year or 2, Congress will likely be asked to approve a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Vietnam as part of this initiative. I hope the administration is using those negotiations to strongly encourage the Vietnamese Government to finally, at long last, respect human rights.

I thank my colleague.

H.R. 1410 would institute effective measures toward improving human rights in Vietnam. As reported by our committee, the bill prohibits any increase in nonhumanitarian assistance to the Government of Vietnam above fiscal 2011 levels unless the government makes substantial progress in establishing freedom of religion, releasing political prisoners, respecting the rights of journalists, and the bill lays out a whole series of mutually reinforcing steps it must take and the people it must protect.

The bill does not prevent increased funding for the Vietnamese Government for certain humanitarian assistance--and I want to underscore that--such as food, medicine, agent orange remediation, and activities to combat human trafficking. The freeze on foreign assistance at 2010 levels can be waived if the President determines that increased nonhumanitarian aid to Vietnam would promote democracy and freedom or would otherwise be in the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, we've passed this bill twice in various forms before by huge majorities. It is time to pass it, and hopefully the Senate will take it up and get it to President Obama.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, which I chair, held a hearing to shine a spotlight on and to search for a resolution of the extreme injustice being perpetrated by Bolivian government officials against Jacob Ostreicher, an American trapped in the infamous Palmasola prison. Charged with crimes for which the Bolivian Government has produced no evidence, either of the crimes themselves or that Mr. Ostreicher committed either one, he is being denied the most fundamental due process and human rights both under Bolivian law and international human rights standards.

On June 9, Sheri Rickert, my Staff Director on the subcommittee, and I went to Bolivia to meet with Mr. Ostreicher and to attend a court hearing for his release on bail which had been repeatedly delayed since September of last year. The testimony presented at the Subcommittee's June 6 hearing about this case revealed the repeated due process violations being committed by Bolivian officials.

On June 11, I had the opportunity to witness some of them myself. Two attorneys from the Bolivian Ministry of Government, who I understand should not be intervening in the case, aggressively threatened to take legal action against the judge if he refused to recuse himself. Although the judge rightly rejected the ludicrous reasons on which the Ministry of Government attorneys based their threat, they accomplished their goal of having the hearing postponed and Mr. Ostreicher returned to prison.

To underline the absurdity of the Bolivian judicial system, Mr. Ostreicher's case was then referred to a court where the judge is detained in the same prison as Mr. Ostreicher. It took fully six weeks for the hearing to be rescheduled in another court that has a judge. I've been told that, unfortunately, the same scenario as occurred at the June 11 hearing took place again on July 23. The Ministry of Government attorneys injected themselves into the hearing and aggressively threatened the judge if she failed to recuse herself. The judge rejected out of hand the basis asserted for the threat, but again postponed the hearing and returned Mr. Ostreicher to jail.

While in Bolivia, I met with the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Juan Carlos Alurralde, the Minister of Government Carlos Romero Bonifaz, and the Minister of Justice Cecilia Ayllon Quinteros to advocate for Mr. Ostreicher's release. Each one of them have made commitments with respect to this case but have not followed through.

And in the meantime, Mr. Ostreicher continues to face daily threats to his life in the violent, unsanitary, drug-infested Palmasola prison. He has been on a hunger-strike since April 15, and he was already extremely frail and weak when I saw him over a month ago. Both a private and a Bolivian government doctor have examined Mr. Ostreicher and recommended that he be referred to a medical clinic for evaluation. Given everything else that

has happened in this case, it is highly suspicious that the prison officials are unable to find police escorts to take him there.

Although our own State Department officials are finally acknowledging that Mr. Ostreicher's due process rights are being violated, they continue to seem hesitant and uncertain about what action to take on his behalf. The State Department was invited to testify at yesterday's hearing, but indicated that they were not available to do so this week. I look forward to arranging a follow-up hearing at the earliest possible date when they are prepared to discuss their efforts in this case.

Since undertaking my own advocacy efforts on Mr. Ostreicher's behalf in early June, I have received reports about several Americans who are imprisoned overseas and who are being denied their fundamental due process and human rights. Out of a sense of obligation to do all I can to help Mr. Ostreicher, but also to assist other U.S. citizens in similar situations, I am introducing legislation that will hold accountable those foreign government officials who are responsible for the violation of due process and human rights of imprisoned Americans.

This legislation is entitled the ``Justice for Imprisoned Americans Overseas Act'' or ``Jacob's Law.'' It is premised on the principle that foreign government officials responsible for violations of fundamental due process and human rights of imprisoned U.S. citizens, as well as their immediate family members, should not have the privilege of traveling to the United States while our citizens unjustly languish in their prisons.

The bill would prohibit the issuance of a visa and deny entry to any foreign government official who is violating, or failing to fulfill a responsibility to uphold, the rights of an imprisoned American. The legislation would also deny entry to such officials if the American dies from any cause while in prison. These visa and entry prohibitions would likewise apply to these officials' immediate family members.

Entry to the U.S. would be denied only when an American's fundamental rights are being violated. Americans who violate the legitimate laws of foreign countries must accept the consequences of their crimes. But the United States cannot stand by and simply ``monitor'' the case when our citizens are being held hostage contrary to international human rights standards.

I would emphasize that already under current law, 22 U.S. Code Section 1732, the President must demand the release of any citizen who has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, and to undertake appropriate means to obtain the release of such citizen. This legislation provides the State Department with a tool that it should welcome in order to help it fulfill this responsibility.

We were privileged to have with us yesterday two attorneys who are representing Mr. Ostreicher in the Santa Cruz courts. I would like to thank them for coming all the way from Bolivia to participate in this hearing on Mr. Ostreicher's behalf. We also received an update about the case from Mr. Ostreicher's wife, Ms. Miriam Ungar, and his daughter, a constituent who resides in my district in New Jersey, Ms. Chaya Weinberger. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Stephen Moore, a retired FBI special agent who has spent considerable time and effort investigating Mr. Ostreicher's case and who interrupted his book tour in Washington State in order to join us yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the House amendment to the previous Senate amendment to H.R. 1905. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, former President George H.W. Bush said that Iran was pursuing weapons of mass destruction and exporting terror. A decade later, Iran's global threat is greater than ever.

We are currently embroiled in a standoff with Iran over its pursuit of nuclear capability. We find ourselves on the brink of conflict over potential Iranian armed interference with oil and other shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and its persistent threats against Israel. Even prior to 9-11, Hezbollah, supported by Iran, was responsible for more American deaths around the world than any other terrorist organization. Since 2001, Iran has embarked on more direct efforts to harm American interests as evidenced by last year's foiled Iranian- backed assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

The current state of Iranian sanctions clearly has not worked to reduce Tehran's threat to global peace. That's why we need the enhanced approach this legislation will take in countering efforts by Iran to evade the impact of international sanctions. H.R. 1905 as amended tightens reporting on countries violating sanctions on these countries and strengthens measures against those who would aid and abet these disturbers of global peace.

It also effectively blacklists Iran's energy sector and anyone doing business with it. By preventing Iran from repatriating the proceeds from its oil sales, this rogue government will be deprived of 80 percent of its hard currency earning and half of the funds used to support its national budget.

Iran has used many tricks to subvert current sanctions--from oil for gold swaps to selling energy bonds to other trading and bartering schemes. They have been successful because there are governments who care more for making profit from doing business in Iran than in preventing threats to world peace. International efforts to rein in the nuclear ambitions of Iran have been stymied particularly by China.

Despite expressing formal support for United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran since 2005, China has stepped in where other nations have curtailed trade with Iran. China's Bank of Kunlun and the Elaf Islamic Bank in Iraq have facilitated transactions worth millions of dollars for Iranian banks already under sanctions. Stronger sanctions will make such unsavory alliances more difficult. This is why the reformulated bill we consider today is so vital in eliminating to the extent possible all avenues for Iran's allies to play enabler to its nuclear ambitions and to its patronage of terrorist operations.

I want to congratulate House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Tim Johnson and other members for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan, bicameral bill that works.

I thank my good friend for yielding and thank her for calling this very important Special Order.

