Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, abortion not only dismembers and chemically poisons unborn children to death, and my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) used to know that. He used to be very pro-life, as some other Members who have reversed themselves.

But it also hurts women's health and puts future children subsequently born to women who aborted at significant risk. At least 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression, and elevated suicide risk in women who abort.

Published just last month in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a meta-analysis comprised of 22 studies and over 887,000 participants, the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risk associated with abortion in world literature ever, revealed that women who have undergone an abortion experience an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems. You never hear that from the abortion side.

The Times of London has also found the clear link that women had twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression, and subsequent risk to children born to women who have had a previous abortion.

This is all about no taxpayer funding for abortion.

Nothing less than a comprehensive prohibition on public funding, promotion and facilitation of elective abortion in any federal health program, satisfies the demands of social justice.

The Protect Life Act, authored by Chairman Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski, ensures that all the elements of the Hyde amendment applies to all the programs that are both 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, the actual Hyde Amendment has no legal affect whatsoever. Hyde only affects Labor HHS programs not this 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 resulting in more dead babies and wounded moms than would otherwise have been the case.

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

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

I respectfully but firmly asked how violence against children by abortion--dismemberment, chemical poisoning, lethal pills euphemistically marketed as medical abortion--can be construed as benign or compassionate or caring.

The dangerous myth of ``safe abortion'' must be exposed.

So-called ``safe abortion'' is the ultimate oxymoron, an Orwellian manipulation of language, designed to convey bogus respectability to a lethal act. Abortion is never safe for the child and is antithetical to UN Development Goal 4--which rallies the world to reduce child mortality. Abortion is, by any reasonable definition, child mortality. It sole purpose is to kill a baby.

Arrogant and presumptuous talk that brands any child as an ``unwanted child'' reduces that child to a mere object, bereft of inherent dignity or value.

Abortion, not only dismembers and chemically poisons unborn children to death, but hurts women's health and puts future children subsequently born to women who, aborted at significant risk. At least 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risk in women who abort.

Published last month in the British Journal of Psychiatry, a meta analysis, comprised of 22 studies and 887,181 participants, the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion in world literature revealed ``women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.''

Recently, the Times of London reported ``that women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have never been pregnant . . .''

Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth weight increases by 35 percent after one and 72 percent after two or more abortions. Another study shows the risk increases 9 times after a woman has had three abortions.

What does this mean for her children? Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering from chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments and behavior problems. Low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity.

Obamacare authorizes health care plans and policies funded with tax credits to pay for abortion, so long as the issuer of the federally subsided plan collects a new congressionally mandated fee from every enrollee in that plan to pay for other peoples abortions. Requiring the segregation of funds into allocation accounts--a mere bookkeeping exercise touted by some as an improvement to the new pro-abortion funding scheme--does absolutely nothing to protect any victims--baby or mother--from publically funded abortion.

Also billions for new Community Health Centers are outside the scope of the Hyde amendment as well.

Obamacare also contains a little known provision that creates a devastating loophole for conscience rights. Section 1303(d) allows any state or federal law involving emergency services to override any conscience protections added to PPACA. Contrary to the claims of H.R. 358 opponents, Section 1303(d) is NOT uniquely about the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The section references EMTALA but the operative language is much broader, giving authority to override conscience laws to any federal or state law that employs the term emergency services.

The ``Nondiscrimination on Abortion'' (new subsection 1303 (g)) portion of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act applies to Obamacare the language of the Hyde/Weldon amendment, which has been in the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bills every year since 2004 without any effort to change or remove it. This subsection is needed because Obamacare creates many new funding streams that bypass the Labor/HHS appropriations act, and therefore bypass the protections of the Hyde/ Weldon amendment in that act.

Also, Obamacare creates a huge new program administered by OPM that would manage two or more new multi-state or national health plans. The new law stipulates that at least one plan not pay for abortion. Which only begs to question: what about the other new multi-state plans administered by OPM? Why can those federally administered plans include funding abortion on demand? This represents a radical departure from current policy.

Additionally, other appropriated funds under Obamacare that have no Hyde-type protections include billions for a temporary high risk health insurance pools and billions in grants and loans for health care co- ops.

In testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee on February, 9, 2011, Douglas Johnson, Federal Legislative Director for the National Right to Life Committee said:

The first major component of the PPACA to be implemented,

the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program, a

100% federally funded program, provided a graphic

demonstration of the problem: The Department of Health and

Human Services approved plans from multiple states that would

have covered elective abortions. NRLC documented this and

blew the whistle in July, 2010, which produced a public

outcry, after which DHHS announced a discretionary decision

that the PCIP plans would not cover elective abortions.

Commentators on all sides of the issue were in agreement

about one thing: Coverage of elective abortions within this

new, 100% federally funded program was not impeded by any

provision of the PPACA, and was not even addressed in

Executive Order 13535.

On the same day that DHHS issued its decision to exclude

abortion from this program--July 29, 2010--the head of the

White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle,

issued a statement on the White House blog explaining that

the discretionary decision to exclude abortion from the PCIP

``is not a precedent for other programs or policies [under

the PPACA] given the unique, temporary nature of the program

. . .'' Laura Murphy, director of the Washington Legislative

Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, ``The

White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all

women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. . . .

What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law

that requires the Obama Administration to impose this broad

and highly restrictive abortion ban.'' (''ACLU steps into

healthcare reform fray over abortion,'' The Hill, July 17,

2010.)''

Then there's the Mikulski Amendment, Sec. 2713, which empowers the HHS Secretary

with broad new authority to force private health care plans in America to cover ``preventable'' services. When Senator Ben Nelson suggested that abortion not be included in the so-called preventative services mandate, Ms. Mikulski said no--raising a serious red flag that abortion is being postured as ``preventable abortion service in the future''-- after all, abortion prevents a live birth, by exterminating the child.

Killing unborn children and calling it preventative health care isn't new.

And as far back as 1976, Dr. Willard Cates, Jr. and Dr. David Grimes then with CDC presented a paper to a Planned Parenthood meeting, entitled: Abortion as a Treatment for Unintended Pregnancy: The Number Two Sexually Transmitted ``Disease''. To designate pregnancy a sexually transmitted disease; and call abortion a treatment or a means of prevention for this ``disease'' is barbaric.

Abortion isn't health care--preventative or otherwise.

Madam Speaker, we live in an age of ultrasound imaging--the ultimate window to the womb and it's occupant. We are in the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign innovative interventions designed to diagnose, treat and cure disease or illness any unborn child may be suffering.

Unborn children are society's youngest and most vulnerable patients. Obamacare should do them no harm. Tragically, it does the worst harm of all. It kills them.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, which I chair, held a hearing that examined a wide range of issues involving U.S. policy toward Sudan, including the ongoing attacks on Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states, the continuing negotiations with the Republic of South Sudan on challenges such as the demarcation of the border, the fate of the Abyei region, citizenship in both countries and oil revenue sharing. Additionally, this hearing provided opportunities to receive an update on the U.S. response to the enduring stalemate on Darfur and to examine U.S. policy on the release of Sudanese still held in bondage throughout Sudan.

Two months ago, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights held an emergency hearing on the attacks by the Republic of the Sudan on its own Southern Kordofan state. The crisis first arose in June, shortly after the military forces of the Khartoum government attacked the disputed Abyei area. This was apparently a provocation to the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, or SPLM, government in what is now South

Sudan just before that new country's independence.

This vicious attack didn't provoke the SPLM into retaliation, which could have derailed its independence. Nevertheless, dozens of people were killed and more than 200,000 were displaced in the immediate aftermath of the northern attack on its own territory. This violence was a tragic resumption of a prior war by the Khartoum government on the Nuba of Southern Kordofan. Beginning in the 1980s, Islamist elements in the North began an eradication campaign against the Nuba-- pitting Northern Arabs against Africans to the South.

Earlier this month, the Sudanese military bombed its own Blue Nile state, including attacks on the governor's residence. Nearly half a million people were affected by the air and ground assault on Blue Nile. It seems the so-called cease-fire in Southern Kordofan was only a pretext to facilitate preparations for the assault on Blue Nile.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the North-South civil war was supposed to provide for consultations for both states so residents could determine their political future. However, Khartoum didn't want to risk their desire to break away and lose them as it has South Sudan. The promised consultations were held in Blue Nile, but postponed in Southern Kordofan.

When the SPLM-North members in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile didn't lay down their arms in advance of South Sudan's independence, Khartoum used that as an excuse to eliminate those who had supported the South in the long civil war. A preemptive strike in Southern Kordofan evidently was meant to chase out those who had opposed Khartoum. Members of SPLM-North were stalked by the Sudanese military, who went door-to-door to eliminate them. The similar attack in Blue Nile was intended to purge that state of the supposed opponents of the Khartoum government living there as well. In fact, the Sudan People's Liberation Army--North governor of Blue Nile has been chased out of the capital by northern military forces.

As the world was focused on the January referendum in which Southerners voted for an independent South Sudan, human right organizations reported rising violence in Darfur. There was a resumption of conflict in several locations in North and South Darfur between Sudanese government military forces and Sudan Liberation Army rebels loyal to Mini Minawi, a signatory of the now-defunct 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement. Recently, the Sudanese army clashed with the rebel Justice and Equality Movement in the remote area of North Darfur near Sudan's triangle border with Chad and Libya. Darfur rebels had attacked Omdurman and Khartoum in northern Sudan in 2008, which resulted in a massive crackdown on dissidents.

The brutality by the Sudanese military will not crush the desire for freedom in Abyei, Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile or Darfur. In seeking to prevent the secession of these states and the special administrative area of Abyei, Bashir's government may be sowing the seeds for Sudan's eventual dissolution. Until that time, however, the international community must continue to press for an end to the attacks on Sudanese, using all of our available diplomatic and economic resources. The human rights of people in the North must be every bit as important to us as the rights of those in the South have been.

Meanwhile, we have known that raiders from the North were killing southern men and taking women and children into slavery for decades. Reports from human rights groups and the U.S. Department of State on Sudanese slavery gained the attention of Members of Congress such as myself as early as the 1980s because of the serious human rights implications of modern-day slavery.

