Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 13, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' when I intended to vote ``no.''

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I chaired a hearing to examine the ongoing human rights situation in Vietnam.

The Vietnamese Government continues to be an egregious violator of a broad array of human rights. Our distinguished witnesses who testified before me yesterday provided detailed accounts; I would like to highlight just a few areas of grave concern.

Despite the State Department's decision in 2006 to remove Vietnam from the list of Countries of Particular Concern as designated pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, Vietnam, in fact, continues to be among the worst violators of religious freedom in the world. According to the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom's 2011 Annual Report, ``[t]he government of Vietnam continues to control religious communities, severely restrict and penalize independent religious practice, and brutally repress individuals and groups viewed as challenging its authority.'' I agree with USCIRF's conclusion that Vietnam should be designated a CPC country.

The State Department's designation of Vietnam as a Tier 2 Watch List country with respect to the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking also needs to be critically examined. The Department's 2011 Trafficking in Persons Report states not only that Vietnamese women and children are being sexually exploited, but that there are severe labor abuses occurring as well--with the government's complicity. The Report acknowledges that state-affiliated and state- licensed labor export companies engage in numerous trafficking-related violations, including fraud and the charging of illegal commissions for overseas employment. There also are documented cases of recruitment companies ignoring pleas for help from workers in exploitative situations.

As the sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I am deeply disturbed that the Tier Rankings are not being better utilized by our State Department to pressure Vietnam to correct the trafficking abuses occurring within its government, not to mention those in the private sector.

We were particularly privileged to have Ms. Phong-Anh Vu with us to testify about the horrific suffering she endured when she was trafficked from Vietnam to Jordan. It is also troubling to hear about the abuse that she and others have continued to endure at the hands of the Vietnamese Government even after their escape from their traffickers. I greatly admire her courage and the Subcommittee is most appreciative the testimony she presented yesterday.

I met other courageous individuals during my last trip to Vietnam who were struggling for fundamental human rights in their country. Unfortunately, many of them continue to be persecuted by the government. Father Ly is in prison and is suffering from very poor health, and Attorney Nguyen Van Dai remains under house arrest.

Despite this dismal status for human rights in Vietnam, there are new opportunities for the United States to exert pressure on the government to cease these abuses.

H.R. 1410, the Vietnam Human Rights Act which I introduced last year--and which passed the House previously in 2007--would provide significant motivation to the government of Vietnam to respect its international human rights obligations. It would prohibit any annual increase in the amount of non-humanitarian assistance that the United States provides to Vietnam unless there is an equal or greater increase in the amount of assistance for human rights and democracy promotion programming in Vietnam.

An increase in non-humanitarian assistance would also be prohibited unless Vietnam satisfies certain requirements, including substantial progress toward respect for the freedom of religion and freedom of expression and assembly, respect for ethnic and minority rights, and allowing Vietnamese nationals free and open access to United States refugee programs. The government would also have to end its complicity in severe forms of human trafficking.

In addition, this legislation would reaffirm the United States' commitments: to overcoming the jamming of Radio Free Asia by the Vietnamese Government; to engaging in cultural exchanges in a manner that promotes freedom and democracy in Vietnam; and to offer refugee resettlement to Vietnamese nationals who have been deemed ineligible solely due to administrative errors or for other reasons beyond their control.

I thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the right-to-life movement is the greatest human rights movement on Earth, a remarkable decades-long struggle embraced by millions of selfless women and men of all ages, races, colors and creed and made up in recent years, I'm happy to say, disproportionately of young people.

We defend and seek to protect all the weak and vulnerable persons from the violence of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. We believe in the politics and policies of inclusion, regardless of race, age, sex, disability or condition of dependence.

Yesterday, January 22, marked the 39th year since the infamous holdings of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the pair of Supreme Court decisions that nullified fundamental pro-life protections throughout the United States. The catastrophic loss of children's lives since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton has been absolutely numbing. Over 54 million children have been killed by dismemberment, chemical poisoning, lethal pills, suction and starvation.

Let's not forget that RU-486 is a chemical compound. It's two chemicals, and one of the effects of one of those chemicals is to literally starve the baby in the womb to death. The second chemical brings on delivery of a dead baby. Women have been harmed by abortion as well. Over 100 studies showed significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risk in women who abort.

The Times of London wrote, senior psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems. They found that women who had abortions had twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who give birth or who have never been pregnant.

Younger women are also harmed by abortion psychologically. A comprehensive New Zealand study found that almost 80 percent of 15- to 18-year-olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers.

Abortion also has a deleterious effect on subsequent children born to women who have aborted. At least 113 studies showed significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births. One study by Shah and Zoe showed a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93 percent increased risk after two.

What does this mean for subsequent children born to women who have had abortions? Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital abnormalities or anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering from common lung disease, sensory deficit, cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment and behavioral problems.

Low birth weight, which is also one of the consequences, is associated with neo-natal mortality and motility.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, at the March for Life today, there were large, large numbers of people, tens of thousands of people. As cochair of the Pro-Life Caucus, I was proud to stay with so many of our lawmakers here, many of whom are on the floor tonight, and also with our leadership, Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Kevin

McCarthy and Jeb Hensarling, among the most profoundly important speeches made about the sanctity and the dignity of human life.

And they have produced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, which not only would be a government-wide prohibition on government funding for abortion, it also had a robust, very significant conscience clause as part of that legislation.

The Protect Life Act and, of course, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, a group that aborts in its clinics some 330,000 abortions, 330,000 dead babies in its clinics each and every year. It was a great march and we had women from Silent No More campaign, post-abortive women who eloquently speak to all women not to have abortions because they are the ones who have been victimized by it, but also as a pathway to healing and reconciliation for those who have. This movement is all about forgiveness and all about reconciliation and reaching out to those who are on the other side, especially post-abortive women.

I would like to now yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn.

I want to thank my friend, Mrs. Blackburn, for her very eloquent comments, and thank her for her leadership.

I would now like to yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), who has led both in Ohio when she was there in the legislature as well as here in Washington.

I thank my good friend for her excellent statement.

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Walberg, thank you very much for that very eloquent and God-centered testimony on behalf of life. I would point out that throughout the Capitol and throughout the country there were religious services on behalf of the unborn seeking reconciliation and wisdom from above and healing. One of those was the National Memorial for the Preborn and Their Mothers and Fathers right here in the Capitol. Clergy from various denominations gathered together to pray and to hear readings from the Gospels, Old and New Testaments, and to hear the preaching of Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-Life Religious Council, and so many others of all denominations and faiths pleading before the Lord for reconciliation and, frankly, for forgiveness for this terrible tragedy of abortion on demand.

I would like to now yield to the gentlelady from New York, Ann Marie Buerkle. Mr. Walberg talked about the lawyers. Well, she is a lawyer and a nurse and brings a unique perspective to this fight, the struggle for the human rights of the unborn and for their mothers.

Thank you, Ms. Buerkle.

I would like to now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe. We have, in this Congress, a number of medical doctors, most of whom are profoundly pro-life. And in the case of Dr. Roe, I believe he has delivered at least 5,000 babies.