For two decades, I, along with countless others, have been moved, inspired, and motivated to defend the weakest and most vulnerable among us by the remarkable life and pro-life witness of Father Frank Pavone. Ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood by Cardinal John O'Connor in 1988, Father Pavone celebrates 20 years since the founding of Priests for Life, the organization he so effectively leads.

A prolific writer and gifted speaker, Father Pavone takes the gospel message of love, forgiveness, truth, and reconciliation both to friendly audiences who draw encouragement from his messages and to those--especially post-abortive women--who suffer and are in deep pain.

I have heard Father Pavone challenge priests to more robustly defend the sanctity of life, especially in their homilies. In promoting the gospel of life, he insists no venue should be forsaken or ignored. Whether it be from the pulpit or in the public square, Father Pavone couldn't be more clear: Speak out with candor, clarity and

compassion--silence is not an option. Silence, I've heard him say, does a woman contemplating abortion no favor whatsoever. She needs pro-life options, real alternatives presented in a meaningful way. She needs understanding and genuine support. And others who might help her need to know that their willingness to assist might be the difference between life and death.

In like matter, Father Pavone and Executive Director Janet Morana are unceasing in their efforts to tangibly aid post-abortive women who often suffer not only physical damage from abortion but lifelong negative emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences. The Silent No More Awareness Campaign provides a safe place for women who have had abortions to grieve and find peace.

Amazingly, Father Pavone also steadfastly reaches out to the actual purveyors of death in the abortion industry. This good priest sees not just the abortionist and their enablers committing violence against women and babies, but what might be if we genuinely care about their souls. Father Pavone reminds us that we are to pray for them, care for them, all while tenaciously opposing the deeds that they do.

Abby Johnson, a woman who ran a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic for 8 years in Texas, said of Father Pavone:

Father Frank Pavone has been a staple in my house for many

years, even during my Planned Parenthood years. Every week, I

would record and watch Defending Life on EWTN. I enjoyed

watching him, even if I disagreed. I loved how outspoken he

was and how he didn't seem to live in the gray. You know,

everything seemed black-and-white for him. Right and wrong

was clear.

I remember watching him during the Terri Schiavo tragedy. I

was drawn to his gentle spirit. I had seen two sides to him--

or was it? One side was so unabashedly, unapologetically, and

passionately against abortion. The other was a man who had an

incredibly compassionate heart and a kind spirit. This was

the man who was helping a family grieve the loss of their

daughter. But now I see they are the same. Father Frank is

for life, all life. His compassion for life fuels

his passion.

Mr. Speaker, Priests for Life turns 20, doing best what it has done so faithfully, defending the least of these as if it were the Lord, Himself.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, pain--we all dread it, avoid it, even fear it, and go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and duration. By now, many Americans know that abortion methods are violent and include dismemberment of a child's fragile body, chemical poisoning, and hypodermic needles to the baby's heart. There is nothing humane, benign, or compassionate about abortion. It is violence against children, and it hurts women.

But the relatively new scientific understanding that unborn children are forced to endure excruciating pain in the performance of later-term abortions--and perhaps even earlier--should shock us. Children not only die from abortion; they suffer. This is a wake-up call to all Americans: unborn children feel pain. This highly disturbing fact should further inspire us all to seek to protect these weak and vulnerable children.

Tragically, for the defenseless child in the womb, the D.C. Council voted in 2004 to eviscerate every legal protection afforded unborn children, making abortion on demand legal in D.C. right up until the moment of birth.

The D.C. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by my distinguished colleague, Trent Franks, seeks to safeguard at least some of these kids--from 20 weeks onward--from both pain and death.

Of note, today's vote comes on the heels of yesterday's Federal district court decision upholding a similar law in Arizona.

In that decision, the judge said, ``by 20 weeks, sensory receptors develop all over the child's body'' and ``when provided by painful stimuli, such as a needle, the child reacts, as measured by increases in the child's stress hormones, heart rate, and blood pressure.''

Mr. Speaker, the poster to my left depicts a D&E abortion, the most commonly procured method of abortion in later term, a dismemberment abortion. It involves using a long steel tool to grasp and tear off, by brute force, the arms and the legs of the developing child, after which the skull is crushed.

Testifying at the full committee hearing in May, Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist who has performed many of these D&E abortions said: ``Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp, set the jaws and pull hard.''

Then he talks about how arms and legs and intestines are all pulled out. Then he said, ``Many times a little face may come out and stare back at you. Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a second-trimester abortion.''

This legislation seeks to protect these kids from this horrible cruelty.

Mr. Speaker, last week I chaired the first ever congressional hearing examining the global challenges in diagnosing, treating and managing Lyme disease.

My personal commitment to combating Lyme disease is longstanding-- going back 20 years when one of the witnesses we had last week, Pat Smith, attended one of my townhall meetings in Wall Township, New Jersey and asked me to get involved. I did.

On September 28, 1993 I offered an amendment to establish a Lyme Disease Program through the Environmental Hygiene Agency of the U.S. Department of the Army. It passed and became law.

On May 5, 1998 I introduced a comprehensive, bipartisan Lyme Disease bill--H.R. 3795 Lyme Disease Initiative Act of 1998--which had at its core, the establishment of a task force--an advisory committee--to comprehensively investigate Lyme with at least four things in mind- detection, improved surveillance and reporting, accurate diagnosis and physician knowledge.

I reintroduced the bill again in 1999, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011.

I would note parenthetically that that same year, I also introduced a comprehensive law to combat Autism. Despite significant opposition in Congress and at NIH and CDC that paralleled the Lyme bill struggle, it became law in 2000. Last year I authored the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011 which was signed into law in the Fall--with the support of NIH and CDC. If only we had done the same with Lyme Disease legislation in the late 90s--a missed decade on Lyme.

As I have met scores of patients suffering the devastating effects of Chronic Lyme--who

only got well after aggressive treatment by a Lyme-literate physician-- I have been dismayed and angered by the unwillingness of some to take a fresh, comprehensive look at this insidious disease.

My current bill--H.R. 2557--simply establishes a Tick-Borne Disease Advisory Committee with the requirement of ensuring diversity of valid scientific opinion--a ``broad spectrum of viewpoints''--on the committee.

In Europe, Lyme disease syndromes were described as early as 1883, and by the mid-1930s neurologic manifestations and the association with Ixodes ticks were recognized and known as tick-borne meningoencephalitis.

In the United States, Lyme disease was not recognized until the early 1970s, when a statistically improbable cluster of pediatric arthritis occurred in the region around Lyme, Connecticut. This outbreak was investigated by Allen Steere, MD, and others from Yale and stimulated intense clinical and epidemiologic research. In 1981, Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, an NIH researcher at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories, identified the spiral-shaped bacteria (or spirochetes) causing Lyme disease and made the connection to the deer or black-legged tick, Ixodes scapularis.

Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne illness in the U.S. and is also endemic in parts of Europe and Asia, and recently has been confirmed to be endemic in the Amazon region of Brazil. In Europe, the highest rates are in Eastern and Central Europe. Recent surveillance studies have described growing problems in Australia and Canada.

In the U.S., Lyme disease has been reported in 49 states and is most common in the northeastern and north central states, and in Northern California into Oregon. Over 30,000 confirmed cases were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, in 2010, making it the 6th most common reportable disease in the U.S. and the 2nd most reportable in the northeast. CDC has estimated that actual new cases may be 10 times more than the reported number--indicating roughly 300,000 new cases in 2010 alone. About 85,000 cases were reported annually in Europe as of 2006 according to the WHO, but that was recognized as a gross underestimate.

In North America, the only Borrelia species to cause Lyme disease is Borrelia burgdorferi (or B. burgdorferi); in Europe, B. burgdorferi and at least four other species of Borrelia cause the disease. Different species are associated with different manifestations of disease. There also are numerous strains of Borrelia, which may affect the ability to evade the immune system, the ability to invade certain organs or tissues, and the response to antibiotics.

Clinical manifestations of Lyme are usually divided into three stages, although the descriptions of the stages vary. According to the U.S. Army Surveillance System--which may have a greater variety of systems because they have both domestic and international surveillance components--during the first stage, 70 percent of patients display the characteristic erythema migrans (EM). Other symptoms of stage one include profound fatigue, fever, chills, headache, sore throat, sore and aching muscles and joints, and swollen glands.