I chaired the first Congressional hearing on slavery in Sudan on March 13, 1996. Our witnesses included then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs William Twadell; Samuel Cotton of the Coalition Against Slavery in Mauritania and Sudan; Dr. Charles Jacobs of the American Anti-Slavery Group; Baroness Caroline Cox, the Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords, testifying on behalf of Christian Solidarity International, and Dr. Gaspar Biro, Human Rights Rapporteur of the United Nations. Fifteen years ago, these witnesses cited the gross human rights violations committed by the Government of the Sudan and their failure to cooperate in addressing slavery. Special Rapporteur Biro referred to it as the ``manifest passivity of the government of Sudan.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary Twadell said the Clinton Administration acknowledged then that slavery was an ugly reality in Sudan.

Following a visit to the Sudan People's Liberation Army-held portion of Sudan in November 2000, then-Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice said that neither the Clinton Administration nor its successor would cease working to end slavery in Sudan. Why have we not kept that promise?

When former Assistant Secretary Rice made that pledge, the United Nations estimated that there were as many as 15,000 southern Sudanese held in bondage after being abducted in raids by Arab militiamen on southern villages. While the current exact number of Sudanese slaves is unknown, too many people remain in slavery in Sudan and more continue to join them each day. The State Department's 2011 Trafficking in Persons report lists Sudan as a Tier III country that is a continuing source, transit and destination country for men, women and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking. Slavery remains a pervasive and deeply disturbing reality in Sudan, and we cannot in good conscience allow this to continue.

We have had active campaigns to end Sudanese slavery, to end genocide in Darfur, to end the north-South civil war and now to end to the attacks on Abyei, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Unfortunately, these campaigns have been conducted in isolation from one another. If we are to have a successful policy to stop the suffering of Sudan's people, our government must devise a comprehensive policy for addressing all of Sudan's challenges. To facilitate such a policy consolidation, civil society also must support a coordinated policy no matter their particular area of concern. Therefore, I call on our civil society organizations concerned about the people of Sudan to work together and demonstrate to our government the wisdom and effectiveness of a coordinated American policy on Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is known to be the world's most isolated country, as its citizens are prohibited from traveling either internally or internationally without permission. Communications with the outside world also are tightly regulated in attempts by the dictatorship regime to filter all information accessible by the North Korean people.

Therefore, the testimony provided last week by our distinguished panel, and in particular our two defector witnesses, was particularly welcome and appreciated. Mrs. Kim Young Soon and Mrs. Kim Hye Sook, who both have survived the extreme deprivations of the North Korean prison camps, travelled all the way from South Korea to share their experiences with us. On behalf of the subcommittee, I wish to convey to them our sincere gratitude.

They spoke on behalf of the estimated 150,000 to 200,000 prisoners currently held in North Korea's penal-labor camps. It is our hope that their testimony will help to galvanize the international community to take action to secure the freedom of those who are needlessly suffering and dying under truly horrific conditions.

Those living in the prison camps are not the only ones suffering in North Korea. As one of our witnesses, Suzanne Scholte, testified, in North Korea every single human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is violated. North Korea is listed by the State Department as a ``Tier 3'' country with respect to human trafficking. It was just re-designated this month as one of eight ``Countries of Particular Concern'' for its egregious violations of religious freedom.

But not all the testimony during the hearing was bleak. We heard about new potential for communication to and with the North Korean people, and explored possibilities for peaceful change given upcoming political events in North Korea and changes in other countries in the region. We look forward to discussing this potential to improve the lives of all North Koreans.

Once again, I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us last week.

Mr. Speaker, last week I held an extremely important hearing that examined the consequences of thirty-three years of China's implementation of its one child per couple policy.

China's one child policy is state sponsored cruelty 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.

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. 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.

Over the years I have chaired 29 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.''

Last week we heard the testimony of other victims of forced abortion, and we are extremely grateful that they joined us. Not only did it take a great deal of courage to share what must be some of the most painful experiences of their lives, but they are also spoke truth to power, a Chinese Government that may well retaliate not only against them, if given the opportunity, but also family members who may still be in China. Again, I thank them for sharing their stories.

Women bare the major brunt of the one child policy not only as 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 female.

As a result of the Chinese government's barbaric attack on mothers and their children, there are some 100 million more males than females in China today. It has been noted that the three most dangerous words in China today are: ``it's a girl!''

In July, I offered an amendment demanding the release and an end of the torture of Chinese defense attorney Chen Guangcheng, who bravely defended forced abortion victims in China. Both Chen and his wife Yuan Weijing are at risk of dying from repeated beatings by the Chinese secret police and refused access to critically-needed medical care.

In the latter part of August when Vice President Joe Biden was visiting China, he stated that he ``fully understood'' the one child policy, and that he's not ``second guessing.'' 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 systematic attack on mothers ever. For my Vice President 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 PRC who

has suffered this abuse. Instead of defending the one child policy, Vice President Biden should have asked for the release of Chen and Yuan, or at least made a formal request to see them.

Although Vice President Biden attempted to backtrack on his extraordinarily callous comment about the policy, his voting record as a Senator shines a spotlight on his long-held disregard for the severity of this human rights violation. On September 13, 2000, he joined 52 other senators in defeating an amendment by then-Senator Jesse Helms condemning the one child policy. Then-Senator Biden reportedly did so because he was concerned that condemning China on fundamental human rights would interfere with the normalization of trade relations.

I invited the Vice President to to a hearing I held last week to explain his ``full understanding'' of the one child policy. I was informed that he was not in D.C. and could not attend. Given the grave importance of this issue, and the literally millions of lives at stake, I extend to the Vice President an open invitation to testify at a hearing at his convenience to share his ``understanding'' with the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, and what actions, if any, the Obama Administration is taking to end this barbaric policy.

I also asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a hearing on March 1st of this year whether she or President Obama raised the issue of forced abortion in China directly in a face-to-face manner with President Hu when he was in Washington. She refused to answer it then, and I have yet to receive a response.

Not only is the current Administration turning a blind eye to the atrocities being committed under the one child policy, but it is even contributing financial support--contrary to U.S. law--through the UNFPA. Twenty seven years ago--on May 9, 1984--I authored the first amendment ever to a foreign aid bill to deny funding to organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) that are complicit with China's forced abortion and involuntary sterilization policy. After all these years, it is amazing and disheartening to me that most policy makers--including and especially the Obama Administration-- remain indifferent or worse, supportive, of these massive crimes against women and children. The Obama Administration has long enabled this cruel policy by its silence and financial support to the tune of $50 million a year to the UNFPA, an organization that supports, plans, implements, defends and whitewashes the Chinese government's brutal program.

U.S. funding for the UNFPA was withheld in accordance with what is known as the Kemp-Kasten provision, which prohibits any monies for an organization that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization, for Fiscal Years 1986-1993, 1999, and 2002-2008.

In June 2008, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte notified Members of Congress that he had determined that UNFPA had provided ``financial and technical resources through its sixth cycle China Country Program to the National Population and Family Planning Commission and related entities,'' and therefore provided support for and participated in the management of the Chinese government's program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. It was on this basis that no funding was provided to the UNFPA that year.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Seventh Country Programme, 2011-2015, clearly indicates that UNFPA's support and participation in China's coercive policies continue, the Obama Administration is allowing money to flow to UNFPA in violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.

On one of several trips to Beijing, I challenged Peng Peiyun--then China's director of the nation's population control program--to end the coercion, we had quite a debate. Madame Peng told me that the UNFPA was very supportive of the one child per couple program and that the UNFPA adamantly agrees with her that the program is voluntary and that coercion doesn't exist. In other words, I--we--are simply making it all up.

For over 30 years, the UNFPA has consistently heaped praise on China's population control program and repeatedly urged other countries to embrace similar policies.

A few years ago this fall, the UNFPA and the Chinese government rolled out the red carpet and hosted high level diplomats from Africa including health ministers to sell ``child limitation'' policies. Despite the fact that China's enforcement mechanism relies on heavy coercion and its aging population will soon implode its economy, many African leaders seem to have taken the bait. Limitations on the number of children a mother may carry to term are under active consideration throughout the continent.

President Paul Kagame of Rwanda for example wants a limit of three children per woman. I spoke to him directly about it and heard the same arguments I heard from family planning officials on trips to Beijing.

Last week, we heard about the broader social implications of the one child policy and the extreme disparity between the numbers of men and women in China, particularly in terms of security. Therefore, the negative ramifications of the policy for the Chinese people that we will be examining have implications also for numerous other countries and the world in general.

I appreciated hearing from all of our distinguished witnesses, and wish to extent my sincere gratitude for them joining us last week.

I thank my good friend, the chair, Mr. Pitts, for yielding and for his leadership on all issues relating to health, and in particular on autism. I do want to thank Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor for bringing the bill to the floor. Without them, it wouldn't be on the floor today. And I also thank Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton. And of course, again, Chairman Pitts.

And I want to thank my good friend Mr. Doyle. We have worked on this for well over a decade. We formed the Autism Caucus. It has over 100 members. It is totally bipartisan. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I thank him for his leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this bill, H.R. 2005, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011. This legislation is critically important to continue without interruption the progress that has been achieved to date in understanding autism and in developing interventions that will have the greatest impact in helping individuals affected by autism or other developmental disabilities.

When I first got elected to Congress in 1980, the autism community accepted that autism prevalence rates in the United States were something on the order of 3 in 10,000. Today it is estimated to be 1 in 110, and in some places like New Jersey, the data suggests 1 in 94, for a total of about 1.5 million individuals in the U.S. who are suffering from autism.

On May 31 of this year, I chaired a hearing as chairman of the Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee, a hearing entitled, ``Global Autism: A Developmental Disability Pandemic.'' My committee received testimony that some 67 million people worldwide suffer from ASD in the world. There are tens of millions in Africa, according to the World Health Organization. It is an epidemic, and this legislation, the Combating Autism Act, is a very responsible and, I would suggest, modest effort to combat this pandemic that's occurring.