Dr. Roe, thank you so very much for your kind remarks, and you have been a leader, as have the Members that have been speaking. There's no single leader, except for maybe Henry Hyde when he was the leader here in the House. But this is a group leadership of men and women who are just passionately in favor of life.

I mentioned doctors who are strongly members of this Pro-Life Caucus. Well, one of those is Dr. Fleming from Louisiana, and I would like to yield to him.

And I just point out that the Obama administration has declared war on conscious protections. He has done it in a repeated fashion, most recently in ordering all health insurers, including faith-based institutions, to pay for all means of preventing pregnancy, including subsidizing abortifacients like Ella and Plan B. Everyone must comply regardless of moral objection or religious tenets simply because Obama says so.

The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops recently had a grant to assist human trafficking victims under a law I wrote called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. They did a great job. The reviewers said so and gave it very high marks. But that wasn't enough for the Obama administration. This past fall, the USCCB was blatantly discriminated against and thrown out of the program simply because they would not refer for abortions.

And Mr. Lankford, who will speak shortly as well, did a wonderful job in a hearing in bringing out, as did Chairman Issa, how discriminatory this really is.

Leading the effort on conscience protection, prime sponsor of the Abortion Nondiscrimination Act, is Dr. Fleming.

I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama, Congresswoman Martha Roby.

One of the blessings of this Congress is that we have so many articulate and brave women who speak out in defense of life. I have been here for 32 years and I think we have now more pro-life women than ever.

I thank the gentlewoman.

I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Marlin Stutzman, who before coming to the House, fought for life in the legislature. And he did a wonderful job.

Thank you very much and thank you for reminding all of us that Planned Parenthood really is Child Abuse, Incorporated, 329,000, 332,000 the year before that of innocent children decimated, killed in their clinics.

I would like to now yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Stevan Pearce, who is back to us having served in the House. He came back after a different run.

He is a stalwart for life and a great friend of the unborn.

Thank you so much for that very, very eloquent statement.

I would like to now yield to Vicky Hartzler from Missouri, a new Member of Congress who has already made a serious impact, particularly on the life issue. So glad to have you here.

Thank you.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska, Jeff Fortenberry, who is the prime sponsor of the

Respect for Rights of Conscience Act and has combated abortions both at home as well as in foreign nations.

Thank you so much for your powerful statement.

I'd like to now yield to G.T. Thompson, a good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania who has spoken out so eloquently time and again on behalf of the sanctity of life.

I thank my good friend. Again, a very, very powerful statement.

I'd like to yield to Alan Nunnelee from Mississippi. I thank him for being here this evening.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. James Lankford.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

In conclusion, tomorrow night, the President will call for a return to American values in his State of the Union message.

Mr. President, the violent destruction of the child in the womb, of the killing of babies and of the wounding of their moms is not an American value.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and Co-Chairman of the Congressional Poland caucus, to remember the declaration of martial law in Poland 30 years ago

this month, and to pay tribute to the men and women of Poland who triumphed against repression, ultimately helping to bring democracy to a whole continent.

It is well known that in Poland the resistance to communism was particularly broad and deep--Stalin is reputed to have said that trying to impose communism on Poland was like trying to put a saddle on a cow. And so for several decades, Poles pushed back against the dictatorship that had been imposed on their exhausted country at the end of World War II. They pushed back in 1956 when workers from Poznan marched to Warsaw demanding ``bread and freedom.'' They pushed back through actions by students and intellectuals in 1964 and in 1968. And workers took to the streets again in Gdansk in 1970, including one young man named Lech Walesa. Each time the communist government managed to keep itself in power through a combination of force, threats of force, concessions, and by divisively playing one group of Poles off against another group. But never was the Poles' desire for freedom extinguished or even diminished. Indeed it seemed to grow year by year.

In June 1979, when Pope John Paul II made his historic visit to Poland, he urged his countrymen and women: ``Be not afraid.'' A year later, in August 1980, the world stood in awe as shipyard workers struck at the Lenin factory in Gdansk, catapulting an unknown electrician, Lech Walesa, to the world stage. On August 31, Solidarity, the Warsaw Pact's first truly independent trade union was born.

Solidarity, of course, was much more than a trade union. Strikers in Gdansk included in their original 21 demands not only improved working conditions, but respect for freedom of speech and the press, religious liberties, and freedom for political prisoners. Over the next year and a half. Solidarity's card-carrying membership would grow to encompass nearly one-third of Poland's working-age population, but its influence was beyond measure. Moreover, Solidarity ultimately brought together diverse segments of the population--workers and peasants, students and intellectuals--that had not previously worked together for a common cause. And in Solidarity, one could see a nation acting for a high moral purpose, informed by church and conscience, and by a tradition of Polish patriotism.

Inevitably, Solidarity was seen as a threat not only to the communist authorities in Warsaw, but to their taskmasters in Moscow, who escalated pressure on Warsaw to impose a crackdown that would silence the growing movement. At midnight, on December 13, 1981, martial law was declared, and a military government was established. Poland's borders were sealed and its airspace closed. Phone service throughout the country was suspended. The routine sale of gasoline ceased. A curfew was established. Strikes, demonstrations, meetings, and public gatherings were banned. Solidarity was outlawed. Open censorship of mail was introduced and normal radio and television broadcasting was replaced with a loop of General Jaruzelski intoning that Poland was on the edge of an abyss. Tanks rumbled down Warsaw's broad boulevards, and the whiff of tear gas tinged the air.

Approximately 10,000 people were arrested during the Martial Law period, and dozens of people were killed, most notoriously during the ``pacification'' of the Wujek Coal Mine. The harshest controls were eased within weeks or months and martial law was formally lifted on July 22, 1983, but various forms of oppression continued for years. Many political prisoners were not released until the general amnesty in 1986, 5 years later.

Nevertheless, throughout the 1980s, and notwithstanding martial law, dissent in Poland burgeoned. By 1988, the ability of Solidarity to mount continuing strikes had forced the communist regime to blink-- roundtable negotiations between the authorities and the opposition began in early 1988, and the Solidarity movement was formally re- legalized on April 7. When Solidarity's official spokesman, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, testified before me at a Helsinki Commission hearing in September 1988, it was the first time that the Helsinki Commission received testimony from a Warsaw Pact dissident who was actually planning to return to his home country.

The roundtable talks eventually led to an agreement that 35% of the seats in parliament would be freely and fairly contested in the June 1989 elections, and all of the seats would be contested 4 years after that. The die, of course, was cast: when it came time to form a government, Solidarity put forward their own slate of candidates for prime minister. On August 19, 1989, Tadeusz Mazowiecki was elected Poland's first non-Communist prime minister in 40 years. Poland rightly deserves credit for playing a critical role in advancing human rights and democratic forms throughout the entire Warsaw Pact region. In fact, Poland rightly deserves credit for helping to dissolve the Warsaw Pact.