The second stage is marked by migratory musculoskeletal pain, neurological complications in 10-20 percent of patients, and heart inflammation or heart block in 6 to 10 percent of patients that appear 4 to 6 weeks after infection. Symptoms include severe headache and stiff neck, facial paralysis, weakness and/or pain of the chest or extremities, rarely optic atrophy with blindness and coma. Acrodermatitis Chronics Atrophicans, ACA, is a cutaneous manifestation that may occur during the second stage to several years after disease onset.

The third stage typically involves the onset of arthritis characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis, affecting primarily the knees and other large joints. During this stage, a small percentage of patients also suffer from sleepiness, loss of memory, mood swings, and an inability to concentrate.

Few diseases have aroused such a high level of emotion and controversy among the public, physicians, and researchers than Lyme disease. There are two distinct views of Lyme disease; each cites scientific evidence to support its claims, while outcomes research is limited and conflicting. One view--promoted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)--is that the disease is ``hard to catch and easy to cure'' and denies the existence of chronic Lyme disease or persistent infection with the Lyme bacteria. Any treatment other than a short course of antibiotics is considered too risky. Patients who do not fit the paradigm may have few options outside of psychiatric evaluation.

The alternative view--promoted by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, ILADS, and also by numerous academic researchers in the U.S. and around the globe--says that the science is too unsettled to be definitive and there can be one or more causes of persistent symptoms after initial treatment in an individual who has been infected with the agent of Lyme disease. These causes include the possibility of persistent infection, or a post-infectious process, or a combination of both. These are not ``academic'' concerns however because the patients' health is at stake. Unfortunately, some academic researchers believe some of their colleagues are more interested in winning arguments than moving the science forward.

Three areas central to the controversy are: the quality of diagnostics, post-treatment persistence of Borrelia, and available treatment options in light of clinical guidelines.

Current diagnostic tests commonly used do not detect the spirochete that causes Lyme disease, rather, they detect whether the patient has developed antibodies to the pathogen (serological testing). CDC recommends two-tier serological testing, but cautions that the 2-tier system should be used only for surveillance purposes and not for diagnosis. Part of the difficulty in clinically managing suspected Lyme disease is that the CDC protocol is frequently not only used, but required for diagnosis.

A study in the Netherlands of eight commercially available ELISAs and five immunoblots found that they had widely divergent sensitivity and specificity and a very poor concordance, and concluded that ``their high variable sensitivity and specificity further puts the much- advocated two-tier testing strategy into question.''

In addition, two of the authors of a July 3, 2007 article on an antibiotic resistance element in B. burgdorferi, were Julie Boylan and Frank Gherardini of NIAID's Rocky Mountain Laboratories, stated that, ``It is a multistage disorder that is difficult to diagnose at any stage of the disease as well as being difficult to treat during the later symptoms.''

Dr. Mark Eshoo, the head of new technology at the IBIS Biosciences Division of Abbott Laboratories told us last week of exciting information regarding the development of diagnostic tools that, hopefully, will move us past a lot of the controversy.

IDSA has repeatedly stated that there is no ``convincing'' evidence that the Lyme Borrelia persists after standard antibiotic treatment. ``Convincing is clearly a subjective term; however, there is substantial evidence of the persistence of B. Burgdorferi after treatment with antibiotics. There are numerous documented case studies of persistence in humans after antibiotic treatment, and our witnesses may comment on additional evidence for post-treatment persistance in humans. Additionally, one of our witnesses from last week's hearing was Dr. Stephen Barthold, one of the top experts in the country, and I am sure in the world, on animal models. Dr. Barthold, described published and yet to be published experimental studies that provide compelling evidence for B.burgdorferi persistence following antibiotic treatment in animal model systems and their potential significance for human medicine.

Numerous studies have been conducted of the mechanisms by which Borrelia may evade the immune system and antibiotics. Studies have suggested that resistance to antibiotics might be due to formation of different morphological forms of B. burgdorferi, including cell wall deficient forms and biofilm-like colonies. Research also indicates that Borrelia can exchange genetic material, possibly contributing to its ability to avoid detection by the immune system. Several other distinct technical mechanisms are well known by which Borrelia can evade the immune system.

Contrary to known scientific evidence, in a March 21, 2008, letter to Members of Congress, IDSA stated, ``Not only is this assertion [the notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional treatment courses] microbiologically implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data supporting the existence of chronic Lyme disease.'' It is problematic that IDSA would write to Congress trying to discourage support of legislation saying that post treatment persistence is microbiologically implausible.

Additionally, in an article, ``A Chronic Appraisal of `Chronic Lyme Disease''' published in the October 4, 2007, New England Journal of Medicine, several IDSA physicians and a CDC colleague made the statement that ``Chronic Lyme disease, which is equated with chronic B. Burgdorferi infection is a misnomer, . . .''

While this statement has been referred to repeatedly in other correspondence, calling ``chronic Lyme'' a misnomer does not seem reasonable or supportable since it goes far past expressing uncertainty. It seems clear that the intent of the statement was to firmly slam the door on the notion that there possibly could be chronic Lyme.

The final major area of controversy is the significance of the IDSA's treatment guidelines which directly impact patients and their ability to get treatment. Guidelines should be developed based on the best science, and there has been extreme controversy regarding the restrictive nature of the IDSA guidelines. The

guidelines do not allow for the possibility of chronic infection and severely limit physician discretion on treating the disease.

Supporters of the IDSA guidelines point to dangers of the prolonged use of antibiotics and the possibility of treating when an infection has not been established. They also frequently point to alternative therapies which are unproven and may be dangerous; however, such alternative therapies are in the background for many diseases--perhaps most well recognized for cancer. Critics of the guidelines contend that they are based on highly selective science and that guidelines panelists had significant conflicts of interest. A 2009 review of the IDSA guidelines did not result in any changes.

IDSA and supporters place heavy weight on certain clinical trials of Lyme treatments supported by NIH. There has been much controversy of the quality of those trials and their generalizability to broad populations of patients. It is disturbing to the lay bystander that the controversy has ensued for so long without resolution. Certainly there are numerous unknowns about the bacteria and the disease; however, the public questions why the ``experts'' can't even agree on whether these small numbers of clinical trials are well designed, well executed, and of sufficient power (whether they have a large enough number of patients), and the degree to which they can be generalized to other patient populations.

IDSA supporters have been adamant in the quality of the studies and the validity of their use to guide treatments for broad patient populations. In fact, several other researchers have been highly critical of the studies, pointing to specific perceived deficiencies, such as selection criteria that almost guaranteed failure, not appropriately defining endpoints, and, significantly underpowering the studies. One journal article from the Netherlands states, ``The randomized studies that have been performed have been of questionable quality and were heavily underpowered to detect potential effects.''

Many who recognize the shortcomings of clinical trials to date, stress the importance of conducting more well-designed treatment studies with a sufficiently large and representative number of patients, and at least some such efforts are underway around the globe. I am pleased that Dr. Raphael Stricker, a practicing physician who sees many Lyme patients, guided us through some of the vast amount of literature on Lyme disease.

The UK has suffered under a contentious environment among different Lyme disease stakeholders very much like that of the U.S. We are told however that the UK may be making progress in developing a more cooperative environment. I am pleased that Stella Huyshe-Shires, the Chairman of Lyme Disease Action, in the United Kingdom, was able to share with us some of the perspectives on efforts to manage Lyme disease in Europe. I was happy to hear about the collaboration, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, with the Jack Lind Alliance to identify the uncertainties faced during consultations between patients and physicians, to then identify the top unanswered questions about diagnosis and treatment of Lyme, and to prioritize research.

This cooperative approach contrasts with the environment in the U.S. A recommendation regarding Lyme disease made during a May 2005 meeting of CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases Board of Scientific Counselors, attended by the then President of the IDSA, that CDC should focus on science and not on the concerns of patient groups and that others may need to step in to assist CDC with public interface. Collaboration between the IDSA and government agencies on strategies to deal with the public can be seen in various statements and documents.