In 1998, Mr. Speaker, the wonderful parents of two autistic children in my district, Bobby and Billy Gallagher, asked me to look into what appeared at the time to be an autism prevalence spike in Brick Township, New Jersey. I invited CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, and others to investigate. Not only did their probe show what appeared to be elevated numbers of children with the disorder in Brick Township, but the data strongly suggested a much wider problem than anticipated in other parts of my State because they weren't doing comparisons, and the data calls produced information which said, we have a problem not just in Brick, but elsewhere.

In direct response to that, in 1999 I introduced the Autism Statistics, Surveillance, Research, and Epidemiology, or ASSURE, Act to establish centers of excellence and create a Federal advisory committee which became Title I of the Children's Health Act of 2000. I always want to thank Chairman Bilirakis for including it in his bill. It made all the difference in the world. Five years later, the initiative was reauthorized and expanded in the Combating Autism Act, the law we respectfully ask Members to renew today.

According to the NIH, autism spectrum disorder--and just for the record, again, autism is defined as impaired verbal or nonverbal communication skills and social interactions, and restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior ranging in impact from mild to significantly disabling--it ought to be noted that the Combating Autism Act of 2011 will continue the success of the CAA of 2006 by authorizing funding for programs at NIH, CDC, and HRSA for 3 additional years.

I would point out, and this is important, autism spectrum disorder is very expensive and, again, efforts made to mitigate its prevalence and to treat with early intervention those who show or manifest signs of it are not only humane, and that should be our driving force, but they are also very cost effective. It's estimated that ASD costs per year are between $35 billion and $90 billion dollars, with a ``b.'' So the costs are very, very large.

H.R. 2005, as my colleagues I know have said, would also reauthorize the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, or the IACC, a panel of government and public members tasked with coordinating all ASD-related activities within HHS, as well as developing and annually updating a strategic plan for ASD research in order to enhance the quality, efficacy, and applicability of research grants. In other words, let's spend the money wisely.

To avoid waste and duplication, the IACC has crafted three strategic research plans: one in 2009, one in 2010, and another for this year. For example, in 2009, the strategic plan included 40 research objectives, including development of new diagnostic tools, identification of genetic and environmental risk factors, and assessments of services for people with ASD in all ages in a community setting.

It should be noted that the aging-out issue is becoming increasingly a concern. What does a parent whose son or daughter or sons or daughters turn 21 and the full array of those services are no longer available? What do they do?

Recently I met with Chuck Colson's daughter, who wrote a book called ``Dancing with Max,'' a wonderful story of love between a mother and son. Her son now is aging out, and she is frightened by the prospect of what happens if she gets elderly and those services are not there. We need to be focusing on that.

The 2010 strategic plan had 32 new objectives, including health disparities in

early diagnosis and treatment of co-concurring conditions, such as epilepsy, sleep, and gastrointestinal disorders. The 2011 strategic plan added another 16 objectives, including studies on the use and accessibility of alternative and augmentative communication tools for nonverbal individuals.

I just want to say to my colleagues, and I have much more that I will put into the Record of how important it is, but all these different agencies of government are surging to try to combat autism. We need to reauthorize this legislation. The CDC has its ``learn the signs, act early campaign.'' My friend, Mr. Butterfield, earlier mentioned the fact that minority communities have been left out or diagnoses are often not done in a timely way. That is absolutely true. And more needs to be done. The programs are in place. The policies are in place. We need to continue what is truly a very, very effective use of taxpayer dollars to help these autistic children.

There is also the problem, as the information has shown, that early detection is key to mitigating the impact of autism. But still, even with 10 years' experience educating doctors, parents, and educators, there is still about a 2-year lag when there's a detection of something is wrong with my son or daughter before that diagnosis is actually made. The earlier we start the intervention strategies, the greater chance that child will have a quality of life and a life where they can then achieve their goals and their dreams, but if we don't catch it early and begin taking action, very often, the life of that child is more seriously impaired.

This legislation, like I said, is a modest step, but a very crucial step. I want to thank all the organizations for the work that they have done--they have been tremendous--the NGOs that are in the community, Autism Speaks, the Autism Society, the AUCD, all of the groups, for the work that they have done in educating Members.

And again, thank you Chairman Pitts for bringing this bill to the floor, and to Eric Cantor for scheduling it and ensuring that we can act on this in a timely way, and again my good friend on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Doyle, for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2005, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011. This legislation is critically important to continue without interruption the progress achieved to date in understanding autism and in developing interventions that will have the greatest impact in helping individuals affected by autism or another developmental disability.

When I first got elected to Congress in 1980, the community accepted that autism prevalence rates in the United States were 3 in 10,000. Today, it is estimated to be 1 in 110, and in some places like New Jersey, 1 in 94--for a total of 1.5 million individuals in the United States. On May 31 of this year, I chaired a hearing entitled, ``Global Autism: `A Developmental Disability Pandemic,' '' and my committee received testimony that some 67 million people suffer from ASD worldwide.

In 1998, the wonderful parents of two autistic children in my district, Bobbie and Billy Gallagher, asked me to look into what appeared to be an autism prevalence spike in Brick Township, New Jersey. I asked CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and others to investigate, and not only did their probe show what appeared to be elevated numbers of children with the disorder in Brick, but the data strongly suggested a much wider problem than anticipated in other parts of the State.

In 1999, I introduced the Autism Statistics, Surveillance, Research and Epidemiology (ASSURE) Act to establish centers of excellence and create a Federal advisory committee, which became Title I of the Children's Health Act of 2000.

Five years later, the initiative was reauthorized and expanded in the Combating Autism Act--the law we respectfully ask members to renew today.

According to the National Institutes of Health, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is ``characterized by impaired verbal and nonverbal communication skills and social interactions and restricted, repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, ranging in impact from mild to significantly disabling.''

The total cost to society of ASD has been estimated from 35 to 90 billion dollars annually. The Harvard School of Public Health calculated that it can cost $3.2 million to take care of one autistic person over his or her lifetime. Looking at medical expenses alone, a CD study of employer-based health insurance showed that individuals with an ASD had average medical expenditures that exceeded those without an ASD by $4,100 to $6,200 per year.

A decade of research, surveillance, treatment and education has had a significant positive impact on the ASD affected person, as well as his or her family--who, as we all know, face huge financial and emotional challenges of their own.

The Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011 will continue the success of the CAA of 2006 by authorizing funding for programs at NIH, CDC, and HRSA for three additional years. Total funding for the legislation will be at the fiscal year 2011 appropriated level of $231 million for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014. The Reauthorization Act will authorize appropriations of $22 million for surveillance; $48 million for education, early detection, and intervention; and $161 million for NIH research and operation of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee.

This is not considered ``new'' money, but rather a straight-line reauthorization of total funds for the legislation, in compliance with the ``cut-go'' requirements of the 112th Congress. The Combating Autism Reauthorization Act also retains sunset and reporting provisions that ensure appropriate review and accountability.

H.R. 2005 reauthorizes the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC)--a panel of government and public members, tasked with coordinating all ASD-related activities within HHS, as well as developing and annually updating a strategic plan for ASD research. In order to enhance the quality, efficacy and applicability of research grants and to avoid waste and duplication, the IACC has crafted 3 strategic research plans in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

For example, in 2009, the strategic plan included 40 research objectives, including the development of new diagnostic tools, identification of genetic and environmental risk factors, and assessments of services for people with ASD of all ages in a community setting.

The 2010 IACC strategic plan has 32 new objectives, including health disparities in early diagnosis and treatment of co-occurring conditions, such as epilepsy and sleep and gastrointestinal disorders.

And the 2011 strategic plan added another 16 objectives, including studies on the use and accessibility of alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) tools for nonverbal individuals.

The IACC also summarizes advances in ASD research identified as having the greatest impact on the field of autism, which has included the association between family history of autoimmune disease and ASD, genetic risk factors, racial disparities, and novel ways to diagnose ASD using speech patterns. Just for fiscal year 2010, NIH awarded 528 grants from baseline funding to pursue promising research related to autism.

This reauthorization bill also continues support of the critical surveillance and epidemiology programs that were established by the Children's Health Act and strengthened by the Combating Autism Act.

The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Network (ADDM) has published the most comprehensive and highest quality estimates to date of the prevalence of ASD in multiple areas of the U.S.

The Centers for Autism Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology has implemented the Study to Explore Early Development (SEED), which is the largest study planned to date of the causes of autism, including genetic and environmental risk factors. The study has enrolled 2700 families and initial findings are due next year.

The CAA also focuses on programs in education, early detection and interventions that have already impacted the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities and their families.

CDC's health communication campaign, ``Learn the Signs. Act Early,'' educates parents, health care professionals, and early childhood educators about the importance of monitoring a child's developmental milestones, seeking further evaluation where there is a concern, and seeking early intervention services as soon as possible.

The Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration developed and implemented the Combating Autism Act Initiative, which is conducting research on and providing training to health professionals in the use of valid, reliable screening and diagnostic tools and in the provision of evidence-based interventions for children with ASD or another developmental disability.

As a result of increased awareness of the public, of educators, and of health care professionals, the median age for diagnosis of autism-- which currently is about 4.5 years--appears to be on the decline. However, it is important to continue our efforts, as there is still on average a 2 year time gap from developmental concerns to actual diagnosis, research has demonstrated the positive impact of implementing behavioral intervention before age 3, and Applied Behavioral analysis has shown significant improvement for children as young as 18 months.

In summary, under the Children's Health Act and the Combating Autism Act, our scientific infrastructure for addressing autism and other developmental disorders has developed and we have made major advances in our understanding of ASD. For the first time, we have high quality data on prevalence and data to support analysis of causes of autism, and a clearer picture of promising paths and gaps in research. Health professionals have a level of knowledge for greatly improved diagnostics and interventions to provide meaningful medical and behavioral benefits. There is optimism that a sustained focus on genetic and environmental triggers will lead to efficacious treatments and prevention strategies. Importantly, the infrastructure and programs are in place to continue our progress.

I want to thank our Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, as well as Energy and Commerce Chairman Upton, Health Subcommittee Chairman Pitts for the leadership that have shown in moving this legislation forward. I also would like to thank my friend and autism caucus co-chair, Congressman Mike Doyle, for his work in developing and supporting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2867) to reauthorize the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of our committee, and Howard Berman for their fine work in helping to bring this very important legislation to the floor today.