We all remember the fall of the Berlin Wall--one of the greatest moments of the 20th century. Let's not forget that, to a very great extent, the movement that brought down the Wall was ``made in Poland,'' or at least owes an immense debt to the Poles. For 45 years the Poles took the lead, within eastern Europe, in pushing back on communist rule, testing the limits of what the Soviets would tolerate. In other words, taking the risks. The rhythm of Polish uprisings and mass movements against communism is instructive: in 1944, the Nazis, with nearby Soviet forces blocking allied assistance, crushed the Warsaw Uprising; 12 years later, in 1956, the Poles were rioting again, and they wrung concessions out of the communist government; 12 years later, in 1968-1970, the same thing happened; then six later, in 1976; then 3 years later, in 1979 the visit of the new pope saw what amounted to massive demonstration of support for the Polish Catholic tradition which were at the same time demonstrations against communist tyranny; then 1 year later, in 1980, Solidarity was formed. But as the declaration of martial law demonstrated, the communists would only be able to exercise meaningful control through the use of an ultimately unsustainable degree of force. By the summer of 1989, it was clear that the Poles had stood down the Soviet Union. The communist parties of the eastern bloc were on their own, facing their peoples without Soviet military backing, setting the stage for them all to be swept from power.

So let's remember that from the 1950s through the 1980s the Polish people, acting for high moral purposes--religious freedom, human rights, liberty, solidarity, patriotism--ran great risks--even the risk of another Russian invasion and they succeeded to the enduring benefit not only of their own citizens, but all those around the globe who share those purposes.

At the end of this month, Poland will wrap up its tenure as the president of the European Union. It has come a very long way from the dark days of martial law and I am grateful that, as the United States seeks to promote democracy and human rights around the globe, Poland stands beside us as a leader in this effort.

I thank the distinguished chairwoman for yielding and join her first in mourning the passing of Vaclav Havel, the great President and human rights crusader, one of the founders of Charter 77, a magnificent human rights manifesto, that took the Helsinki final act and turned it into a very durable and tangible program of action for the people of Czechoslovakia. Charter 77 has been replicated all over the world, including in Belarus--it's called Charter 97 there--as well as in places like Vietnam, where it's Bloc 8406.

I would note parenthetically that, back in the 1980s, I and some members of the Helsinki Commission, including Steny Hoyer, sought to meet with members of Charter 77. All but one, Father Valclav Maly--now Bishop Maly--got through to our meeting. The rest were detained by the secret police, including Vaclav Havel.

It's interesting and very important to point out that Vaclav Havel, before he passed away, tragically, sent a strong letter to the people of Belarus encouraging them to hold firm and expressing his overwhelming solidarity with the people of Belarus as they seek their universally recognized human rights. Again, this man never ceased in his promotion of human rights anywhere--from Burma to Belarus-- including to his dying day, sending this

very important letter to the Belarusian people.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in strong support and urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 515 again. We passed it last July, but it came back from the Senate with a couple of additions which are very much appreciated.

I especially want to thank Chairman John Kerry and Senator Lugar for their cooperation in helping to bring this legislation back to the House; and I want to thank the distinguished gentlelady for her leadership, and Howard Berman, as well as the Speaker and Eric Cantor, for bringing this legislation to the floor.

This is a very timely piece of legislation. As was noted, it is exactly 1 year ago today since the bloody December 19, 2010, election- night crackdown in Belarus which swept up more than 700 opposition supporters, many of whom I know personally, who dared to challenge the rule of Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko.

On this day of remembrance, we are here in the House to pass legislation that we know President Obama will sign--he supports it-- that demonstrates our country's support for the human rights of the Belarusian people for democracy and the rule of law in Belarus through sanctions targeted against the dictator Lukashenko and his senior officials.

This legislation tracks legislation that I authored in 2004 and '06, which is current policy, called the Belarus Democracy Act, and it builds on that framework of trying to target those who are actually inflicting the abuse. It's timely and necessary. As I said, those jailed--and remember, there are many who have been jailed and more that are being jailed as we meet--have been subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment, and some have been tortured. More than 40 were convicted, and about a dozen, including several presidential candidates, remain imprisoned to this day. At a Helsinki Commission hearing that I chaired only last month, we heard shocking, heartbreaking testimony from one of the presidential candidates who had endured torture during his 2-month stay at a KGB prison--and, yes, Mr. Speaker, in Belarus, it is still called the KGB, reminding one how little Belarus has strayed from its dark, Soviet roots. In addition to the arrested, the families, the lawyers, the independent journalists and the democratic activists who are not yet in prison continue to be harassed and intimidated and their homes watched by the KGB. This has been the worst political crackdown in Europe in well over a decade.

The postelection crackdown has followed the pattern, however, of repression that has characterized Lukashenko's nearly 17-year rule. Through a series of rigged elections, large-scale intimidation, and the suppression of independent media and civil society, the dictator has long consolidated his control over virtually all national institutions. His dictatorship has the worst record for human rights by far of any government in Europe.

Specifically, and significantly, the sanctions outlined in the bill are aimed at the senior leadership of the dictatorship that displays utter contempt for the dignity and the rights of the Belarusan people. With these sanctions we stand with the Belarusan people and against their oppressors.

H.R. 515 requires the State Department to issue a new report to Congress on the sale, delivery, or provision of weapons or weapons- related technologies or training; Lukashenko's personal wealth and assets; and cooperation by the Belarusan Government with any foreign government or organizations related to censorship or surveillance of the Internet.

H.R. 515 states a U.S. Government policy of strong support for the Belarusan people in their struggle against Lukashenko to live in a free, independent country where their human rights are respected. The bill encourages those struggling despite overwhelming pressures from an anti-democratic regime. It calls for a full accounting of the 1999 to 2000 disappearances. This morning I was with a woman whose husband disappeared, presumed to be dead by this regime, and she continues to this day struggling for human rights on behalf of her people now in exile.

It calls for and supports radio, television, and Internet broadcasting to Belarus, specifically Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, Voice of America, European Radio for Belarus, and the satellite television station BelSat.

It calls for a release of all of the political prisoners. We can't say that enough. We can't say it one day and forget it the next. We need to redouble our efforts, beginning today, to promote a free Belarus where all can live in peace, freedom and prosperity without that knock in the middle of the night by the KGB.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2867, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization Act, as amended by the Senate.

Religious freedom--the right to worship and practice one's faith according to the dictates of one's own conscience--is a foundational human right. Many have called religious freedom the first freedom. Not only is it the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it is intrinsic to the human dignity of every man and woman on this earth.

However, it is a right denied or curtailed for many--and according to some estimates, most--people in the world.

For Copts in Egypt, Uighurs in China, Montagnards in Central Vietnam, Jews and Baha'i in Iran, many Buddhist monks in Burma, and countless millions elsewhere, the ability to live their faith without threat of persecution is a distant and unrealized promise.

Dr. Brian Grim, a witness at a recent hearing I held on religious freedom, has done significant research in this area. In a study he conducted in 2009, he found that nearly 70 percent of the world's 6.8 billion people live in countries with high or very high restrictions on religion. His study specifically cited Iran, Pakistan, China, and Egypt as among the most repressive of religious expression. This is significant not only because it highlights the number of people denied this most fundamental of human rights, but also because religious freedom is comprised of a ``bundle of rights.'' Religious freedom implies freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly, and even freedom of the press. Absent freedom of religion, all these other rights are in jeopardy.