The September 2011 article, ``Antiscience and ethical concerns associated with the advocacy of Lyme disease'' reflects the degree of hostility toward patients, treating physicians and the Lyme charities that were formed to support education and research on behalf of patients.

Wouldn't it be much better if instead of belittling, insulting, and smearing patients, treating physicians and advocates, the authors of that study had asked themselves and posed the question to others ``What can we do to better understand and address the needs and concerns of patients, physicians and advocates?''

Two of the witnesses we heard from last week focused on the needs and concerns of patients and the non-profit organizations fighting on their behalf--namely, Mr. Evan White, a former Lyme disease patient, and Ms. Pat Smith, the President of the Lyme Disease Association, who provided their important perspectives. What we should never lose sight of is that the goal of all of our efforts and the science is to help patients regain health.

There are numerous Lyme disease non-profit organizations, some of them less informed than others. To cast a wide net and say that that they are well-intentioned, but ignorant and ill-formed is not an accurate portrayal. Many of them are intelligent, savvy people, who established medical and scientific advisory boards to advise their organizations. Two that I am most familiar with have funded millions of dollars in Lyme disease research, providing grants to a Who's Who of Academic Researchers.

Efforts to discredit research because it was partially funded by Lyme disease charities are therefore disturbing. Such efforts led some researchers to initially submit research studies and to leave off some funding sources. Researchers have also reported that when they have presented research findings to government officials or other scientists, there has been more interest in the funding sources than the research itself. Without speculating whether such intimidation is intentional, it is most unfortunate because academic scientists and very critical studies have been, and continue to be, supported by several of the Lyme charities, some of whom have raised millions of dollars and have invested every penny into research.

At the end of their ``Antiscience. . . .'' tirade, the article's authors state that the public's health will be endangered ``unless responsible physicians, scientists, government leaders, and the media firmly stand up for an evidence-base approach to this infection that is based on high-quality scientific studies.''

That is a perfect ending for my remarks because that is precisely what the Lyme community wants; however, it will be necessary for the physicians, scientists, government leaders, and media to be discerning--to evaluate the evidence to see if it is based on the best science and to scrutinize the studies and the critiques of those studies to determine whether they are of high quality. We need scientists to speak out in an unfettered way. We need government agencies to show leadership and to forcefully say what we know and what we don't know based on the best available evidence.

Thankfully, we can be confident that science will prevail: research has been progressing--we are greatly increasing knowledge of pathophysiology, and we seem to be on the cusp of breakthroughs in diagnostics that hopefully will solve questions of persistence and active vs. past infection.

I regret that we did not hear from NIH, CDC, nor a representative from the IDSA at last week's hearing. They all were invited, but declined--the IDSA expressing that their potential witness had a scheduling conflict.

I will reissue an invitation to them--and expect they will testify before our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlelady, the chairwoman of our committee, for her great leadership in the defense of Israel. I thank as well my good friend and colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Berman. These two individuals work hard every day for the peace and security of our friend and ally Israel.

This is a ``must pass'' bill, Mr. Speaker, as we must reiterate our support for the nation of Israel. Our friend and ally Israel lives under the daily threat of indiscriminate rocket attacks on their homes and businesses, terrorism on public transit, and the unapologetic, undeterred, and unacceptable existential threat of a nuclear Iran. Despite Iran's signature of the Genocide Convention of 1956, Iran's anti-Semitic leader, Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Iran has ignored its commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons under the IAEA, refusing inspections and failing the ones they do allow.

The U.N. has failed to be resolute in its response to Iran or to protect Israel, leaving Israel to fend for itself at best but, more often, attacking and undermining it at every opportunity. Most recently and amazingly, the United Nations allowed Iran to be elected to the 15- member general committee of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Conference, which is allegedly developing a treaty regulating the international sale of conventional arms. Iran does, after all, have considerable experience in this area. Iran has been arming Israel's neighbors for decades.

Freedom House's annual report on the world, which assesses the political and civil liberties of nearly every nation on Earth, shows that Israel is surrounded by nations that profoundly disrespect the political and civil liberties of their own citizens. These nations actively foment hate against Israel and have human rights records that are among the worst in the world. Syria has now shown its true colors. We cannot sit by and wait for Iran to have the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, superior deterrence remains among the best guarantors of peace, and that has certainly been the case in the Middle East. S. 2165 enhances Israel's ability to defend itself. When Israel's military superiority was unclear in the eyes of its enemies soon after it was created, soon after Israel became a state, Israel was tested repeatedly with war, yet they won again and again. In response to Israel's clear military superiority, Israel's enemies have relied on cowardly acts of terrorism. They have attacked with Gaza rockets, with the intifada, with the flotilla, and Israel's task has been to overcome those deadly aggressions. Mr. Speaker, S. 2165 provides assistance for several programs that are effective in deterring attacks and in defending Israel, including for the Iron Dome, Israel's successful means of defending itself against missiles and rockets targeting Israeli homes and businesses.

With this bill, Israel will be better equipped for any scenario as it fulfills its solemn duty to protect its own people. With this bill, we also reassert our country's moral obligation and unshakable commitment to give Israel every assistance. The U.S. reaffirms, in word and in deed, our dedication to the defense of the Jewish state. S. 2165 expands U.S. military, intelligence, and civilian cooperation with Israel, including an offer to the Israeli air force for additional training opportunities in the U.S. in order to compensate for Israel's limited airspace and other enhanced cooperation on intelligence sharing.

Israel has shown itself to be a great friend of the United States, not only in setting the standard for democracy and human rights in the region but by being trustworthy with loans--always repaying loans on time and in full. This bill recognizes Israel's dependability with an extension of the longstanding loan guarantee program for Israel.

Finally, this bill reaffirms that the only viable option for peace and security in the region is an Israeli state and a Palestinian state existing side by side. Again, I ask for Members to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, China's one-child policy in effect since 1979 is state sponsored murder and constitutes massive crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg Nazi war crimes tribunal properly construed forced abortion as a crime against humanity--nothing in human history compares to the magnitude of China's 33 year assault on women and children.

Abortion is a weapon of mass destruction. Millions have been exterminated.

Today in China, rather than being given maternal care, pregnant women without birth allowed permits are hunted down and forcibly aborted. They are mocked, belittled, and humiliated.

In recent days, the exploitation and forced abortion at seven months of Feng Jianmei has sparked global outrage--and deep concern for her welfare and that of the women of China (In early July, the European Parliament ``strongly condemned'' China's one child and forced abortion policy). While Feng remains in a hospital--she calls it a prison--her husband, Deng, has been beaten. Feng's gross mistreatment however is far too commonplace.

Feng Jianmei was forced to undergo an abortion on June 2nd, seven months into her pregnancy. Media reports indicate that local officials in northwestern Shaanxi Province held Ms. Feng for three days, blindfolded, and coerced her to consent to the abortion. Even with the supposed consent, it took five men to hold her down and administer the drug that induced the 48 hour labor. The injection was given directly to the child's head.

Ms. Feng's husband, Deng, posted graphic photos of his wife and the dead baby online, embarrassing the government. Deng Jicai, Mr. Deng's sister, said her brother and sister-in-law had refrained from speaking to media but decided to speak to German reporters who traveled to Shaanxi when the government did not produce investigation results as promised.

Ms. Deng reported to the media that the local government organized a backlash against the family members, calling them traitors and keeping them under surveillance, apparently angered over the family's contacts with journalists. Local residents took a long bus ride to the hospital where Ms. Feng was recovering from the abortion and demonstrated with banners reading, ``beat the traitors soundly and expel them from Zengjia township!'' Family members claim that the demonstration seemed to be a campaign organized and funded by the local authorities but made to look like a spontaneous public gesture. Mr. Deng reportedly also was beaten and labeled a traitor for speaking out about the crime.

The China Daily reported that there was no legal basis for the fine of $6,300 for the second pregnancy that Ms. Feng refused to pay. The local government also has admitted that Ms. Feng's legal rights were violated. Publicity surrounding the forced abortion prompted the firing of two local officials and warnings or demerits being issued against five others.

Mr. Deng escaped from the hospital where both he and his wife were being forcibly detained. He traveled to Beijing and hired a lawyer to sue the local government. Mr. Deng's location is now unknown, but it is believed that he is in hiding. Ms. Feng is still being held at the hospital.