I want to thank especially Congressman Frank Wolf, the author of this legislation, who is also the author of the original International Religious Freedom Act that was passed back in 1998, against considerable odds, opposition from the Clinton administration, for example, opposition from a number of people on both sides of the aisle. But at the end of the day, that legislation, historic, was signed into law and was signed by President Clinton. So he came around and actually put his signature on that historic legislation.

So I again want to thank Mr. Wolf for his famous leadership. He has been a leader on human rights and on religious freedom in particular for more than 30 years. And that culminated, at least on the religious freedom side, with the enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act.

Madam Speaker, 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. Not only is it an essential element in our Constitution; it is intrinsic to the human dignity of every man and woman on this Earth and was enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights.

But it is a right denied or curtailed for millions, really billions, according to some estimates, even a majority of the people living in the world. For Copts in Egypt, for Christians, Buddhists, and Uighurs in China, Montagnards, Evangelical Christians in Central Vietnam, Jews in Baha'i in Iran, many Buddhist monks in Burma and, of course, this rising pernicious tide of anti-Semitism, not just in the Middle East but in many parts of Europe, and even in the United States, the ability to live their faith without threat of persecution is a distant and unrealized promise.

I was pleased to work with Mr. Wolf years ago, as I mentioned, on this legislation. And I actually chaired the hearings on the legislation. And again, there was considerable opposition that was turned around, and at the end of the day this legislation did become law.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was an important part of this 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 issues, while it's improved, the commission continues to serve as a critical role and a sounding board and a catalyst. One indicator is the fact that the commission's list of recommended, what is called ``countries of particular concern'' for severe violations of religious freedom, remains larger than the number actually designated by the State Department. They ought to be the same, but they are not.

Just yesterday, Secretary Clinton rightfully designated the People's Republic of China, Burma, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan as countries of particular concern. But the State Department's list does not add any new countries from last year, and one of the most glaring omissions of all is Vietnam, whose policies have more than earned that badge of shame.

Secretary Clinton did not designate Egypt either, or Iraq, Nigeria, Turkmenistan and Pakistan, as recommended by the commission. So, unfortunately, their recommendations went unheeded. But it does provide an important backdrop and framework to review and to look at what it is that the State Department is doing.

We need, Madam Speaker, this commission more than ever. Already in the Congress, we have had three comprehensive hearings on religious freedom: one in the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in January regarding the religious freedom of minorities in the Middle East; one in the committee that I chair, the Africa Global Health global Human Rights Committee, regarding the prioritization of religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy; and one just last month in the Helsinki Commission on the particular plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt. That hearing brought to light an egregious policy that is acted out in Egypt each and every day, where young Coptic Christians girls, some as young as 14 and 15, are kidnapped. They are forced into Islam, and then they are, at age 18 or thereafter, given in marriage forcibly to an Islamic man.

That is an outrage against women's rights, human rights, and religious freedom as well.

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 a resource to governments seeking 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 and 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 and elsewhere around the world 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 the preservation of peace in that country.

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

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

Again, I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman, and thank Howard Berman for their leadership in ensuring the bill came to the floor today and for their support for the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is a distinct privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, the author of the original International Religious Freedom Act, an historic piece of legislation and today's reauthorization, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to again thank Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman Wolf, for his eloquence and for his passion for those men and women and children of faith who suffer terrible, terrible injustices around the world, including persecution.

There were two books that got me involved, in all candor, in religious freedom issues--there were two incidents in my first year in Congress in 1981--``Tortured for Christ,'' by Richard Wurmbrand, who was a great evangelical pastor who spent years being tortured by the Securitate in Romania because of his faith. He made an appeal, and he said, Do not sit idly by while men and women of any faith are being tortured and persecuted because of that faith, because it's not just the individual who suffers; the entire family suffers; and very often they're incarcerated and tortured as well.

The other was the trip to the Soviet Union with the National Conference on Soviet Jewry in 1982, January. It was 10 days in Moscow and Leningrad, meeting Soviet Jewish refusniks who were persecuted, who were put into psychiatric prisons simply because of their faith.

A couple of years later, Mr. Wolf and I went to Perm Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains. It took years to negotiate our way in. This was in 1987. We met with persecuted Jewish refusniks and Christians and political prisoners who were there simply because of their faith. It was where Natan Sharansky had spent a number of his years incarcerated by the cruel dictatorship of the Soviet Union.

In China today, the believer Christians, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Buddhists are tortured beyond anyone's imagination. It's real. It's happening today. In Vietnam, there has been a backlash against people of faith ever since they got trading benefits and the bilateral trade agreement and MFN were extended to them, or PNTR. They have done a backlash to men and women of faith that is unprecedented, and ought to be on the CPC list of the International Religious Freedom Commission. I hope people will go to the Web site. Check out this wonderful Commission, which if it is not renewed by the end of this month, goes out of business.

I would call out our Members on the other side of this Capitol, the other

body, to pass this legislation immediately. We ought to be strengthening and significantly expanding it, not doing less than status quo, which is what we're doing today because of some budget concerns that people have. This is the quintessential watchdog agency in this town. It doesn't get the big press, as Mr. Wolf said. It doesn't have the big bucks--no K Street lobbyists--but it is a wonderful and a very important and effective Commission that keeps track of religious persecution globally, that keeps us in line in the House and the Senate and also the State Department. I read their reports. I read them from cover to cover. Please, I would ask the Members of this body to support this legislation and call on our friends in the Senate to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and Co-Chairman of the Poland Caucus, I have long been struck by the way in which history casts both long shadows and rays of light in Poland. I have had the privilege of traveling to Poland, one of America's closest allies, and was overwhelmed by the weight of history when I met with those who are building the Museum of the History of Poland's choose. Institutions like this are not only critical for Poland's future generations, but for what all of us, around the world, can learn from Poland.

Today, I rise today to commemorate the 67th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising, a courageous act of defiance by the people of Poland against the brutal Nazi occupation during the Second World War.

On August 1, 1944, the Polish Underground began its struggle to liberate Warsaw, to further weaken the collapsing German eastern front and to establish Polish sovereignty in response to the Red Army's advance to the city's outskirts. Despite the courage and fortitude of the Polish people, the Underground could not overcome the Nazis' determination to oversee the complete destruction of the Home Army and the city, bolstered by official orders and a directive that the massacre was to serve as a ``terrifying example'' to Europe.

More than 200,000 civilians and members of the Home Army were killed in Warsaw over a 63-day period. Between August 5 and August 8, the Nazis murdered more than 40,000 people--overwhelmingly civilians--in the Wola district of Warsaw alone. Survivors, describing the horror of the executions, told of the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of women and children. Approximately 700,000 Warsaw residents were expelled from their homes and forced out of the city--many sent to death, labor, or POW camps.

Hitler ordered that Warsaw should be razed to the ground; Heinrich Himmler declaring in the most chilling terms that Warsaw ``must completely disappear from the surface of the earth.'' To that end, the Nazis systematically targeted buildings filled with deep meaning for the Poles, including cultural treasures, monuments, palaces, libraries, churches, and the Old Town. By the beginning of October, the Polish capitol was reduced to rubble--85 percent of the buildings in Warsaw had been destroyed.

But from ashes come diamonds and, despite this barbaric campaign, the Polish desire for freedom and liberty could not be extinguished--not even by the decades of communist oppression which followed the end of the war. Such courage and resilience continues to define the Polish people.

Today, Poland is a successful democracy and one of our strongest military allies. More to the point, Poland's leadership on issues related to democracy and human rights gives true meaning to the alliance concept of ``shared values.'' Poland has tirelessly support democratic movements in Northern Africa and Eastern Europe, particularly in Tunisia, through democracy activists and transition experts, and Belarus. Poland has served as a regional force in the effort to encourage human rights and democracy in Belarus in the wake of the December 2010 post-election political crackdown, maintaining free media outlets that operate in Belarus and opening Polish universities to students expelled for pro-democracy activities.

On July 1, Poland assumed the six-months rotating Presidency of the European Union. It can only strengthen our transatlantic alliance to have the EU led by a country that has accomplished so much over the past 20 years both political and economically. As it happens, Poland has one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and is the only EU country not faced with a recession amidst the global financial crisis.

As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and co-chairman of the Congressional Poland Caucus, I commend Poland's leadership on democracy and human rights throughout the OSCE region and globally. Polish- American ties remain strong and steadfast because of such dedication to these common values. More than that, however, I have unwavering respect and admiration for the people of Poland, whose courage and determination in the face of so many historic tragedies--of which the Warsaw Massacre is only one example--is a source of continued inspiration.

Mr. Speaker, good afternoon. Two months ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing on Somalia that revealed the extent of the suffering from what witnesses agreed was the worst drought in the Horn of Africa since the 1950s. Our hearing today is, in part, a follow-up to that July 7th hearing in order to examine the U.S. Agency for International Development's long-term strategy to address humanitarian crises in East Africa, such as the current devastating drought. The need for this continued focus on the region is apparent given the ongoing, disturbing reports that we are receiving about Sudanese attacks on its Blue Nile State that will drive residents into South Sudan and reports of theft of international food aid.

We now know that an estimated 13.1 million people are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. The United States to date has devoted a total of $604.6 million in humanitarian assistance funding for the Horn of Africa. At the same time, our government has devoted $370.7 million in Fiscal Year 2011 to helping the newly independent Government of South Sudan respond to crises largely caused by Republic of the Sudan attacks that have sent people streaming into this young nation.

The drought in East Africa apparently is part of a persistent weather trend in the region, but there is disagreement on the extent to which the La Nina and El Nino weather phenomena will affect weather patterns in East Africa over time. The current La Nina phenomenon, which began in August 2010, results in wetter than normal conditions in Australia and parts of Asia from December to February and drier than normal conditions over equatorial East Africa over the same period, leading to the current drought in the region.

But while drought is one reason for food shortages, it is exacerbated by stagnating agricultural development and unsustainable forms of livelihood. In our July 7th hearing, Nancy E. Lindborg, Assistant Administrator in the U.S. Agency for International Development's Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, raised the issue of the long-term need for changes in livelihoods in the region. She quoted a local cattle herder as saying, ``We are seeing the end of the pastoral lifestyle as we know it.''