In fact, Dr. Grim's research shows that countries that respect these rights reap a host of socio-economic benefits, including better education, better health care, greater equity of pay between men and women, and higher GDP, and these benefits arguably lead to greater social stability. On the other hand, countries without respect for religious freedom do worse on these socio-economic indicators, have greater societal tension, and are more prone to instability. The importance of promoting all components of religious freedom therefore cannot be overstated. Not only is it a moral imperative, but religious freedom keeps extremism and tyranny at bay.

For these reasons, U.S. leadership on religious freedom is desperately needed in many countries around the world, together with a more vigorous utilization of the means provided in the IRF Act for promoting religious human rights.

I was pleased to work with my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and to chair the Committee hearings and markup fourteen years ago that led to the enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Act provided our Administration with the tools necessary to make international religious freedom an integral component of the highest priority in U.S. foreign policy.

Contrary to assertions that singling out religious freedom would somehow make it seem more important or separated from other fundamental human rights--the Clinton Administration asserted that its strong opposition to the Act was based on its belief that the Act would result in a ``hierarchy of rights''--those of us who championed the bill argued that it was necessary to ensure that religious freedom is given its rightful place within the framework of human rights promotion.

The law provided a new and bipartisan focus, which has begun to grant religious freedom its rightful stature in the diplomatic and foreign policy of the United States, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was and is an important part of that effort. It was created as an independent body of experts to review the facts and make policy recommendations from a vantage point outside of our diplomatic corps, where bilateral and other concerns had sometimes resulted in the soft-pedaling of severe, ongoing violations of religious freedom around the world.

Even today, when the quality of State Department reporting on religious freedom issues has improved, the Commission continues to serve a critical role as a sounding board and a catalyst.

One indicator is the fact that the Commission's list of recommended ``Countries of Particular Concern'' for severe violations of religious remains larger than the number designated by the State Department.

In September, Secretary Clinton rightfully designated Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan as CPCs.

But the State Department's list does not add any new countries from last year, and glaringly omits Vietnam, whose policies have more than earned that badge of shame.

Secretary Clinton also did not designate Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan as recommended by the Commission.

We need the Commission more than ever. Already in the Congress, we have had six comprehensive hearings on religious freedom: Two in the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission regarding the religious freedom of minorities in the Middle East, especially Egypt; two on the Committee I chair regarding the prioritization of religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, and two in the Helsinki Commission on the particular plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

The Commission has been an invaluable resource to Congress as we monitor the protection and promotion of religious freedom around the world--and the response of the Administration on this very important issue.

They have also been a resource to governments seeking how to remedy religious freedom abuses within their own borders. For instance, in Indonesia, the Commission worked with members of the Indonesian House of Representatives and civil society groups who introduced measures to strengthen provisions in the criminal code regarding attacks on religious gatherings and amend the law governing the building of religious venues.

The Commission also continues to help network human rights and legal advocates in Indonesia working to defend individuals accused of ``blasphemy'' and religious minorities facing intimidation and violence from extremist groups. The Commission's work in Indonesia will have practical impact on the exercise of human rights--and preservation of peace--in Indonesia.

Other governments have looked to the Commission as a model for their own religious freedom Commissions.

The bill before us includes a number of bipartisan reforms to Commission authorities and operations to make their work even more effective.

I want to thank Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for working to bring to the floor this important bill, which deserves unanimous support. And I would like to extend a special thanks to Representative Wolf, whose tireless efforts on this legislation have brought hope to persecuted people across the world.

Mr. Speaker, last week I held a hearing on global online freedom.

About 2 billion people in the world regularly communicate or get information on the Internet. Well over half a billion people do so in repressive countries. As Internet use has become a vital and even the standard means to disseminate beliefs, ideas and opinions, so we see a growing number of countries that censor or conduct surveillance on the Internet, in conflict with internationally recognized human rights laws and standards.

In 2006, I held the first major hearing on Internet freedom, in this very room, in response to Yahoo!'s turning over the personally identifying information of its e-mail account holder, Shi Tao, to the Chinese Government--who tracked him down and sentenced him to 10 years for sending abroad e-mails that revealed the details of Chinese government press controls. At that hearing Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, and Cisco testified as to what we might ruefully call their ``worst practices'' of cooperation with the Internet police of totalitarian governments like China's. That same week I introduced the first Global Online Freedom Act, as a means to help Internet users in repressive states. In 2008 the Global Online Freedom Act was passed by three House committees.

In the last half dozen years the Internet, in many countries, has been transformed from a freedom plaza to big brother's best friend. The technologies to track, monitor, block, filter, trace, remove, attack, hack, and remotely take over Internet activity, content and users has exploded. Many of these technologies are made in the U.S.A. Many of them have important and legitimate law-enforcement applications. But, sadly, many of them are also being exported, every day, to some of the most unsavory governments in the world--whose use of them is far from legitimate. Every day we learn about more activists being arrested through the use of newly-developed technologies--much of it American technology--in China, Belarus, Egypt, Syria and many other countries around the world. The stakes are life and death for online democracy activists, and they deserve our support and protection.

For example, Belarus is blocking social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook and aggressively shutting down opposition Internet sites. Kazakhstan, which already blocks a number of popular blogs and media sites, is also in the process of creating a ``national Internet,'' where all domestic domain names will have to operate on physical servers within its borders. Syria is using sophisticated tools to limit the ability of the opposition to organize and to track down peaceful protestors. China

has created the Great Firewall and wants to create its own sanitized version of the Internet that will essentially isolate China from much of what is happening in the rest of the world. And, when protests break out, it simply shuts down the Internet, as it did in Tibet and Xinjiang in recent years.

In Vietnam, Facebook has been blocked for two years and under a new executive decree, a number of bloggers and journalists who write for independent online publications have been arrested. Egypt continues to detain blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah for his online criticisms of the Egyptian army. And today, we just learned that in addition to the already extensive online censorship in Iran, the U.S. ``virtual embassy'' in Iran has been blocked after only one day of operation.

Last week, I introduced a bill that responds to the growing use of the Internet as a tool of repression, and to changes in the technologies of repression. The new Global Online Freedom Act of 2011 (GOFA), H.R. 3605, fundamentally updates legislation that I first introduced in 2006 (and which in 2008 advanced through three House committees).

The new GOFA requires the State Department to beef up its reporting on Internet freedom in the annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices, and to identify by name Internet-restricting countries. This country designation will be useful not only in a diplomatic context in helping to advance Internet freedom through naming and shaming countries, but will also provide U.S. technology companies with the information they need in deciding how to engage in repressive foreign countries.

Second, the bill requires Internet companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission how they conduct their human rights due diligence, including with regard to the collection and sharing of personally identifiable information with repressive countries, and the steps they take to notify users when they remove content or block access to content. This provision of the bill will help democratic activists and human rights defenders hold Internet companies accountable by creating a new transparency standard for Internet companies. This provision will also require foreign Internet service companies that are listed here in the U.S. to report this information as well--this will include such big-name Chinese companies such as Baidu, Sohu and Sina.