The lawyer, Zhang Kai, said recently that he has sent a legal request on behalf of Feng's husband, Deng Jiyuan, asking local police and prosecutors to investigate criminal infractions in the case. Deng also is seeking unspecified compensation from the government, Zhang said.

The widespread circulation of the photos posted by Mr. Deng has prompted renewed debate in China and the world regarding the one-child policy, possibly including within the government itself. Researchers with a center affiliated with China's State Council, the equivalent of China's cabinet, argued in an essay published in the China Economic Times newspaper on July 3, 2012, that China should adjust the one-child policy ``as soon as possible'' to head off a potential demographic crisis.

The Wall Street Journal on July 6th also reported that a group of prominent Chinese scholars issued an open letter on Thursday calling for a rethink of the country's one-child policy. The group argued that the policy in its current form is incompatible with China's increasing respect for human rights and need for sustainable economic development. The letter comes less than a month after Feng's photo and story ignited public anger.

``The birth-approval system built on the idea of controlling population size as emphasized in the current `Population and Family Planning Law' does not accord with provisions on the protection of human rights contained in the nation's constitution,'' the authors of Thursday's letter wrote, adding that a rewriting of the law was ``imperative.''

The list of signatories to Thursday's letter included several high- profile figures, including Beijing University sociologist Li Jianxin and Internet entrepreneur James Liang. ``This is a time during which people all over the world have realized there are problems with the [one-child] policy,'' Mr. Liang, the co-founder and chief executive of Chinese online travel site Ctrip.com, told The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Liang, who has spent the past five years pursuing a Ph.D. in economics at Stanford University and just published a book challenging the notion that China has too many people, said he has felt a recent opening up of discussion around the one-child policy.

Mr. Liang, who advocates a complete dismantling of the family- planning system rather than a two-child system put forward by others, said he initially became interested in the one-child policy when he came across research showing that innovation and entrepreneurship are dominated by young people. He said he feared a shrinking of the population of young people would hamper the country's efforts to evolve beyond being merely the world's factory. ``From an economic perspective, the one-child policy is irrational. From a human-rights perspective, it's even less rational,'' Mr. Liang said.

Earlier this week, I heard testimony from Guo Yangling, who like Feng, will tell us how she suffered a brutalizing late term forced abortion:

Heading out to buy breakfast . . . I was stopped by an

older woman in her 50s who asked me if I had a `birth

permit.' I said no . . . Then, two staff members from the

Family Planning Commission came and asked me where I was

from, where I lived and what my name was . . . I tried to

walk away but they wouldn't let me go . . . `Help, somebody!'

But no one came to help. Then two vans arrived, their doors

opened and people sitting inside . . . `Get in quickly.' I

refused and said, `I don't know who you are, why you are

asking me to get into your vehicle and where you are taking

me?' They said, `You will know after you get in' . . . On the

road, in an attempt to save my baby who would soon be

arriving in this world, I reached my hand for the van door.

They grabbed me and held me down on the van floor, yanking my

hair and trampling my limbs and body . . . I screamed again

`murder,' only to have a cloth used to wipe cars stuffed into

my mouth . . . I got out, I was brought to the second floor

of the building. There, I saw a number of female victims

sitting on the benches in the corridor, their eyes filled

with tears of anxiety, terror and sadness . . . a woman

dressed in white and wearing a surgical mask told me to get

on the delivery bed immediately. I refused, so they pinned me

down on the bed by force. After the person in white pressed

my belly with her hands and felt the position of my baby's

head, she stuck a big, long, fatal needle deep into my

abdomen . . . By then, my unborn baby had already been

murdered and I lost heart.

This is the grim reality of the one-child-per-couple policy. As we have known for three decades, there are no single moms in China--except those who somehow evade the family planning cadres and conceal their pregnancy. For over three decades, brothers and sisters have been illegal; a mother has absolutely no right to protect her unborn baby from state sponsored violence.

The price for failing to conform to the one-child-per-couple policy is staggering. A Chinese woman who becomes pregnant without a permit will be put under mind-bending pressure to abort. She knows that ``out- of-plan'' illegal children are denied education, health-care, and marriage, and that fines for bearing a child without a birth permit can be 10 times the average annual income of two parents, and those families that can't or won't pay are jailed, or their homes smashed in, or their young child is killed. If the brave woman still refuses to submit, she may be held in a punishment cell, or, if she flees, her relatives may be held and, very often, beaten. Group punishments will be used to socially ostracize her--her colleagues and neighbors will be denied birth permits. If the woman is by some miracle still able to resist this pressure, she may be physically dragged to the operating table and forced to undergo an abortion.

Her trauma, like Feng and Guo, is incomprehensible. It is a trauma she shares, in some degree, with every woman in China, whose experience of intimacy and motherhood is colored by the atmosphere of fear. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports staggering 500 female suicides per day in China. China is the only country in the world where the female suicide rate is higher than the male, and according to the Beijing Psychological Crisis Study and Prevention Center, in China the suicide rate for females is three times higher than for males.

The result of this policy is a nightmarish ``brave new world'' with no precedent in human history, where women are psychologically wounded, girls fall victim to sex-selective abortion (in some provinces 140 boys are born for every 100 girls), and most children grow up without brothers or sisters, aunts or uncles or cousins.

Over the years I have chaired 37 congressional human rights hearings focused in whole or in part on China's one-child policy. At one, the principal witness, Wuijan, a Chinese student attending a U.S. university testified about how her child was forcibly murdered by the government. She said, ``[T]he room was full of moms who had just gone through a forced abortion. Some moms were crying. Some moms were mourning. Some moms were screaming. And one mom was rolling on the floor with unbearable pain.'' Then Wuijan said it was her turn, and through her tears she described what she called her ``journey in hell.''

At another hearing, a woman who was the director of a family planning clinic in Fujian said that by day she was a monster, by night a wife and mother of one.

Women bear the major brunt of the one-child policy not only as victimized mothers. Due to the male preference in China's society and the limitation of the family size to one child, the policy has directly contributed to what is accurately described as gendercide--the deliberate extermination of a girl--born or unborn--simply because she happens to be a girl.

As a result of the Chinese government's barbaric attack on mothers and their children, there are some tens of millions of missing daughters in China today. It has been noted that the three most dangerous words in China today are: ``it's a girl!''

Because of the missing girls--China today has become the human sex trafficking magnet of the world. Women and young girls from outside the country are being sold as commodities throughout China--a direct consequence of the one-child policy.

I am the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, a comprehensive law to prevent trafficking, prosecute traffickers and protect victims.

One provision of the law requires an annual assessment of every country. According to this year's TIP Report released on June 19th:

China's birth limitation policy, coupled with a cultural

preference for sons, creates a skewed sex ratio in China,

which served as a key cause of trafficking of foreign women

as brides for Chinese men and for forced prostitution.

The government took no discernible steps to address the

role that its birth limitation policy plays in fueling human

trafficking in China, with gaping gender disparities

resulting in a shortage of female marriage partners. The

government failed to take any steps to change the policy; and

in fact, according to the Chinese government, the number of

foreign female trafficking victims in China rose

substantially in the reporting period. The Director of the

Ministry of Public Security's Anti-Trafficking Task Force

stated in the reporting period that ``[t]he number of foreign

women trafficked to China is definitely rising'' and that

``great demand from buyers as well as traditional preferences

for boys in Chinese families are the main culprits fueling

trafficking in China.

A June 26th op-ed in The People's Daily--the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party--shed light on the emerging demographic catastrophe that is China.

The article titled ``Leftover men to be a big problem'' admits that there is a ``bachelors'' crisis that will ``trigger a moral crisis of marriage and family'' and the ``continual accumulation of the number of unmarried men will greatly increase the risk of social instability.''

At a congressional hearing I chaired last September BYU Professor Valerie Hudson, author of Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population, testified that ``by year 2020 young adult bare branches--ages 15-34 will number approximately 23-25 million . . . the foremost repercussions will be an increase in societal instability, marked increases in crime, crimes against woman . . . and the formation of gangs . . .''