In countries across the region, as Lindborg testified, nomads are without water and pasture and unable to migrate safely. Many of them are left without assets or income, and as they migrate out of rural areas to urban areas, they strain an already stressed situation.

There are nomads in Africa from Western Sahara to Sudan. If weather conditions have conspired to end what in some cases are livelihoods developed over millennia, who will work with these pastoralists to develop new ways of surviving? Part of our humanitarian strategy, therefore, must involve working with African governments on developing viable strategies for helping nomads transition into new livelihoods that fit their skills and are sustainable in often resource-poor conditions. In the long run, donors will be increasingly less likely to continue to support people suffering through repeated droughts in the same areas. We must break this cycle now and help them to find durable solutions for the future.

In Somalia, the hardest hit country in the region, the terrorist group al-Shabaab has obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance and directly threatened aid agencies. It has also interrogated aid workers and accused them of spying for the West or proselytizing. Maritime piracy and the hijacking of aid shipments have also hindered the provision of aid. By late 2009, threats against humanitarian workers and attacks against aid compounds had driven many international groups out of al-Shabaab-controlled areas; most of the remaining groups left southern Somalia in 2010. The result has been an estimated 2.2 million people in southern Somalia, representing some 60% of those who remain in the country, in need of aid but currently out of reach of most aid agencies.

We face serious questions about how to meet the desperate needs of people like those living in areas controlled by al-Shabaab. We want to prevent terrorist organizations from benefitting from humanitarian aid, but we must balance this concern with our desire to keep alive those needing food, water and medicine. There has to be a solution that not only prevents aid from going to terrorists, but also prevents the terrorists from perpetrating further violence against their own people by denying them access to life-saving assistance.

Meanwhile, our government is helping the new Government of South Sudan to effectively respond to the expectations of the population for essential services and improved livelihoods, as well as containing the conflicts that are likely to erupt. This new government is learning to handle the normal business of establishing a government even as an estimated 371,455 people have migrated from the North to South Sudan, as well as to Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan States in the Republic of the Sudan and the disputed area of Abyei since October 30th of last year.

Apparently continuing attacks in Southern Kordofan and now Blue Nile State will only continue the flight of thousands of people into South Sudan. Given its troubled relationship with the Republic of the Sudan to the North, our assistance to the new government must build its capacity as a democratically elected institution and help enable it to avoid and address such crises. Empowerment should be our focus as we help this new government take its place among the world's nations.

Drought and other natural disasters and man-made catastrophes due to conflict have been a persistent story in East Africa. In an era of limited resources, we must encourage adapted lifestyles, develop strategies for delivering aid in conflict areas and enable our partner governments to manage crises more successfully. We look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses as to how we can move toward achieving these goals.

Mr. Speaker, I called an emergency hearing yesterday because of the escalating crisis in the Sudanese state of Southern Kordofan. This crisis first arose in June of this year, shortly after the military forces of the Republic of the Sudan attacked the Abyei region, apparently as a provocation to South Sudan's Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, or SPLM. South Sudan was about to become independent, and these attacks may have been intended to provoke a fight that could derail their independence. At the same time, Sudanese attacks on SPLM-North members in the Sudanese state of Southern Kordofan were increasing.

Because of the fighting and the displacement of Sudanese and foreigners from Southern Kordofan, no one is estimating how many people have been killed in that area. We do know that more than 73,000 people have been displaced. Whatever the numbers involved, we can be sure that the suffering of the people in Southern Kordofan, especially the Nuba people, has been catastrophic.

This latest violence is a tragic resumption of a prior war by the Khartoum government on the Nuba. Beginning in the 1980s, Islamist elements in the North began an eradication campaign against the Nuba-- pitting Northern Arabs against Africans to the South. Unfortunately for the Nuba, they are not Southerners, even though many fought with the Southern army during the North-South civil war. But neither are they accepted by the elements ruling the North, even though many of them are Muslims.

This left the Nuba on their own to suffer the onslaught of the Khartoum government. The strategy of cultural cleansing pursued by the government involved harsh attempts to depopulate vast areas, killing potential combatants, as well as many others, and herding survivors into tightly controlled government refugee camps. When jihad was declared by the Government of the Sudan in 1992, even Nuba Muslims were targeted, with the rationale that Muslims in SPLM areas were not true Muslims. Rape of Nuba women has been a central component of the government's strategy, aimed at destroying the social fabric of Nuba society. Almost every woman who has been in one of Khartoum's so-called ``peace camps'' reportedly was either raped or threatened with rape.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 30,000 and 40,000 people, out of a population of 60,000 in the Southern Kordofan capital of Kadugli have fled the town. Many of the attacks in Southern Kordofan were indiscriminate, including aerial bombardments and artillery fire by the Sudanese Armed Forces. Bombings have been reported in five villages south of the state capital of Kadugli, as well as in Talodi, Heiban, Kaudo and other towns. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights told the UN Security Council on July 29th that there were reports, as recently as July 27th, of aerial bombings forcing civilians to flee into the Nuba Mountains.

Some are trying to down play the overwhelming responsibility of the Sudanese government for the devastation taking place in Southern Kordofan by referring to the refusal of the SPLM-North to lay down their arms to negotiate with Khartoum. But there is no moral equivalence between the SPLM-North's actions and those of the government. SPLM-North members are not bombing people indiscriminately, driving Arabs off their lands and out of their homes nor going door-to- door to identify their perceived enemies and execute them. The Government of Sudan's military forces are. We saw photographic evidence of these atrocities at yesterday's hearing.

In addition, the recent attacks on Southern Kordofan have disrupted the planting season and will have a long-term negative impact on the ability of its people to feed themselves. In parts of Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya, people suffer from drought made worse by conflict. In Southern Kordofan, the national government is creating a similar humanitarian crisis.

The death and destruction to which Sudanese Africans have been subjected was thought to have ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 to end the North-South civil war. However, the genocide in Darfur diverted the international community's attention away from the unresolved issues between North and South. These lingering points of contention threatened to derail independence for South Sudan just as the independence process was coming to a conclusion. And now the struggle over Abyei threatens to stifle the suffering cries and pleas for help that are arising from the Nuba people as they are dragged into a resumption of the Northern war against them.

We discussed this war during the Subcommittee's June 16th hearing on South Sudan. At that time, the fighting in Southern Kordofan was as horrific as any attacks waged by the Khartoum government. The testimony that was presented yesterday by witnesses who have seen the carnage revealed the horrific extent of this situation.

Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, I held a

hearing on August 2nd on the global health issue of hydrocephalus, a serious--and seriously neglected--health condition. The hearing also focused on a relatively inexpensive, technologically-sophisticated advancement for curing it, created, designed, and perfected by one of our distinguished witnesses, Dr. Benjamin Warf.

I had the opportunity to learn more about hydrocephalus when I was traveling in Africa last March. Children who suffer from it characteristically have heads that are far out of proportion to the size of their small bodies. I was horrified to learn that in Africa, where superstitions still are widespread, hydrocephalus is commonly perceived as a curse or caused through witchcraft. A child may be subjected to horrific abuse, and even killed, as a result. It was therefore a real eye-opener for me to see the cultural context of hydrocephalus in Africa, and the extraordinary efforts of a number of courageous, compassionate individuals to address it.

The human brain normally produces cerebrospinal fluid which surrounds and cushions it. The fluid also delivers nutrients to and removes waste away from the brain. This fluid is drained away from the brain and absorbed into blood vessels as new fluid is produced.

Hydrocephalus occurs when this draining process no longer functions properly. The fluid levels inside the skull rise, causing increased pressure that compresses the brain and potentially enlarges the head. Symptoms include headaches, vomiting, blurred vision, cognitive difficulties, imbalance, convulsions, brain damage, and ultimately, death.

Hydrocephalus can occur in adults, but most commonly is present at birth. Our witnesses testified that there are believed to be more than 4,000 new cases of infant hydrocephalus in Uganda, and 100,000 to 375,000 new cases in sub-Saharan Africa, each year. By comparison, in the United States, hydrocephalus occurs in 1 out of every 500 births. Another 6,000 children under the age of 2 develop hydrocephalus annually. The U.S. National Institutes of Health estimates that 700,000 Americans have hydrocephalus, and it is the leading cause of brain surgery for children in this country.

A major difference between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa is the number of neurosurgeons available to treat this condition. The U.S. has 3,500 neurosurgeons, whereas Uganda, for instance, has only four.

Another major difference between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa is the methodology used to treat hydrocephalus. In the Western world, doctors surgically insert a shunt into the brain in order to drain the fluid through the neck and into another part of the body where the fluid can be absorbed. A shunt is only a temporary solution, and there is always a danger that any one of a number of things may go wrong. For example, the tube may become blocked, an infection may develop, catheters may break or malfunction due to calcification, or the valve may drain too much or too little fluid. In almost half of all cases, shunts fail within the first two years. And when they do, the patient must have immediate access to a medical facility and a doctor who can correct the problem.

This precarious situation must be a constant source of concern and stress for people in the United States who suffer from hydrocephalus and their families. However, in a place like sub-Saharan Africa, a shunt is fundamentally impractical. Trained neurosurgeons, as I noted, are extremely few in Africa, as are properly equipped hospitals. And roads and transportation systems on the African continent make travel arduous and long for the vast majority of people under even the best of circumstances. A hydrocephalic child in a place like Uganda, even if he or she could be treated with a shunt, would have little hope of living for more than a couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, in March of this year, I had the privilege of meeting Dr. John Mugamba, one of the four neurosurgeons in Uganda. With the help of a video such as we viewed during the hearing, Dr. Mugamba explained the fascinating surgical procedure that he is performing several times daily in Uganda to cure small children of hydrocephalus. This treatment being provided at CURE Children's Hospital of Uganda is not only overcoming a medical barrier that children afflicted with the condition face; it is also serving to educate Ugandan communities that the condition is not the result of a curse and is not a reason to kill the child. Parents whose children have been cured are helping other parents to identify the condition early in an infant's life, and to know where to go for treatment.