Finally, in response to many reports that we've all seen in the papers recently of U.S. technology being used to track down or conduct surveillance of activists through the Internet or mobile devices, this bill will prohibit the export of hardware or software that can be used for potentially illicit activities such as surveillance, tracking and blocking to the governments of Internet-restricting countries. Current export control laws do not take into account the human rights impact of these exports and therefore do not create any incentive for U.S. companies to evaluate their role in assisting repressive regimes. This section will not only help stop the sale of these items to repressive governments, but will create an important foreign policy stance for the United States that will help ensure that dissidents abroad know we are on their side, and that U.S. businesses are not profiting from this repression.

This export control law is long overdue, and thoroughly consistent with the approach Congress has taken, for example, in restricting exports of certain crime control equipment to China. It makes no sense for us to allow U.S. companies to sell technologies of repression to dictators, and then turn around and have to spend millions of dollars to develop and deploy circumvention tools and other technologies to help protect dissidents from the very technologies that U.S. companies exported to their persecutors.

Today's hearing is an important moment to take stock of where we are and how we can move forward to promote and defend Internet freedom around the world. What we do here in the United States is critically important to achieving our goals. We must send a strong message to companies that they have a unique role to play in preserving online freedom; and send an even stronger message to repressive governments that the Internet must not become a tool of repression.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, I would ask that the following opening statements be submitted to the Record for the November 17, 2001 hearing on ``China's Censorship of the Internet and Social Media: The Human Toll and Trade Impact.''

China's Censorship of the Internet and Social Media: The Human Toll and

Trade Impact

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, which I chair, held a hearing on malaria, one of the most serious health issues facing the developing world, and particularly Africa, today.

For the last century, America has been a leader in the fight against malaria. While the United States and several other countries have been able to eliminate malaria, this deadly disease still presents a serious challenge to other parts of our world.

The World Health Organization estimates that 781,000 people died from malaria in 2009 and that 225 million people suffered from infection. Malaria is the fifth leading cause of death from infectious diseases worldwide. It inflicts a particularly severe toll on the people of sub- Saharan Africa, where ninety percent of deaths are caused by malaria. Moreover, approximately 85 percent of malaria deaths occur in children under 5 years of age. Every 45 seconds, a mother and father in Africa lose their child to malaria.

There is also a far-reaching impact on the wealth and development of countries with endemic malaria. Africa may lose up to $12 billion in productivity due to malaria each year due to the disease, while the disease in turn consumes about 40 percent of Africa's public health expenditures. These numbers and statistics are staggering, but they have a greater impact when one has been to Africa and met the individuals who must live with the disease.

Anyone who spends any meaningful amount of time in Africa and mingles with the African people will soon notice the prevalence of malaria. When you ask someone whether he or she has ever had malaria, they likely will respond not with a yes but with the time that has passed since they last suffered from it.

More astounding than the sad reality that malaria is killing or harming so many millions of people is the reality that malaria is preventable and treatable. The world has the tools to prevent and treat malaria. No one in the twenty-first century should have to suffer from it, let alone die from it.

When I last visited Uganda, I visited several homes, including a home in the remote region of Bushenyi. The three-room dwelling of white- washed walls and dirt floors was practically empty, and this made the insecticide-treated mosquito net over the floor mats all the more striking. These nets may seem like insignificant items when listed on paper, but they are noticeably visible in the modest homes of those families who rely on them for protection from this ravaging disease.

What began for the United States as an effort to protect our troops abroad and citizens here at home has become for us a larger global health objective.

In the last decade we have seen a renewed commitment by the United States, international organizations, and private foundations to eliminate all malaria deaths. The effort received a notable boost in 2007 when Bill and Melinda Gates renewed the challenge of worldwide malaria eradication.

While much progress has been made in combating malaria, as we have seen from past eradication efforts, malaria can resurge when treatment becomes ineffective through drug resistance. While the global commitment remains to beat this disease, and to beat it as soon as possible, the stakes are too high to bet it all on doing so before the tools we have lose their impact.

At yesterday's hearing the subcommittee received an update on the progress toward malaria elimination in the most endemic countries with a focus on the vitality and effectiveness of the treatment component. The hearing examined the future of anti-malarial drug and vaccine development, and challenges in ensuring an adequate supply of effective medicines. We also heard about the continued availability, affordability, and safe distribution of quality anti-malarial medicines.

Our distinguished witnesses explored means for achieving the immediate goal of saving lives, and the ultimate goal of eradicating malaria from our world.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and Co-Chairman of the Congressional Poland Caucus, I rise today to speak about the legacy of Jan Karksi, the Polish resistance fighter who risked his life over and over again to bring first-hand reports of the mass murder of Jews in German-occupied Poland to the allied governments. 2014 will be the centennial of Karski's birth, making this a fitting time to remember and honor the heroism of this man.

To that end, a ``Jan Karski U.S. Centennial Campaign'' has been launched. This campaign will shine a spotlight on this historic figure of towering moral authority, and will increase public knowledge about Jan Karski's extraordinary courage and commitment. This American campaign is joined by a similar undertaking by the Polish History Museum in Warsaw, Poland.

I would like to have reprinted with my remarks today the eloquent tribute to Jan Karski made recently by David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee. For those who are unfamiliar with Karski's singular effort to sound the alarm regarding the unfolding Holocaust in Europe, I urge them to read David's description, published in the Jerusalem Post, of what Jan Karski did, and why it still matters today.

[Oct. 17, 2011]

Ode to Jan Karski

(By David Harris)

He passed away in 2000, at the age of 86.

The more time goes by, the more I miss him. Precisely when

his voice is needed more than ever, he is no longer among us.

In 1914, Jan Karski (ne Kozielewski) was born to a Catholic

family in Poland. The youngest of eight children, in 1939 he

was mobilized in the Polish army just before the Nazi

invasion on September 1. His wartime saga as officer, as

Soviet prisoner, as escapee, in the hands of the Gestapo, and

as a Polish Underground activist and courier, is beyond

remarkable.

In a world today where words such as ``courage'' and

``heroism'' have been so overused--applied freely from sports

to entertainment to politics--as to be rendered practically

meaningless, Jan Karski was the rare human being who embodied

both.

He put his life on the line repeatedly in defense of higher

principles--the struggle against Nazism and the defense of

his homeland, Poland. He carried with him all his life the

physical scars of his experience, including the wrists he

slit in an attempted suicide after prolonged beating by his

Nazi captors.

The emotional scars never healed, either. Nor did he want

them to. After the war, serving on the faculty of Georgetown

University for four decades, he would not allow what he had

witnessed to fade from memory, though, given his unusual

modesty, he refused to make a second career from his past

exploits.

He had seen the monstrous, indescribable bestiality of the

Third Reich unleashed throughout Poland. And Poland was the

epicenter of the Nazi grand design.

In 1944, he wrote a book, Story of a Secret State: My

Report to the World, after he had reached the United States

on assignment to recount what he had seen in Poland to

American officials. Once here, he was told by his superiors

not to return because his underground cover had been blown.

The book was an instant bestseller. Over the years,

however, it faded into obscurity. Now it has been republished

by Penguin in the United Kingdom, with, it is to be hoped, an

American edition to follow.