Nicholas Eberstadt, a world-renowned demographer asks, ``What are the consequences for a society that has chosen to become simultaneously, more gray and more male.''

In her assessment for security and potential war, Professor Hudson testified ``faced with worsening instability at home, and an unsolvable economic decline at home (as China ages) China's government may well be tempted to use foreign policy to `ride the tiger'

of domestic instability. The twin themes of anti-Japanese feeling and unfulfillment of China's reunification with Taiwan will be deeply resonant to much of the population of China. In the next two or three decades, we are likely to see observable security ramifications of the masculinization of China's growing young adult population, especially combined with an understanding of the consequences of global aging . . .''

Last August Vice President Joe Biden visited China, and told the audience that he was well aware of and ``fully understood'' the one- child policy, and that he was not ``second guessing'' the State for imposing it. Can you imagine what the public reaction would be if the Vice President had said that he ``fully understands'' and is not ``second guessing'' copyright infringement and gross violations of intellectual property rights?

The one-child-per-couple policy is the most egregious, vicious attack on women ever. For the Vice President of the United States to publicly state that he fully understands the one child policy and then say he won't second guess it is unconscionable, and sells out every mom in the

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I held a hearing to examine U.S. policy and policy options for managing relations with Nigeria in light of concerns on terrorism and social and political unrest.

The stability and commitment to justice and the rule of law of the Nigerian government is critical to regional, continental and global economic interests. Nigeria is hugely important on many fronts. Nigeria, Africa's largest producer of oil and its largest democracy, is one of the U.S. government's key strategic partners on the continent. It is Africa's most populous country, with more than 155 million people, roughly half Muslim and half Christian, and its second-largest economy. Nigeria supplies nearly three times the volume of imports to the United States as Angola, the second leading U.S. import supplier. The United States receives nearly 20% of our petroleum exports from Nigeria.

Consequently, Nigeria's stability is of critical interest for the U.S. economy and American policy interests in Africa.

Attacks by the Nigerian Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram on Christians, including attacks launched this past weekend, are unprovoked and unconscionable. People of all faiths--and all people of goodwill--must demand immediate action against this terrorist organization.

According to Catholic News Agency/EWTN News:

``Archbishop Ignatius A. Kaigama is concerned over the seemingly endless violence against Christians that claimed at least 58 lives this past weekend and hundreds of others in recent weeks. It is `our prayer that something definitive will be done to stop the situation that is inhuman,' the Archbishop of Jos, Nigeria and Nigerian Bishops' Conference president said. In a July 9 interview with Vatican Radio, Archbishop Kaigama said that the violence against Christian villages around Jos `doesn't seem to stop.' Although he was recently awarded the Institute for International Research's annual peace building award, the archbishop said he and his priests are discouraged by the silence of foreign governments surrounding the violence in Nigeria. A peaceful resolution `cannot be left to just one country,' the archbishop said, urging a, `collective effort.' ''

Boko Haram reportedly is in league with al-Qaeda in the Mahgreb and is involved at some level with Tuareg rebels in northern Mali, Islamists in Somalia and possibly even the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In addition to its well-publicized attacks on Christians in Nigeria, Boko Haram has been involved in murdering those they consider moderate Muslims or Muslims collaborating with the central government or the West, including several Muslim clerics, the leader of the All Nigeria People's Party and the brother of the Shehu of Borno, a northern Muslim religious leader. There are reports that some northern Nigerian leaders may be supporting Boko Haram in some way as leverage against a government they oppose.

U.S. policy toward Nigeria also must take into account ethnic, religious and political challenges the Nigerian government faces outside of the Boko Haram dynamic. Furthermore, development deficits in Nigeria have had unequal impacts on various minority ethnic groups, such as in Nigeria's Delta region. This lack of attention to equitable development in Nigeria has led to violent uprisings that do not appear to be resolved in any part of the country, certainly not in the Niger Delta.

In Nigeria, President Goodluck Jonathan is considered to be the personification of his name: a fortunate politician who has been in the right place at the right time to enable him to enjoy a meteoric rise in politics with no perceived political base or political distinction in his relatively brief career. He was an obscure government employee before he entered politics in 1998, and a year later, he was elected Deputy Governor of Bayelsa State. Except for his success in negotiations with his fellow Ijaws in the troubled delta region, he served without any special distinction until he became the Governor of Bayelsa State, after his predecessor was impeached on corruption charges in 2005.

Outgoing President Olusegun Obasanjo selected then-Governor Jonathan to be the People's Democratic Party vice presidential candidate with Umaru Yar'Adua, a presidential candidate from the north, in the 2007 elections. Yar'Adua was ill for much of his time in office, and Jonathan was called on to exercise presidential authority in November 2009 when Yar'Adua was unable to do so. Nigerian power brokers accepted Jonathan as official Acting President in February 2010. When Yar'Adua finally died in May 2010, these power brokers only accepted Jonathan to be sworn in as president because he was not considered a threat and likely wouldn't run for reelection.

However, Jonathan surprised them by announcing in September 2010 that he had consulted widely throughout Nigeria and would run for president. Jonathan won the presidential election convincingly, but his ruling People's Democratic Party lost seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and PDP now holds four fewer governorships--down to 23 of 36.

In October 2010, the Jonathan Administration called for the fuel subsidy to be removed. The government's decision was met with demonstrations and strikes by national unions. But while the unions agreed to end strikes and protests, the Joint Action Forum, a civil society affiliate of the unions, continued protests for a time throughout the country. The government responded with what human rights groups charged was excessive force. In northern Kano State, a student was shot to death in the course of breaking up a rally.

In addition to the resentment caused by government brutality in dealing with the largely youth-led fuel subsidy protests, high unemployment, resentment over perceived government corruption, and mismanagement and experience in organizing social protests may yet have a lasting impact on Nigerian politics and society.

The issues of excessive government force in the Niger Delta, northern Nigeria and other areas of the country over several past governments in Nigeria has fed resentment. Combined with the northern political opposition, the increasing resistance by minorities and the civil society political revolt, the Jonathan Administration faces significant forces arrayed against it. The questions our government must answer are: will this government withstand its opposition and what can we do to help Nigeria to remain Africa's essential nation?

Mr. Speaker, this morning, my subcommittee held a hearing to examine current U.S. policy and U.S. policy options in response to the recent military coup in Mali and the larger revolt of the Tuareg people in northern Mali.

The Tuaregs have been in conflict with the central government in Bamako, Mali, for many years, but following the service of some Tuaregs as mercenaries for the late Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, the acquisition of more sophisticated weapons from the Libyan conflict

and increasing ties to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, they now pose a danger not only to Mali, but also to Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and perhaps even Nigeria.

Meanwhile, Mali, in recent years a model of African democracy, now finds itself struggling to resurrect democratic governance and put the military back in its proper role as part of government. The downfall of Mali's democracy could have a negative impact on the future of Mali, as well as the entire Sahel region of Africa.

Amadou Toumani Toure--popularly known as ATT--led a military coup in 1991 that created a transitional government and resulted in democratic elections in 1992. Mali's growing reputation for democratic rule was enhanced in 2002, when President Alpha Oumar Konare, having served the two terms permitted under the constitution, stepped down, and ATT, running as an independent and leveraging his reputation as Mali's ``soldier of democracy,'' was elected president.

Unfortunately, two issues eroded ATT's initial popularity. The first was a political system in which there appears to have been incentives for corruption. Certainly there was a growing public perception that the system was corrupt. The second was popular anger toward the government's handling of the Tuareg rebellion in the North. Weeks of protests at the government response to the northern rebellion dropped ATT's popularity to a new low.

On March 21, mutinying Malian soldiers, displeased with the management of the Tuareg rebellion, attacked several locations in the capital, Bamako, including the presidential palace, state television, and military barracks. The soldiers said they had formed the National Committee for the Restoration of Democracy and State and declared the following day that they had overthrown the government. This forced ATT into hiding.

As a consequence of the instability following the coup, Mali's three largest northern cities--Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu--were overrun by the rebels on three consecutive days. On April 5, after the capture of the town of Douentza, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) said that it had accomplished its goals and called off its offensive. The following day, it proclaimed independence of their homeland Azawad from Mali. The Islamist group Ansar al-Dine was later a part of the rebellion, claiming control of vast swaths of territory, although this control was disputed by the MNLA. On May 26, the MNLA and Ansar al-Dine announced that they had signed a pact to join their respective territories and form an Islamic state.