Dr. Warf was the first to identify neonatal infection as the chief cause of pediatric hydrocephalus in a developing country. He also developed the new surgical technique, a combined endoscopic third ventriculostomy with bilateral choroid plexus cauterization (ETV/CPC), which holds great promise not only for the children of Africa but potentially for children in developed countries as well. As Dr. Warf testified, hydrocephalus has never been a public health priority in developing countries. Most infants in Africa do not receive treatment, and even when treated, they often succumb to a premature death or suffer severe disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we find the causes in order to develop public health prevention strategies. Our distinguished witnesses explained this innovative procedure, efforts being undertaken to determine the causes of hydrocephalus, and initiatives to end the suffering caused by this life-threatening condition. I plea with all stakeholders who care about the children of Africa, including African Ministries of Health, non-governmental organizations, and our own U.S. Agency for International Development, to urgently provide tangible support to these efforts and initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 440) to provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, as amended.

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

I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 440, a bill to establish a Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia.

The bill is authored by my very good friend and colleague, Congressman Frank Wolf, who was also the author of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1988 and other religious freedom legislation. He has taken the lead in Congress time and time again to advance the cause of those who are persecuted because of their faith. I wish to thank him for his years of service on this issue--his legislation and his tireless advocacy on behalf of religious freedom.

Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes the special envoy position for religious minorities in 31 Middle Eastern and South Central Asian countries, almost all of which have had bad or very bad records of persecuting or disadvantaging religious minorities. The special envoy will represent the United States in contacts with foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, U.N. agencies, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and in contacts with international organizations and multilateral conferences. He or she will also meet with victims and try to take their story to offending governments to try to end the abuse.

We know from experience, Mr. Speaker, that special envoys, including and especially for Sudan and Northern Ireland, have achieved unparalleled successes over the years in mitigating explosive situations and literally saving lives all while pursuing positive and durable solutions to what appear to be intractable and unresolvable problems.

But not all special envoys have been equally effective. Almost everything depends on whom the President appoints to the position. So I would appeal to the President: When this bill becomes law, appoint someone with the passion, energy, and experience to get this job done and to stand up as never before for these persecuted minorities.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues will speak about different religious minorities in the Middle East, but I am particularly concerned about the Coptic minority in Egypt. They have been called the bellwether of the rights for religious minorities in the Middle East. As the largest and one of the oldest minorities, they are suffering, and their escalating agony portends suffering throughout the region.

And make no mistake, they are suffering. On Friday of last week, I chaired a hearing specifically to hear of the needs and experiences of the Copts during this time during transition. What I heard and what my colleagues heard on the Helsinki Commission worried us deeply. Coptic women and girls, some as young as 14, are being systematically lured from their families or kidnapped off the street corners and forced to change their religion and forced to marry outside of their community. These young girls frequently suffer physical and psychological abuse, including rape, beatings, forced isolation, and lack of personal freedom both before and after their so-called ``marriage/conversion.'' The drugging of victims appears to be commonplace.

One story that emerged at the hearing detailed the situation of a married woman who was forced to leave her Coptic community and marry a Muslim. Her family was present at the official inquiry--which are no longer conducted, I might point out--and said that she showed signs of being drugged. She was out of it. Over and over she repeated, ``I had to do it for the children. I had to do it for the children.''

Dr. Michele Clark, an internationally recognized anti-trafficking expert--she was one of those who led the Protection Project at Johns Hopkins and was director of the OSCE trafficking efforts for years--she authored a report called ``The Disappearance, Forced Conversions, and Forced Marriages of Coptic Christian Women in Egypt.'' She testified that this happens to thousands of Coptic women and girls each and every year. She said this on Friday. Others also concurred in that analysis.

Dr. Clark further testified that the mounting evidence shows that the term ``alleged''--which has been used in the U.S. State Department Reports on Human Rights Practices, as well as in the TIP report--needs to be replaced. It's no longer even close to being accurate. It's not an allegation; it's a fact that she herself, as a human rights investigator, has helped to establish by doing extensive investigation and inquiries on the ground in Egypt.

She pointed out that the criminality of alleged forced marriages and conversions is generally dismissed by authorities here and everywhere else, especially in Egypt. The coverup must end. Young women are presumed to be willing participants, they are not. The abduction and the disappearance of Coptic women and girls follow, as she puts it, consistent patterns and constitutes human trafficking--modern day slavery.

Dr. Clark testified that men and women and peers are used to build trust and dispel resistance in young women targeted for conversion in marriage. Most cases documented in the report begin with a trusting relationship that ultimately leads to the disappearance or abduction, marriage to a Muslim man, and conversion to Islam. These supposed new friends exploit the vulnerability and naivete of a young Coptic woman.

Once trust has been established, girls are lured to an isolated place, drugged and kidnapped. Often they are raped. Following the rape, the Coptic women experience shame and fear of how their families will respond. They become more willing to stay with the Muslim friends. They feel that they have been so abused. And then they often marry their rapist because they feel they have nowhere else to go. This outrageous abuse must be exposed and stopped--and these young women rescued.

Let me just point out to my colleagues, what is going on in Egypt and the abuses being experienced by Christians and people of the Baha'i faith in Iran and elsewhere, we need to do much more than we have done to combat this, to speak out, to do effective chronicling, but also, once you get the information, to ensure that it is actionable and that you take it to those governments. Sadly, we have not done that. A special envoy would be uniquely equipped and empowered to take the cause of the beleaguered, suffering religious minorities in the Middle East and to fight, and to fight every day of the week for those people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce- Justice-Science for the Appropriations Committee, the author of H.R. 440, the gentleman from Virginia, Frank Wolf.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 440.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of religious freedom for minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia must be of the highest priority. For far too long, religious minorities and the persecution and marginalization they endure has been overlooked, even trivialized. Their rights and even their very lives must now be assiduously protected in this time of political upheaval, especially in the Middle East.

Mr. Wolf had the foresight to draft this bill before the so-called Arab Spring. It was needed in January. It's even more needed now, especially in light of the spate of church bombings and escalated persecution against believers, especially with kidnappings of thousands each and every year of Coptic Christian teenage girls, who are then forced to convert to Islam and forced to ``marry'' a Muslim man.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. The Middle East is at a critical juncture. We are witnessing the systematic extinction of centuries-old religious communities. South and Central Asia are also systematically failing their religious minorities.

The late Shahbaz Bhatti, Federal Minister for Minorities in Pakistan, gave his life to fight the injustices and atrocities suffered by the religious minorities in Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan has since abolished the Ministry for Minorities, perhaps under the false impression that it does not matter in relations with the United States.

A Special Envoy for religious minorities sends the right message at the right time, and empowers a diplomat with access to the President and to, hopefully, all the leaders throughout

the region and to all those who are disenfranchised. The rights of religious minorities matter, and we will not look askance during this perilous time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address ongoing human rights

violations in occupied northern Cyprus. Today is the 37th anniversary of the illegal 1974 invasion--a terrible tragedy, and an ongoing one, as the continued occupation of that country by tens of thousands of Turkish troops continues to deprive of their homes all those forced to flee the north--estimated to number approximately 200,000. Many Greek Cypriots escaped the north with little more than the clothes on their backs. While some have returned to visit their own homes or ancestral villages, none have been allowed to take back their rightful property-- those despoiled include an estimated 5,000 Americans of Cypriot descent. Several hundred courageous Greek Cypriots, mainly elderly people, refused to be uprooted and today live in enclaves, the remnant of once-thriving Greek Cypriot communities which have effectively been ethnically cleansed.

Hundreds of churches, chapels and monasteries once dotted the rugged landscape of the region, part of Cyprus's rich religious cultural heritage. Indeed, St. Paul visited the island nation on one of his early missionary journeys, and St. Barnabas, a native of the Cypriot city of Salamis, was martyred nearby for his defense of Christianity. The Helsinki Commission, of which I am the Chairman in this Congress, has documented the desecration and destruction of some of the over 500 religious sites in the occupied area looted of their priceless icons, mosaics and frescoes once revered by the faithful. Many of these sacred objects, stolen from churches inside or adjoining Turkish military bases, have landed on the international art market. Even the dead are not allowed to rest in peace with destruction of cemeteries rampant throughout the region. Cypriot authorities interdicted a container originating in the occupied area filled with metal destined for a recycling facility in Asia. Upon inspection agents found that the unit consisted of metal crosses and stolen grave markers.

Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned over ongoing violations of freedom of religion and other rights in northern Cyprus. Let there be no mistake, the Turkish government is responsible for what happens in the occupied part of the island. Last Christmas, a small group of Orthodox believers gathered in the village of Rizokarpaso to celebrate the divine liturgy--only to have their worship disrupted by Turkish security forces, who ordered them to disperse. The Helsinki Commission continues to receive reports of the demolition of churches in the region even as others are converted to commercial use as warehouses, barns, or casinos.

Mr. Speaker, the nearly four-decade-long illegal occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkey is an affront to the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and an encroachment on the fundamental freedoms and human rights of Greek Cypriots living in the region's enclaves and those forced to flee the area following the 1974 invasion. Our government must continue to engage on behalf of the human rights of Greek Cypriots.

Mr. Speaker, the people of South Sudan have endured two decades of wanton violence, rape, torture and hunger systematically imposed upon them by the Bashir dictatorship in Khartoum. More than 2 million people were killed, 4 million people displaced, and countless families decimated.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 ended the war and put South Sudan on the path to nationhood. Tomorrow, when the people of South Sudan emerge as the newest nation on Earth, tomorrow, when that dream is realized, Americans will join the people of South Sudan in celebrating this extraordinary hope-filled event.

Yet recently at least 100,000 Sudanese have been displaced from the Abyei area, and tens of thousands of Southerners living in South Kordofan State have been recently forced from their homes, some of them murdered. So there are serious remaining challenges.

Nevertheless, we hope and we pray that the people of South Sudan will finally live in peace and enjoy respect for their basic human rights and freedom.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 268, and deeply appreciate Majority Leader Cantor; Steny Hoyer; obviously the chairwoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; and Mr. Berman, the ranking member, for authoring this resolution reaffirming the U.S. commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

H. Res. 268 speaks in very clear, unambiguous language about what this means: It means settlement through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations rather than through a highly misguided, counterproductive, unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood, or by Palestinians seeking recognition from other states or through the United Nations, sadly, the latter, a haven of anti-Israel and even sometimes anti- Semitic activity.

Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been a keystone of U.S. and Israeli policy toward the region for decades, and even PLO Chair Yasser Arafat pledged to accept this way back in 1993. Unfortunately, Hamas in its 2011 unity agreement with Fatah did not accept this commitment, nor did it renounce violence.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 268 also outlines what a negotiated settlement should entail: negotiations in which each accepts the other's right to exist, and which are aimed at a two-state solution. Again, these have been key points of U.S. and Israeli policy, but Hamas, a State Department foreign terrorist organization, has rejected them.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, that U.S. law precludes foreign assistance to a P.A. which shares power with Hamas unless the P.A. publicly accepts Israel's right to exist and adheres to all prior agreements between Israel and the PLO. The U.S. Government has been extremely generous to the P.A., providing over $550 million annually.

So the resolution wisely reaffirms this law and urges the administration to consider suspending assistance to the P.A. pending a review of the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas.

It is our policy, and it is Israel's policy, Madam Speaker, to promote a realistic, sustainable peace process, one that entails negotiations between the two parties to the conflict, represented by groups that seek a two-state solution, and renounces violence. Hamas has shown none of that.

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

First of all, let me thank Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today, the majority leader and the Speaker for scheduling it, and to Howard Berman for his strong support of it as well and his very eloquent statement just a moment ago.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 515, the Belarus Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2011. The bill demonstrates our strong and sustained promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Belarus through targeted sanctions against this brutal dictatorship of Alexander Lukashenko.

H.R. 515 reinforces earlier law, the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 and the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, both of which passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and were signed into law.

This legislation is timely and necessary. The fraudulent December 19 elections in 2010 in Belarus and the ongoing crackdown on democracy activists and independent journalists by the Lukashenko dictatorship underscore the need for democracy-promoting legislation. Immediately after the election, the government responded to peaceful protests against electoral fraud with savage mass beatings and large-scale detentions--over 700 people.

Later on, Madam Speaker, I will put in the Record the list of many of the activists, many of whom were already in jail, their sentences--and these are men and women whose only crime was asking that Belarus matriculate from dictatorship to a democracy.

Of those charged, 40 have been convicted, with some receiving very harsh sentences--up to 6 years. And, of course, after those 6 years are over, what Lukashenko and his cronies usually do is find some reason to extend those jail sentences. So these sentences are awful indeed.

As Ileana Ros-Lehtinen pointed out a moment ago, the chairwoman of our committee, this also includes five of the nine Presidential candidates who ran against Lukashenko, their families, lawyers, journalists, and democratic activists who continue to be harassed and intimidated. It is the worst political crackdown in Europe in over a decade. And it's ongoing, Madam Speaker.

The repressive regime in Belarus was in full force earlier this week as police broke up protesters attempting to mark their country's independence day. Hundreds were detained, and 140 already received administrative sentences or fines, including independent journalists reporting on rallies held across the country.

The post-election has followed the pattern of repression that has characterized Lukashenko's 17-year rule. Through a series of rigged elections, large-scale intimidation and suppression of independent media and civil society, the dictator has long since consolidated his control over virtually all national institutions. This dictatorship, as has been said, is the worst of any in Europe today.

Perhaps most significantly about the legislation, the bill supports targeted sanctions. It expresses the sense of the Congress to deny the privilege of visiting our country to senior Belarus officials, their immediate families and others involved in human rights violations and anti-democracy actions, including those involved in the December 19 post-election crackdown. Likewise, it has provisions prohibiting U.S. Government financing, except for humanitarian goods and agricultural products or medical products and nonhumanitarian loans from international financial institutions to the Belarusan Government; and blocking assets owned by the Belarusan Government's senior leadership or their families and others involved in antidemocratic actions. These sanctions are aimed at the senior leadership of a dictatorship that displays utter contempt for the dignity and rights of the Belarusan people, and with these sanctions we stand with the Belarusan people 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, Lukashenka's personal wealth and assets, and cooperation by the Belarusian 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 Belarusian people in their struggle against the Lukashenka dictatorship, aspiring to live in a free and independent country where their human rights are respected, they can choose their government, and officials apply just laws that they themselves are subject to.

This bill encourages those struggling for decency and basic rights against the overwhelming pressures from the anti-democratic regime. It calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Belarus, including those detained in the post-election crackdown and refuses to recognize the results of the flawed elections. It calls for a full accounting of the 1999-2000 disappearances of opposition leaders and a journalist in Belarus and the prosecution of those responsible. At the same time it explicitly opens the door to the re-evaluation of U.S. policy towards the Belarusan government should it take significant steps toward democracy and respect for human rights.

H.R. 515 supports radio, television and Internet broadcasting to Belarus, specifically Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Voice of America, European Radio for Belarus and the satellite television station Belsat.

Madam Speaker, this bill comes to the floor as the Belarusan people are increasingly taking to the streets in protest against the dictatorship, and the EU Council is ramping up sanctions on Belarus. The Belarusan people deserve far better than the Lukashenka dictatorship--this bill is an act of support of their heroic struggle for human rights and democracy and is an act of profound respect and friendship for the people of Belarus.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to add to my earlier remarks in support of this legislation that, as part of a Helsinki Commission visit in to Minsk in June 2009, I had the opportunity to press Lukashenka directly on his dismal human rights record and denial of democratic freedoms.

While making clear our support for Belarus' independence, I and other members of the delegation reiterated the long-standing U.S. message that the only way to improve relations between our two countries was and is for him to take steps to increase political freedom and respect human rights. We told Lukashenka that the ball was in his court. There were even small, tentative steps in the right direction, but since December 19 any hopes for change have been crushed.

The December 19, 2010 fraudulent election, which the OSCE condemned as not having met international standards, and the continuing crackdown on democracy activists and independent journalists by the Lukashenka regime underscore the need for this legislation and our continued attention to the further deterioration of human rights and freedoms in Europe's remaining dictatorship. This ongoing repression is the harshest we have seen in Europe in more than a decade and a stark illustration that Belarus remains an anomaly--a pariah state--in today's Europe.

Peaceful protests against electoral fraud were met with mass beatings and detentions. Some of the jailed were abused and even tortured. Their families, lawyers, journalists and democratic activists have been harassed and intimidated. Students have been expelled from universities. Belarus now has more political prisoners than at any time under Lukashenka's rule, as the Belarusan tyrant has squelched dissent by convicting nearly 40 activists within the last few months on charges of mass rioting and disturbing the public order.

Some, including several opposition leaders who ran against Lukashenka in December and other political activists and civil society leaders, received severe, completely unjustified prison sentences of up to six years. Their trials were a politically motivated farce, in which policemen sometimes were not even able to identify the defendants, and which saw unexplained discrepancies between witness testimony favoring the defendants, and the judges return of guilty verdicts.

The now-6-month-long crackdown only magnifies the pattern of repression and gross and systematic human rights violations that has characterized Lukashenka's 17-year rule. He has systematically consolidated power over virtually all institutions through a series of rigged presidential and parliamentary elections, repeated violations of fundamental freedoms and the suppression of independent media and civil society, creating a climate of fear that pervades the country.

Thanks to this dictator's misrule, Belarus has the worst democracy and human rights record in Europe. Furthermore, Belarus's Soviet-style, structurally unreformed state-dominated economy is facing its worst crisis since Lukashenka came to power. Russian cut offs of energy subsidies and the explosion of the country's budget deficit following heavy state spending ahead of December's presidential elections in a populist bid to increase Lukashenka's waning popularity have contributed. Since then, Belarus has witnessed devaluation of its currency, a jump in inflation and increase in unemployment, and, in recent weeks, growing public protests.

Notwithstanding the almost universal condemnation and punitive measures by the U.S. and EU, Alexander Lukashenka continues to turn a deaf ear to the international community, and, more importantly, to the Belarusan people. The Belarusan autocrat has clearly manifested his profound mistrust of--and contempt for--the long-suffering Belarusan people at whose expense he has enriched himself for the past 17 years.

Clearly, the need for a sustained U.S. commitment to foster democracy and respect for human rights, and sanction Lukashenka and his cronies remains. I want to stress that both the Bush and Obama administrations have made good use of the previous Belarus Democracy Acts, of 2004 and 2006, reinforcing to the Belarusan goverment that the elected representatives of the American people--by overwhelming bipartisan majorities--support the policy of condemning and sanctioning the Belarusan government for its brutal human rights violations.

The visa bans and targeted financial and economic sanctions instituted by President Bush in response to the earlier legislation have been maintained, and in some ways expanded by President Obama since December 19th. Most recently, on May 27 President Obama issued a statement in which he condemned the conviction and sentencing of five opposition candidates, asserting that the United States considers these candidates, along with the other courageous activists arrested and charged in the crackdown, as political prisoners. The President also pledged to pursue new sanctions against select Belarusian state-owned enterprises, which H.R. 515 strongly encourages.

Unfortunately, two decades after the demise of the Soviet Union, Belarus remains in a time warp--unreconstructed politically and economically and isolated from its European roots, due to one man's dictatorial rule. His tactics are a chilling reminder of a darker time, more than two decades ago when the Soviet KGB hounded dissidents. It is a tragedy for the Belarusian people--who have suffered so much over the course of the last century--that Lukashenka is yet again choosing the path of self-isolation and squelching the desire for freedom. He is, yet again, making a mockery of Belarus' freely undertaken OSCE obligations.

The Belarusan people wish to live in a country where human rights are respected, democracy flourishes and the rule of law is the norm. I remain convinced that the time will soon come when Belarus will be integrated with the family of democratic nations. We must continue to resolutely stand at their side as they struggle to lift themselves from the yoke of this oppressive regime.

Belarus--Candidates or Activists under Criminal Charges Related to the

December 19-20 Post-Election Demonstration

Persons charged with organizing and participating in mass

disturbances (article 293 para 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code,

penalties of up to 15 years in jail)

Detainees, In detention, Trial date, Conviction and charge:

1. Andrey Sannikau, European Belarus coalition coordinator,

Charter97, presidential candidate, Yes, April 27-May 14, Five

years in a high security jail; organization of mass

disturbances.