It is a gripping account. Indeed, it should be must-reading

for an understanding of the Second World War from the ground

up.

In effect, it tells three stories.

The first is of Karski, especially from the years 1939 to

1944.

The narrative is straightforward, unadorned, and moving--a

sobering reminder of what man is capable of when moral and

physical courage meld into one.

The second is of wartime Poland, and especially the

development of the Polish resistance movement.

There is no other story like it in occupied Europe. Not

only did local officials refuse to collaborate with the

Nazis, unlike the experience in France, Norway, and many

other countries, but the combined efforts of the Polish

government-in-exile and the elaborately woven underground

were beyond anything imaginable at the time.

And the third was of the Polish Jewish tragedy.

Before the clandestine journey that took him to London and

Washington, to meetings with the likes of British Foreign

Minister Anthony Eden and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt,

Karski, wearing a Star of David armband, was smuggled twice

into the Warsaw ghetto. Later, disguised as a guard, he spent

hours in a Nazi camp that shipped Jews to the Belzec death

camp.

What he saw in the Warsaw Ghetto and Izbica Lubelska never

left him.

Here is what he wrote in Story of a Secret State: ``I know

history. I have learned a great deal about the evolution of

nations, political systems, social doctrines, methods of

conquest, persecution, and extermination, and I know, too,

that never in the history of mankind, never anywhere in the

realm of human relations did anything occur to compare with

what was inflicted on the Jewish population of Poland.''

Then he asks: ``Is it still necessary to describe the

Warsaw ghetto?''

Fortunately, he answered his own question. Unfortunately,

however, not everyone read his response.

In the past decade alone, after Karski's death, we have

witnessed a flurry of pro-Palestinian activists--from members

of the British Parliament like George Galloway, Oona King and

Jenny Tonge, to Norwegian diplomat Trine Lelling; from U.N.

rapporteur Richard Falk to Portuguese Nobel laureate Jose

Saramago; from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Spanish

newspaper cartoonists--who superimpose Nazi terminology on

Israel with abandon, including obscene comparisons of the

Warsaw Ghetto and Gaza Strip.

Here's Karski's reply at the time: ``So much has already

been written about it, there have been so many accounts by

unimpeachable witnesses. A cemetery? No, for these bodies

were still moving, were indeed often violently agitated.

These were still living people, if you could call them such.

For apart from their skin, eyes, and voice there was nothing

human left in these palpitating figures. Everywhere there was

hunger, misery, the atrocious stench of decomposing bodies,

the pitiful moans of dying children, the desperate cries and

gasps of a people struggling for life against impossible

odds.''

And then, perhaps anticipating what the impact of time and

distance might mean for understanding this era, Karski wrote:

``I know that many people will not believe me, will not be

able to believe me, will think I exaggerate or invent. But I

saw it.''

Until his dying day, Karski stood as a guardian of the past

and its relevance to the present. He remained a fierce anti-

communist and, fortunately, lived to see his beloved Poland

return to the democratic family of nations, including

accession to NATO. He served as an early warning system

against the recurrence of anti-Semitism. And he understood

the central role of Israel in the life of the Jewish people.

In 1993, AJC gave Karski its highest award. In his

acceptance speech, he memorably declared that he was

confident there would never again be a Holocaust against the

Jews and said he knew why. He paused for a moment and then,

summoning his one-word explanation from the depths of his

soul, he pronounced each of the three syllables of ``Israel''

as if they were separate words, allowing the moment to

linger.

Jan Karski is gone, leaving no immediate family behind. But

with his eyewitness account, his recorded words, and his

towering example of courage, conviction, and compassion,

there is hope the world won't descend into an abyss of moral

fog and historical relativism or denial.

May Story of a Secret State become required reading, as a

source of both information and inspiration, in every 20th

century history course. And may copies find their way into

the hands of those today who display their shameful ignorance

by misrepresenting history.

Mr. Speaker, last week, several Congressional colleagues and I convened the first House-Senate Conversation between Congress and the African Diplomatic Corps on African issues. This historic event was opened by me, House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights Ranking Member Donald Payne, Senate Africa Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Coons and Senate Africa Subcommittee Ranking Member Johnny Isakson. We were joined during the event by Representative Karen Bass and Representative Bobby Rush.

Democratic Republic of the Congo Ambassador Faida Mitifu presented a comprehensive overview of the African diplomatic corps on the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, and trade, agriculture and food security and energy and infrastructure. She also joined us in presiding over this session.

Too often, we in Congress have only brief encounters with the African diplomats in Washington, and a fuller, ongoing interaction would be of help to both Members of Congress and diplomats in building U.S.-Africa relations that are mutually beneficial.

In our Subcommittee hearings, we conduct oversight on issues of concern involving U.S. policy--often regarding individual countries. For troubled countries such as Sudan, Somalia, Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe, such U.S. policy oversight is critical. However, the issues we are covering today require interactions that are more detailed and more sustained. Trade, agriculture and energy are important matters that call for the kind of discussions that go beyond an office visit or even today's dialogue.

It is the hope of our members and the diplomatic corps that we can use this initial event as the beginning of ongoing discussions on how to make AGOA more broadly beneficial for the nearly 6,400 covered items, for example. We need to better understand how to overcome the obstacles to successful U.S.-Africa agricultural trade. One comment was repeated by several diplomats: further delay in passing legislation to extend AGOA's third-party fabric provision will send damaging mixed signals to investors.

Africa's population of approximately 1 billion people has a growing consumer base that is capable of being a larger player in global trade. One out of every three Africans is now considered to be in the middle class. This rising middle class will enable both economic and political development in Africa. For the United States and other developed nations, these developments benefit us as well by providing an enhanced market for our products and allowing African countries a larger tax base that will lessen the need for foreign aid. More robust African economies are beneficial to the entire global economy.

We also have to work more effectively to help African nations produce more energy for themselves and developed world consumers such as the United States. As Ambassador Mitifu pointed out in her opening statement, current trends indicate that less than half of Africa's population will have access to electricity by 2050. She and her colleagues called on our government to support such projects as the Grand Inga Dam project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which would contribute 39,000 megawatts for a continent-wide electricity grid.

A major theme among the comments and questions by the diplomats who participated in this event was concern about security and a desire to partner with the United States in combating terrorism, trafficking in persons, the international drug trade, piracy and other criminal activity that affects the continent.

As we all know, the United States faces a reduced ability to fund programs at previous levels. Consequently, we are working to ensure that the funds we do have are used as efficiently and effectively as possible. In order to maximize these goals, we must have a better idea of the actual needs of African societies. In everything we do together, there must be collaboration and the goal of mutual benefit. A win-win situation is sustainable, but programs aimed at only one beneficiary are not.

Deciding for Africans what their needs may be is not an appropriate strategy. We need African governments to be stakeholders in whatever programs we fund, and that will not be likely if they are not consulted in advance. Better program targeting requires partnership, and we hope this session is part of the creation of an enhanced partnership between us.

Mr. Speaker, on November 2, our Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the current U.S. government policy toward the Republic of Zimbabwe and to consider how our policy toward this southern African nation may develop in the years ahead. Zimbabwe is considering a new constitution that will lead to the elections in 2012 that had been postponed from this year.