Will this alliance last? Perhaps not. The MNLA is an offshoot of a previous nationalist political movement and is dedicated to a separate homeland for the Tuaregs and Moors who comprise its membership. Ansar al-Dine, whose name means ``Defenders of Faith,'' is an Islamist group believed to have links with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other Islamist groups. Ansar al-Dine is dedicated to establishing sharia law--not only in Azawad, but also in the rest of Mali as well. Disputes between the two groups already have resulted in gunfire involving the supposed allies.

As we held this hearing today, the Economic Community of West African States, the African Union and the United Nations were discussing the viability of a peacekeeping mission in Mali. Such a mission would look to secure and protect civilian institutions and help restructure the Mali military. However, it also will focus on the situation in the North, which will be a tremendously sensitive matter, especially if the mission of the peacekeeping force is to retake territory from the MNLA and Ansar al-Dine.

To add further to the problematic nature of a response to the Mali coup and the Tuareg revolt, there is the matter of providing humanitarian aid to the 210,000 Malian refugees in Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and Algeria. Another 167,000 Malians are internally displaced. Many of them are in remote areas and are difficult to reach with food and medical supplies. There is the question of how effective our aid efforts will be in such a challenging situation.

But no matter how difficult this matter is to address, there are too many people affected for the United States to fail to provide leadership in the effort to solve this political-social crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Trent Franks for his extraordinary leadership and courage. He is a pro-life champion.

Mr. Speaker last year, an undercover videotaped sting operation by Live Action exposed several Planned Parenthood affiliates who are eager, ready,

and willing to facilitate secret abortions for underage sex trafficking victims--some as young or younger than 14.

As the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I found the on-the-record willingness of Planned Parenthood personnel to exploit young girls and partner with sex traffickers to be absolutely appalling.

Now Live Action has released another sting operation video--part of a new series, ``Gendercide: Sex Selection in America''--showing Planned Parenthood advising an undercover female investigator how to procure a sex-selection abortion.

Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood tells the investigator to wait until the baby is 5 months along to get an ultrasound that reveals the sex of the child. Then, if it's a girl, kill it.

Yesterday, The Huffington Post reported: ``No Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in States that explicitly prohibit sex-selection abortions.''

In other words, Planned Parenthood is okay with exterminating a child in its huge network of clinics simply because she's a girl. What a dangerous place for little girls. Let's not forget that Planned Parenthood aborts approximately 330,000 children every year. This, Mr. Speaker, is the real war on women.

For most of us, Mr. Speaker, ``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.

In her book ``Unnatural Selection,'' Mara Hvistendahl traces the sordid history of sex-selection abortion as a means of population control. She writes that by August of 1969, ``sex selection had become a pet scheme''--fewer girls, fewer future mothers, fewer future children.

At a 1969 conference, Christopher Tietze co-presented sex-selection abortion as one of the 12 new strategies representing the future of population control. He, by the way, got the Margaret Sanger Award 4 years later.

Sex-selection abortion is cruel, it's discriminatory, and it's legal. It is violence against women. Most people in government are unaware that it is part of a deliberate plan of population control. Support the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, sponsored by Mr. Franks.

Last year, an undercover video-taped sting operation by Live Action (liveaction.org) exposed several Planned Parenthood affiliates who were eager, ready and willing to facilitate secret abortions for underage sex trafficking victims--some as young or younger than 14--to get them on the streets again.

As the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I found the on-the-record willingness of Planned Parenthood personnel to exploit young girls and partner with sex traffickers to be absolutely appalling.

Now Live Action has released another sting operation video--part of a new series, Gendercide: Sex Selection in America--showing Planned Parenthood staff advising an undercover female investigator how to procure a sex-selection abortion.

Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood tells the investigator to wait until the baby is 5 months along to get an ultrasound that will reveal the sex of the child.

Then, if it's a girl, kill it.

Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that ``no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in states that explicitly prohibit sex selection abortions.''

In other words, Planned Parenthood is OK with exterminating a child in its huge network of clinics simply because she's a girl. What a dangerous place for little girls. Let's not forget that Planned Parenthood aborts approximately 330,000 children each year. This, Mr. Speaker, is the real war on women.

For most of us, Mr. Speaker, ``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.

By now most people know that the killing of baby girls by abortion or at birth is pervasive in China due to the One Child policy and a preference for sons. China and India are ``missing'' tens of millions of daughters.

In her book, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, Mara Hvistendahl, traces the sordid history of sex-selection abortion as a means of population control. ``By 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.

(I would note parenthetically, in March of 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also received the Margaret Sanger Award and said in her acceptance speech that she was ``in awe'' of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. To our distinguished Secretary of State, I respectfully ask: Are you kidding? In ``awe'' of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, ``Eugenics . . . is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems.'' And who also said in 1922, ``The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.''

Secretary Clinton in her speech said that Margaret Sanger's ``life and leadership'' was ``one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.'' Mr. Speaker, transformational, yes, but not for the better if one happens to be a woman, poor, disenfranchised, weak, a person of color, vulnerable, or among the many so-called undesirables who Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.)

Mr. Speaker, these cruel, anti-woman policies have had horrific consequences.

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 last Fall; ``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. This still-growing international predilection for sex-selective abortion is by now evident in the demographic contours of dozens of countries around the globe--and it is sufficiently severe that it has come to alter the overall sex ratio at birth of the entire planet, resulting in millions upon millions of new ``missing baby girls'' each year. In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby girls.''

As far back as 1990, Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen wrote in The New York Review of Books that ``More than 100 Million Women are Missing.'' In 2003 Sen wrote that sex-selection abortion was the primary cause.

A 2008 study by Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of Columbia University documented ``male-biased sex ratios among U.S. born children of Chinese, Korean and Asian Indian parents in the 2000 U.S. census. The male bias is particularly evident for third children: If there was no previous son, sons outnumbered daughters by 50 percent . . . We interpret the found deviation in favor of sons to be evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage.''

A study published in 2011 by Sunita Pun and three other researchers undertook ``in-depth interviews with 65 immigrant Indian women in the United States who had pursued fetal sex selection on the East and West Coasts of the United States between September 2004 and December 2009 . . .'' and found ``that 40% of the women interviewed had terminated prior pregnancies with female fetuses and that 89% of women carrying female fetuses in their current pregnancy pursued an abortion.''

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.

The United States is a destination country for sex selection abortion. According to the House Judiciary Committee Report, ``women cross the border from Canada (where it is illegal) to obtain sex selection abortions in the United States.''

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, authored by pro-life champion Congressman Trent Franks, seeks an end to this pernicious form of violence against women by prescribing criminal and civil penalties on abortionists who knowingly perform an abortion based on sex or gender of the child.

If enacted, the Act will also penalize anyone who uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex selection abortion. This anti-coercion provision is an extremely important protection for women.

According to the House Judiciary Committee Report; ``sex-selection abortions are oftentimes coerced.'' The Report notes ``women who refuse sex-selection abortions are sometimes physically abused. A woman may be denied food, water, and rest to induce abortion where it is determined that the woman is carrying a female unborn child. Some women described being hit, pushed, choked and kicked in the abdomen in a husband's attempt to terminate a female unborn child. Pregnancy is already a vulnerable time for women; the most common cause of death for pregnant women in the United States is homicide, often at the hands of the unborn child's father.''

And the Act will hold accountable anyone who knowingly solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex selection abortion or transports a woman into the U.S. or across a state line for a sex selection abortion.

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.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady, the chairwoman of our committee, for her great leadership on all things related to the Middle East, especially in the defense of Israel. I thank my good friend and colleague Mr. Berman. These two individuals work so hard every day for the peace and security of Israel, and I congratulate them.

I also thank Eric Cantor, the author, along with the distinguished gentlelady and Mr. Berman and Mr. Hoyer, for bringing before the House the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012. This bill reaffirms and modernizes the U.S. commitment to and cooperation with our great friend and ally Israel. This is a must-pass bill because our commitment is--and it must be perceived to be-- unequivocal.