2. Mikalay Statkevich, Narodnaya Hramada Social Democratic

party leader, presidential candidate, Yes, May 11-18, May 26,

Six years in a high security jail; organization of mass

disturbances.

3. Ales Mikhalevich, For Modernization NGO, presidential

candidate, No (abroad).

4. Dzmitry Us, presidential candidate, Yes, May 11-18, May

26, Five years and six months in a high security jail;

organization of mass disturbances.

5. Alyaksandr Atroshchankau, Sannikau's spokesperson, Yes;

appeal denied April 5, March 01-02, Four years in a high

security jail; participation in mass disturbances.

6. Natallya Radzina, Charter97 editor, No (abroad).

7. Anatol Lyabedzka, United Civic Party chair, No.

8. Alyaksandr Klaskouski, former police officer, Yes, May

11-18, May 26, Five years in a high security jail;

participation in mass disturbances, insult of an official,

unauthorized assumption of rank or powers of an official.

9. Uladzimir Kobets, Sannikau's campaign team leader, No.

10. Alyaksandr Arastovich, Statkevich's aid, No.

11. Anatol Paulau, Ramanchuk's aid, No.

12. Aleh Korban, Ramanchuk's aid, No.

13. Ivan Haponau, a Russian citizen, No, February 22, March

10, 10,500,000-ruble fine ($3,450); participation in mass

disturbances.

14. Artsyom Breus, a Russian citizen, No, February 22,

March 10, 10,500,000-ruble fine ($3,450); participation in

mass disturbances.

15. Mikita Likhavid, For Freedom movement activist, Yes,

March 22-23, March 29, Three years and six months in a high

security jail; participation in mass disturbances.

16. Dzmitry Novik, BPF member, Yes; appeal denied April 5,

March 01-02, Three years and six months in a high security

jail; participation in mass disturbances.

17. Aleh Fedarkevich, a demonstration participant, Yes, May

5-12, Three years and six months in jail; participation in

mass disturbances.

18. Uladzimir Khamichenka, a demonstration participant,

Yes, April 27-May 5, Three years in a high security jail;

participation in mass disturbances.

19. Dzmitry Myadzvedz, a demonstration participant, No,

March 01, March 10, Partial house arrest that requires

regular reporting to police and restricts travel without

prior permission from authorities; participation in mass

disturbances.

20. Uladzimir Loban, a demonstration participant, Yes, May

5-12, Three years in jail; participation in mass

disturbances.

21. Paval Vinahradau, ``Tell the truth'' activist, Yes,

April 27-May 05, Four years in a high security jail;

participation in mass disturbances.

22. Andrey Paznyak, a demonstration participant, No, May

11-18, May 26, Three years of partial house arrest;

participation in mass disturbances.

23. Alyaksandr Malchanau, a demonstration participant. Yes;

appeal denied April 5, March 01-02, Three years in a high

security jail; participation in mass disturbances and

desecration of state symbols.

24. Illya Vasilevich, a youth activist, Yes, April 27-May

14, Three years in a high security jail; participation in

mass disturbances.

25. Dzmitry Bulanau, a demonstration participant, Yes, May

11-18, May 26, Three years in a high security jail;

participation in mass disturbances.

26. Alyaksandr Kvyatkevich, a demonstration participant,

Yes, May 11-18, May 26, Three years and six months in a high

security jail; participation in mass disturbances.

27. Vasil Parfyankou, ``Tell the Truth'' activist, Yes;

appeal denied March 25, February 17, Four years in a high

security jail; participation in mass disturbances.

28. Artsyom Hrybkou, a demonstration participant, Yes, May

11-18, May 26, Four years in a high security jail;

participation in mass disturbances.

29. Fyodar Mirzayanau, a demonstration participant, Yes,

April 27-May 14, Three years in a high security jail;

participation in mass disturbances.

30. Ales Kirkevich, Malady Front activist, Yes, April 27-

May 5, Four years in a high security jail; participation in

mass disturbances.

31. Dzmitry Drozd, Sannikau's campaign team member, Yes,

April 27-May 5, Three years in a high security jail;

participation in mass disturbances.

32. Syarhey Kazakou, European Belarus activist, Yes, May 5-

12, Three years in jail; participation in mass disturbances.

33. Uladzimir Yaromenka, Malady Front activist, Yes, April

27-May 14, Three years in a high security jail; participation

in mass disturbances.

34. Dzmitry Daronin, a demonstration participant, Yes, May

5-12, Three years and six months in jail; participation in

mass disturbances.

35. Andrey Pratasenya, Ramanchuk's campaign team volunteer,

Yes, April 27-May 5, Three years in a high security jail;

participation in mass disturbances.

36. Aleh Hnedchyk, Nyaklyaeu's campaign activist, Yes,

April 27-May 14, Three years and six months in a high

security jail; participation in mass disturbances.

37. Vital Matsukevich, a demonstration participant, Yes,

May 5-12, Three years in a high security jail; participation

in mass disturbances.

38. Yauhen Sakret, Sannikau's campaign activist, Yes, May

5-12, Three years in jail; participation in mass

disturbances.

Persons charged with organizing, arranging, and actively

participating in activities that severely violate public

order (article 342 para 1 of the Criminal Code, penalties up

to three years in jail)

1. Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu, ``Tell the Truth'' campaign leader,

presidential candidate, No, May 5-20, Two years suspended

sentence.

2. Vital Rymasheuski, Belarusian Christian Democracy co-

chair, presidential candidate, No, May 5-20, Two years

suspended sentence.

3. Alyaksandr Fyaduta, Nyaklyaeu's aid, No, May 5-20, Two

years suspended sentence.

4. Andrey Dzmitryeu, Nyaklyaeu's campaign team leader, No,

May 5-20, Two years suspended sentence.

5. Syarhey Vaznyak, Nyaklyaeu's aid, No, May 5-20, Two

years suspended sentence.

6. Nasta Palazhanka, Malady Front deputy chair, No, May 5-

20, One year suspended sentence.

7. Paval Sevyarynets, Belarusian Christian Democracy co-

chair, Rymasheuski's aid, No, May 11-16, Three years of

``khimiya,'' a form of internal exile.

8. Zmitser Bandarenka, European Belarus coalition

coordinator, Charter97, Yes, April 26-27, Two years in jail.

9. Syarhey Martsaleu, Statkevich's aid, No, May 11-16, Two

years suspended sentence.

10. Iryna Khalip, independent journalist, Sannikau's wife,

No, May 11-16, Two years suspended sentence.

Persons suspected of organizing and participating in mass

riots (article 293 para 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code,

penalties of up to 15 years in jail)

1. Ryhor Kastuseu, BPF deputy, presidential candidate, No.

2. Anton Davydzenka, a demonstration participant, No.

3. Usevalad Kavalenka, a demonstration participant, No.

4. Syarhey Klyueu, ``Tell the truth'' activist, No.

5. Mikita Krasnou, a youth activist, No (abroad).

6. Dzmitry Apishau, a demonstration participant, No.

7. Leanid Navitski, Sannikau's aid, No (abroad).

8. Andrey Mikalayeu, a demonstration participant, No.

9. Alyaksandr Vasileuski, a demonstration participant, No.

10. Dzyanis Shydlouski, a demonstration participant, No.

11. Alyaksey Sharstou, a demonstration participant, No.

12. Dzmitry Huseltsau, a demonstration participant, No.

13. Vital Stazharau, a demonstration participant, No

(abroad).

Persons convicted of severe hooliganism committed by a

group of individuals inflicting bodily harm (article 339 para

2 and 3, penalties of up to ten years in jail); detained

December 18

1. Zmitser Dashkevich, Malady Front leader, Yes, March 22-

24, Two years in jail; severe hooliganism (para 2).

2. Eduard Lobau, Malady Front activist, Yes, March 22-24,

Four years in a high security jail; severe hooliganism (para

3 involving armaments).

Students Expelled after December 19 (for political

reasons).

Belarusian Committee for defense of the repressed

``Salidarnasc'' reports ten expelled students:

1. Yauheni Bely, Belarusian State University.

2. Uladzimir Syarheyeu, Belarusian State University.

3. Alyaksandr Lukashou, Belarusian State University.

4. Katsyaryna Davydzik, Belarusian State University.

5. Katsyaryna Klimko, Institute of Journalism, Belarusian

State University.

6. Aleh Anufyenka, Institute of Journalism, Belarusian

State University.

7. Viktorya Petrakouskaya, Maxim Tank Belarusian State

Pedagogical University.

8. Viktoryia Kruchkova, Maxim Tank Belarusian State

Pedagogical University.

9. Tatsiana Hrybouskaya, Maxim Tank Belarusian State

Pedagogical University.

10. Andrey Luhin, Maxim Tank Belarusian State Pedagogical

University.

11. Artsyom Khvastsyuk, Belarusian State University of

Informatics and Radioelectronics.

12. Uladzimir Yaromenak * Belarusian State University of

Informatics and Radioelectronics.

13. Illya Zhakhavets, Belarusian Institute of Law.

14. Yauhen Tsarykau, Minsk State High Radiotechnical

College.

15. Illyia Vasilevich * Minsk State Polytechnic College.

16. Boris Zakharchuk, Hrodna State University named after

Kupala.

17. Yauhen Busko, Hrodna State University named after

Kupala.

18. Arseni Asmanau, Homyel State University named after

Skaryna.

19. Mikita Likhavid * Minsk Institute of Entrepreneurship.

20. Fyodar Mirzayanau * Belarusian State Economic

University.

* Tried and Sentenced to terms in prison

Other sources report (unconfirmed):

1. Ales Krot (Member of Studentskaya Rada [independent

Student Council], Belarusian National Technical University.

2. Anna Baraban, Belarusian State University.

3. Alina Litvinchuk, Brest State University.

4. Syarhey Sadouski, Belarusian State University of

Informatics and Radioelectronics.

According to ``Salidarnasc'', one student was expelled

before December 19 (for political reasons).

1. Mikhail Mikulich Maxim Tank Belarusian State Pedagogical

University.

I yield back the balance of my time.