There has been mutual hostility between the United States government and the Zimbabwe government of Robert Mugabe since that country became independent in 1980, although Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson said in his testimony that the relationship worsened with the extra-legal seizures of white-owned land in the 1990s. Mugabe and his supporters blame America for not supporting its liberation struggle, while the United States has criticized Mugabe's government consistently for human rights abuses, especially against its political opponents. With U.S. Ambassador to Zimbabwe Charles Ray encouraging U.S. businesses to invest in Zimbabwe last month, it would seem that U.S. policy is in the midst of a transformation.

Following independence from Great Britain in 1980, Prime Minister Robert Mugabe's policy of political reconciliation was generally successful during the next two years, as the former political and military competitors within ruling Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Front and the rival Patriotic Front-Zimbabwe African Peoples Union began to work together. Splits soon developed, however, and PF- ZAPU's leader, Joshua Nkomo was removed from government.

When PF-ZAPU was accused of initiating a rebellion due to the removal of Nkomo from the cabinet, government military forces began a pacification campaign primarily in his base in the Matabeleland area, which resulted in as many as 20,000 civilian deaths.

In part through its control of the media, the huge parastatal sector of the economy and the security forces, the Mugabe government managed to keep organized political opposition to a minimum through most of the 1990s. Beginning in 1999, however, Zimbabwe experienced a period of considerable political and economic upheaval. Opposition to President Mugabe and the ZANU-PF government had grown, in part due to the worsening economic governance issues. At one point, one U.S. dollar was worth more than 2.6 billion Zimbabwe dollars. Following the seizure of white-owned commercial farms beginning in the 1990s, food output capacity fell 45 percent, manufacturing output dropped by 29 percent and unemployment rose to 80 percent.

The opposition was led by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which was established in September 1999. The MDC led the campaign to handily defeat a referendum that would have permitted President Mugabe to seek two additional terms in office. Parliamentary elections held in June 2000 were marred by localized violence and claims of electoral irregularities and government intimidation of opposition supporters. Still, the MDC succeeded in capturing 57 of 120 seats in the National Assembly.

The last four national elections--the presidential election in 2002, parliamentary elections in 2005, harmonized presidential and parliamentary elections in March 2008, and the presidential run-off in June 2008--were judged to be not free and fair by observers. In the March 2008 elections, two factions of the opposition MDC, known as MDC- T to denote Morgan Tsvangirai's faction and MDC-M for the group led by Arthur Mutambara, gained a combined parliamentary majority. Mugabe was declared the winner of the June 2008 run-off election after opposing candidate Tsvangirai withdrew due to ZANU-PF-directed violence that made a free and fair election impossible. Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President for the International Crisis Group, told the Subcommittee that as many as a third of MDC

Parliamentarians have been arrested since the 2008 election.

Negotiations subsequently took place, and in September 2008 the three parties signed the Global Political Agreement (GPA), a power-sharing agreement under which Mugabe would retain the presidency and Tsvangirai would become prime minister. In February 2009 Tsvangirai was sworn in as prime minister, and new cabinet ministers and deputy ministers from the two IvIDC factions and the ruling party also were sworn in. According to Dewa Mavhinga, Regional Information and Advocacy Coordinator for the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, stated that key state institutions remain unreformed despite the change in the composition of the government.

There is serious contention within the ruling party for the right to succeed President Mugabe once he leaves office, and added to the division within the opposition, politics in Zimbabwe is in flux to say the least. Paul Fagan, Regional Director for Africa for the International Republican Institute, testified that the ``imminent constitutional referendum and national elections have the potential to graduate the crisis in Zimbabwe from a steady but manageable simmer to boiling over.''

It is in this environment that the United States faces the challenge of examining our current policy and determining how it might best be adjusted. I appreciated hearing from our witnesses on how the U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe may change to help that nation reach the desired goals of democracy and good governance. Sharon Cromer, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Africa Bureau, told us that her agency is finalizing a democracy and governance assessment that ``highlights impediments and opportunities for us to promote democratic institutions in Zimbabwe.'' We eagerly await the release of that assessment for its impact on U.S. policy in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Speaker, on October 27 of this year, I held a hearing to examine the State Department's 2011 Trafficking in Persons Report. This annual report to Congress was first mandated by legislation that I sponsored, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, known as the TVPA.

In 1998, when I first introduced the TVPA, the legislation was met with a wall of skepticism and opposition. People both inside of government and out thought the issue of human trafficking was merely a solution in search of a problem. For most people at that time, the term trafficking applied almost exclusively to illicit drugs or weapons. Reports of vulnerable persons--especially women and children--being reduced to commodities for sale were often met with surprise, incredulity or indifference.

One major objection to the bill, especially from the Clinton administration, was the naming and ranking of countries based on compliance with the establishment of common-sense minimum standards-- clearly articulated prevention, protection, and prosecution benchmarks--enforced by sanctions and penalties against egregious violators.

Fortunately, reality won out over ignorance. Although it took two years to overcome opponents and muster the votes for passage, the TVPA was finally signed into law with strong bipartisan support. This support from both sides of the aisles has continued through subsequent reauthorizations, and has been essential to the ongoing successes by the United States Government in combating modern day slavery both at home and abroad.

However, the battle is far from over. According to the State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking--created by the TPVA--more than 12 million people worldwide are trafficking victims. Other estimates put the number of victims as high as 27 million. Today we know that human trafficking is the third most lucrative criminal activity in the world. According to the International Labor Organization, ILO, human traffickers make profits in excess of $31 billion a year.

At the hearing, we were fortunate to receive testimony from three State Department witnesses to examine both the substance and the diplomatic activity that is behind the Trafficking in Persons Report. The Report, which is written by the Trafficking in Persons Office currently headed by Ambassador Luis CdeBaca, summarizes the rankings and performance of each country and provides detailed recommendations as to how each country can improve its efforts. But more than a source of comprehensive, concise knowledge about the fight against human trafficking around the world, the TIP Report has been an incredibly effective diplomatic tool.

The Report has been a catalyst for improvement--often dramatic improvements--in the efforts of governments to address human trafficking within their borders and regions. With a combination of encouragement, persuasion, and sustained pressure via sanctions imposed by the United States, countries around the world have created or amended over 120 laws to combat human trafficking, and, in the past three years alone, an estimated 113,000 victims have been identified and assisted worldwide.

Individuals within each country can use the Report to assess their government's commitment and to lobby their government to take specific measures. The G/TIP Office also coordinates technical assistance and aid for many of the countries wishing to improve their anti-trafficking response.

The result has been a worldwide anti-trafficking surge, largely dependent on the credibility, accuracy, and faithful implementation of the Report, including the Tier framework.

We turned our attention to ensuring that the Report retains these essential attributes and to assess whether it is fulfilling its purpose.

In 2003, Congress added a special watch list to the Tier rankings to allow countries an opportunity to address serious shortcomings in their anti-trafficking efforts before being placed in Tier III and subject to sanctions. When it became apparent that this Tier II Watch List was becoming a permanent parking spot for some countries, Congress added a requirement to the 2008 reauthorization that the President either downgrade or upgrade any country that had been on the Tier II Watch List for two consecutive years. Obviously, the direction in which the country is moved is to be based on whether requisite measures were taken to meet the minimum standards.