I would say to my friends and colleagues that, because of the dangerous and escalating threats, including genocide, that are facing Israel today, we must reiterate unanimously in this body today our support for the nation of Israel.

Freedom House's annual report on the world, which assesses the political and civil liberties of nearly every nation in the world, shows that Israel is surrounded by nations that profoundly disrespect the political and civil liberties of their own citizens, often using torture and all kinds of means of hate against their own people, and of course they foment that hate towards Israel. This includes Iran, Syria, and many in the Gaza that have human rights records that are among the worst in the world.

As we all know, some of Israel's neighbors openly question Israel's right to exist. Iran's anti-Semitic leader, Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. I would note parenthetically that Iran is a signer of the Genocide Convention and that it has been since it ratified it back in 1956.

Where is the United Nations, especially with regard to those who enforce the Genocide Convention, when those kinds of barbaric statements are made by the likes of Ahmadinejad? With this bill, Mr. Speaker, the United States underscores and reiterates our unshakable commitment to Israel. With this bill, the U.S. reaffirms--in word and in deed--our commitment to the defense of the Jewish state. Specifically, the bill enhances Israel's ability to defend itself.

Superior deterrence remains among the best guarantors of peace, and that has certainly been the case in the Middle East. When Israel's military superiority was unclear in the eyes of its enemies soon after it was created, soon after Israel became a state, Israel was tested repeatedly with war. Of course, Israel won those wars decisively. Since then, Israel's military superiority has been clear and compelling. So in response, Israel's enemies have relied on the tactics of the bully and of the coward, especially with their use of terrorism. They have attacked with Gaza rockets, with the intifada, with the flotilla; and Israel's task has been to overcome those deadly aggressions.

Again, this bill provides a clear commitment by the United States to our great friend and ally, the State of Israel.

Overcoming aggression is a daunting task--particularly for a country so small and vastly outnumbered--but Israel has been up to the task. And it's our country's moral obligation to give them every assistance. With this bill, Israel will be better equipped for any scenario as it fulfills its solemn duty to protect its own people from harm.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4133 also specifies further assistance for several programs where it will be most effective in deterring attack and defending Israel, including for the Iron Dome, Israel's successful means of defending against missiles, rockets, and other projectiles targeting Israeli homes and businesses.

H.R. 4133 also expands U.S. military and civilian cooperation with Israel, including an offer to the Israeli Air Force for additional training opportunities in the United States to compensate for Israel's limited air space, and other enhanced cooperation on intelligence sharing.

Israel has shown itself to be a good friend to the United Sates, not only setting the standard for democracy and human rights in the region, but by being trustworthy with loans--always repaying loans on time and in full. This bill recognizes Israel's dependability with an extension of the long-standing loan guarantee program for Israel.

Finally, this bill reaffirms that the only viable option for peace and security in the region is an Israeli state and Palestinian state existing side-by-side. The Palestinian Authority and surrounding nations should take note. H.R. 4133 makes crystal clear the United States will not stand for terrorist threats or political shenanigans at the UN attacking Israel and attempting to bypass the hard work of forging a nation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4133 makes our country's alliance relationship an even more effective agent for deterring war and defending Israel in the tragic event of war. I am proud to support this bill, and thank my good friend Mr. Cantor for introducing it.

Mr. Speaker, conflict in Africa had been winding down in recent years, except in Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These conflicts, as well as simmering

tensions and sporadic violence in countries like Algeria and Nigeria, offered opportunities for al-Qaeda, still the world's leading organizer of global terrorist attacks. This jihadist organization has repeatedly found allies involved in what started out as local quarrels and is attempting to internationalize them.

Africa, like the rest of the developing world, has been a successful recruiting area for al-Qaeda. The so-called ``underwear bomber,'' Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria, was recruited by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to detonate a bomb on a Northwest Airlines flight as it approached Detroit on December 25, 2009. In its effort to become the leading al-Qaeda affiliate, AQAP has aligned itself with Islamic extremists beyond its native Yemen. Across the Gulf of Aden, the longstanding chaos in Somalia created a likely ally in al-Shabaab.

This designated Foreign Terrorist Organization was created by young Islamic jihadists who sought to establish a ``Greater Somalia'' under sharia law as a reaction to a transitional government run by former warlords, who to this day are believed to be engaged in corrupt activity. Despite its alliance with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab still appears to be focused more on attacking the Transitional Federal Government, African Union peacekeepers and Somali citizens than foreigners not in their country.

Could that change? Of course it could. Some of the many young Somalis who left the United States to fight for what they believed was the sovereignty of their homeland are returning to this country, and one must wonder to what extent they have adopted a jihadist mentality. They could be merely disillusioned young men returning from an idealistic adventure, or they could be sleepers ready and willing to strike inside our homeland at some future point.

Boko Haram in Nigeria has gained significant attention recently for its well-publicized attacks on Christians. There was the Christmas Eve 2010 bombing in Jos; the February 15, 2011, shootings at a church in Maiduguri, and the April 8, 2012, suicide car bombing at a church in Kaduna. However, to say that Boko Haram is strictly an anti-Christian terrorist organization would be to mischaracterize this violent movement.

Boko Haram objects to moderate Muslims, as embodied for them by the Sultan of Sokoto. The Sultan's religious authority over Nigeria's Muslims was established by the British during colonialism, and he is now seen as a tool of the central government in Nigeria and by extension America and the West--both of which would be considered as being under Christian control. Boko Haram has killed Muslim leaders it considers insufficiently fundamentalist and still seems focused on opposing and embarrassing before the world a central government it considers to be worldly and neglectful of development in northern Nigeria. There are credible reports that Boko Haram is training with al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) in northern Mali along with Tuareg rebel groups that have taken over that region.

Could they pose a threat to the American homeland? Perhaps at some future date.

AQIM itself is a homegrown African terrorist organization. This Foreign Terrorist Organization was established as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat in 1998 when other Islamic extremists laid down their arms in their fight against the Government of Algeria. That fight stemmed from the 1992 nullification by the Algerian government of a second series of parliamentary elections that appeared to be poised to empower the Islamic Salvation Front political alliance. Since then, the group declared allegiance to al-Qaeda and in 2006 became Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb.

This group has repeatedly declared its intention to attack Algerian, Spanish, French and American targets. It has taken advantage of the revolt in Libya and the unrest in northern Mali to expand its affiliations among African internally-focused terrorists. As an active al-Qaeda affiliate, it definitely has international aims beyond its original Algeria targets. The Tuareg groups now concentrating on declaring a homeland in northern Mali (and perhaps other parts of the Sahel) and Boko Haram certainly offer allies who may provide recruits for more global attacks.

As for the Lord's Resistance Army, it is an outlier in this group of terrorist organizations. The LRA emerged in northern Uganda in 1987, the year after Yoweri Museveni, a rebel leader from southern Uganda, seized power and ended nearly a decade of rule by northerners. Following Museveni's victory, Alice Lakwena, a spiritual leader from the northern Acholi tribe, emerged as a key figure among northern rebel factions seeking to overthrow the government. Lakwena's Holy Spirit Movement was defeated by the Ugandan military in 1987, and Lakwena fled to Kenya. Joseph Kony, a reported relative of Lakwena, emerged and laid claim to Lakwena's legacy with the LRA.

Kony's LRA began to target civilians in northern Uganda and sought support and protection from the Government of Sudan. This Ugandan member of the State Department's Terrorist Exclusion List killed more than 2,400 people and kidnapped more than 3,400 others between 2008 and 2011 alone. This has included people from not only Uganda, but also South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. However, the LRA is not known to be affiliated with any element of al-Qaeda, and their cross-border terrorist activities are more a function of being chased by regional militaries, and now a U.S. advisory group, than any effort to take over territory.

Whatever their motivations, these terrorist organizations pose a great challenge to governance, peace and security in Africa. We must be concerned about the possibility of future attacks on U.S. citizens and interests abroad and even the U.S. homeland. However, to end the threat these terrorist groups pose, we must understand their origins and determine what can be done to reduce their base of support in their home countries. In doing so, we not only help add to the stability of those countries, but also minimize the larger threat to peace and security globally.