The President can waive the requirement to move a country off of the Tier II Watch List for up to two years if the country has a plan to bring itself into compliance with the minimum standards and designates sufficient resources to carry it out. But this waiver should only be applied in the most extreme cases as countries have had since 2009 to undertake this effort.

Consequently, it is with concern that I note the President has determined 12 countries

need yet another year on the Tier II Watch List.

Some of these countries--China and Russia--have been on the Watch List for 7 and 8 years, respectively. Uzbekistan has been on the list for four years. I look forward to discussing with our witnesses today exactly why the Administration is convinced these countries need yet another year to get their acts together.

The Report shows that, of the 23 countries on Tier III, the full sanctions envisioned by the TVPA will be applied to only three countries--Eritrea, Madagascar, and North Korea. Partial sanctions will be imposed on seven countries, and thirteen countries will have no trafficking sanctions imposed whatsoever.

Some may argue that being on Tier III is punishment enough, but Congress envisioned tangible repercussion for countries on Tier III. Those who work on the front lines of human trafficking know all too well that a law is useless unless faithfully implemented.

Mr. Speaker, last week I held the first oversight hearing on the IRF Report since I chaired a hearing on the 2006 Report in December of that year. It is one of a series being held by this subcommittee that is examining this critically important issue. In June of this year, we held a hearing on prioritizing international religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy in the context of amending the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, known as IRFA. We have also examined freedom of conscience and religion in the context of China's and North Korea's overall abysmal human rights records.

A study conducted by Dr. Brian Grim of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, who testified before this Subcommittee in June, found that almost 70 percent of the world's population lives in countries with high or very high restrictions on religion. Although this study was conducted between 2006 and 2009, it was apparent back in the late 1990s that the fundamental human right of religious freedom was under severe attack around the world.

Congress gave expression to our commitment to international religious freedom with the passage in 1998 of IRFA, which concretely established the promotion and protection of religious liberties as a foreign policy goal. I was shocked at the time when IRFA was strongly opposed on the record by the Clinton Administration. John Shattuck, the former Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, claimed during his testimony in this very room that it would establish a hierarchy of human rights, under U.S. law.

I chaired the hearings on the legislation, and I as well as others pointed out that, for example, when we fought against apartheid and enacted laws to mitigate the abomination of racism in South Africa, we certainly did not detract from other human rights policies, it was always value added. Similarly, when we took up the cause of Soviet Jewry, and the Jackson-Vanik amendment was employed with such effectiveness, even though we risked superpower confrontation in order to effectuate the release of Jews who were being harassed and persecuted in the former Soviet Union, it did not detract. It was not a ``hierarchy of human rights''; it was all value added.

In like manner, the International Religious Freedom Act was an important addition to the overall effort to defend and promote human rights, by focusing the spotlight on one of the most fundamental human rights. We persisted, and eventually the bill, authored by my good friend and colleague Frank Wolf, was signed into law.

A critical component of the law is the requirement that the State Department review foreign countries each year and submit a report on the status of religious freedom to Congress. Those countries found to be engaged in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom during the preceding 12 months are to be designated as ``Countries of Particular Concern'', CPCs.

In September, the Department of State issued its report for the last 6 months of 2010. The reason for the abbreviated report is to introduce a new reporting cycle that will be based on the calendar year instead of the previous July to June reporting period.

The State Department also notified Congress in September that eight countries had been redesignated as CPCs: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. These are the same eight countries that previously had been designated by the Bush Administration on January 16, 2009.

Pursuant to the IRF Act, the Secretary must impose new presidential actions, issue waivers, or authorize an additional 90-day extension for such actions against these eight countries by December 12. I and other Members of Congress are strongly urging the Administration not to double-hat sanctions against these countries as has been done previously, but to impose measures that have some teeth and that are likely to produce the desired effect. Any thoughts from our witnesses about what actions should be taken would be both timely and most appreciated.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended several additional countries be added to that list. They include Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam. I also will be interested in hearing from our witnesses as to whether they agree with the Commission that any or all of these countries should be CPCs.

Last week, I chaired a hearing of the Helsinki Commission on the horrendous plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt. In July, the Foreign Affairs Committee accepted two religious freedom amendments that I proposed to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 2583. One calls on the Administration to include the protection of the Coptic Christian communities as a priority in our diplomatic engagements with the Government of Egypt, and the other prohibits increased non- humanitarian assistance to Vietnam until its government makes substantial progress toward respecting the right to freedom of religion, among other requirements.

I was also deeply disturbed by the assassination of Pakistan's Federal Minister of Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti on March 2 of this year. I met personally with Minister Bhatti when he visited Washington, D.C. and was extremely appreciative of his courage and commitment to promote the rights of religious minorities and harmony among all faith communities in his country. His killing was a tragic loss for all Pakistanis, and the ongoing failure of the Pakistani Government to identify his assassins and bring them to justice is a blatant and ongoing severe violation of respect for religious freedom.

In closing, I would like to note that the State Department's Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, was invited to testify at our hearing and present the report written by her office. Unfortunately, the State Department refused to allow her to appear without another State Department official on her panel. Given the important responsibilities assigned to the Ambassador-at-Large pursuant to the IRF Act, including advancing the right to religious freedom abroad through diplomatic representations on behalf of the United States, our Subcommittee looks forward to the opportunity to hear from Ambassador Johnson Cook when she is allowed to testify on her own.

I thank the distinguished witnesses who have joined us last week.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the Protect Life Act offered by Chairman Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski ensures that all the elements of the Hyde amendment apply to all the programs that are authorized and appropriated in ObamaCare.

By now I trust that all Members fully understand that because programs in ObamaCare are both authorized and appropriated in the law on a parallel track but not subject to appropriations under HHS, the actual Hyde amendment therefore has no legal effect whatsoever. Hyde only affects Labor-HHS programs including Medicaid, not the massive expansion of government-funded health care. Thus, ObamaCare, when phased in fully in 2014, will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in the ``exchanges'', resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than would otherwise have been the case.

Because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, or starve to death or induce premature labor, pro-life Members of Congress and, according to every reputable poll, majorities of Americans want no complicity whatsoever in the destruction of human life. ObamaCare forces us to be complicit.

Despite breathtaking advances in recent years, and respecting and treating unborn children as patients in need of diagnosis and care and treatment for any number of diseases just like any other patient, far too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona non grata.

I respectfully submit: How can violence against children by abortion be construed as benign or compassionate or caring?

The dangerous myth of ``safe abortion'' must be exposed--and absolutely not subsidized by taxpayers. So-called safe abortion is the ultimate oxymoron, an Orwellian manipulation of language designed to convey bogus respectability to a lethal act. Abortion is, by any reasonable definition, child mortality. Its sole purpose is to kill a baby.

I would also suggest that presumptuous talk that brands any child as ``unwanted'' or an ``unwanted child'' reduces that child to a mere object bereft of inherent dignity or value.

We should not be paying for abortion. I support the Protect Life Act.