Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues an editorial from the November 8 Washington Post by columnist Jim Hoagland. Hoagland's piece is aptly titled ``Listen to the Dissidents.'' Hoagland points out the limits of ``engagement'' as pursued by the Obama administration--particularly engagement that relegates human rights issues to the back-burner.

It is tragic that, as Hoagland points out, ``the dissident--a hero and catalyst for enormous change in the Soviet empire, China, the Philippines and elsewhere only two decades ago--has become a largely neglected and absent figure in this administration's diplomacy.''

I join the growing chorus of voices in urging the President to listen to the dissidents.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 8, 2009.]

Listen to the Dissidents

(By Jim Hoagland)

Barack Obama's extended hand was whacked across the

knuckles by the leaders of Iran, Syria and assorted other

thuggeries last week. But the Obama administration did manage

a good demonstration in Burma of how its brand of engagement

can and should work.

Kurt Campbell, the State Department's top Asia official,

traveled to the isolated military dictatorship to talk with

its corrupt junta. But Campbell also insisted on having a

highly visible meeting with the leader of the country's

democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, and then publicly

called on her persecutors to grant her party more freedoms.

This is the balance that has been missing in Obama's

outreach to other authoritarian states. Demonstrators on the

streets of Tehran underlined the president's missing link

Wednesday by chanting: ``Obama, Obama--either you're with

them or you're with us,'' as Iranian police beat them,

according to news accounts. Obama and his advisers need to

take the dissidents' message to heart.

The dissident--a hero and catalyst for enormous change in

the Soviet empire, China, the Philippines and elsewhere only

two decades ago--has become a largely neglected and absent

figure in this administration's diplomacy. Media coverage of

political protest globally also seems to have waned since the

end of the Cold War.

True, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have

made symbolic gestures toward the politically oppressed on

their

travels and in pro forma statements. But, as the president's

coming visit to China will again show, dissident political

movements have not been incorporated into his strategy for

changing the world. The president believes so strongly in his

powers of persuasion that the transformative work once done

by Lech Walesa, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Corazon Aquino, Wei

Jingsheng and others now falls largely on his shoulders.

Campbell's meeting with Suu Kyi provided a useful corrective,

for one country at least, to this tendency.

George W. Bush proved that it is possible to overdo support

for dissident movements and the vilification of their

tormentors, just as his father demonstrated that it can be

underdone (see Bush 41's effort to keep the Soviet Union and

Yugoslavia from disintegrating). The Bush 43 administration,

in fact, bears some of the responsibility for the eclipse of

the dissident in the public mind. The focus of many

journalists' and political activists has recently been on

U.S. human rights abuses rather than those of much more

brutal foreign regimes.

So Obama's decision to reach out and encourage hostile

regimes to relax their grip internally made initial tactical

sense, especially in Iran. The administration deserves some

credit for the current political fluidity there. Removing the

United States as a heavy-handed, threatening enemy helped

expose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's manifest failures of

governance and helped meaningful dissent to surface and

spread.

But the extended-hand tactic may have run its course there.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's highest authority, used

inflammatory language to denounce Obama and the U.S.-

originated proposal on uranium reprocessing given to Iran on

Oct. 1 in Geneva. Even though U.S. officials claimed at the

time that Iran had ``accepted'' the proposal--which

effectively drops the long-standing U.S. demand for Iran to

suspend its enrichment of uranium as a condition for

negotiations--Khamenei said that its terms were unacceptable.

Meanwhile, protesters were voicing concern that Obama's

single-minded pursuit of a nuclear deal is conveying

legitimacy to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad--at the dissidents'

expense. They did not seem to have been impressed by the

general words of support contained in a message issued by

Obama to mark not this political uprising but the 30th

anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, an

event celebrated in Iran but not here.

Syria also served notice that its priorities have not been

influenced by Team Obama's repeated blandishments for better

relations. Israel intercepted a major clandestine Iranian

arms shipment destined for Syria and the Hezbollah guerrillas

it supports in Lebanon. And As-Safir, a Syrian-controlled

newspaper in Beirut, launched a vitriolic, sexist attack on

Michele Sison, the able U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, that

concluded by calling on its readers to ``silence this

chatterbox''--an ominous statement in a country where U.S.

and European diplomats have been murdered.

Friendly, principled engagement is a useful tool--up to a

point. It is probably worth exploring in Burma with new

steps. But there also has to be a workable Plan B--something

Obama will now have to demonstrate that he has developed for

Iran and Syria.

Madam Speaker, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''

Against the counsel of the State Department and others in Washington's foreign policy establishment, President Reagan uttered these six words standing at the Brandenburg Gate June 12, 1987--words that marked his presidency and defined an era.

Former Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers famously said when he defected that he believed he was joining the right side by rejecting communism, but that he was leaving ``the winning side for the losing side.''

Reagan however, who was himself indelibly shaped by Chambers' account of his defection in the historic book Witness, always believed he was on the winning side.

Unbothered by those who cautioned that he would offend the Soviets, Reagan, the eternal optimist, felt compelled to issue this challenge to Gorbachev believing what seemed to be unimaginable at the time--that one day the wall would in fact fall.

Erected in 1961 the Berlin Wall was an enduring symbol of communism-- a physical manifestation of the divide between East and West, free and captive.

With rapt attention, many Americans gathered around their televisions 20 years ago as scenes emerged of East Berliners pouring across the border, tearfully embracing strangers, and raising glasses of champagne as they rejoiced with West Berliners in their newfound liberty--the free world rejoiced with them.

For decades an epic struggle had been underway between two vastly different

ideologies. Then, in the span of a year, three giants converged on the world scene and human history was forever changed. England's Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, Poland's native son, Pope John Paul II, and our own Ronald Reagan boldly championed freedom, inspired hope in millions and gave those living behind the Iron Curtain the courage to imagine a world transformed.

While the Soviet Union is relegated to the history books, today there remain ideologies that threaten human freedom and dignity. There remain governments who rule by fear. There remain people held captive in their own nation.

Similarly, there are those who still warn that America ought not meddle in other countries internal affairs. There are still those who caution against disrupting bilateral relations. There are still those who maintain that the desire for freedom and basic human rights is not universal.

But the events of 20 years ago teach us something very, very different.

Ask the Sharanskys and Solzhenitsyns whose lives in prison improved when leaders in the West spoke out on their behalf. Ask the thousands of East Berliners who, facing certain death if caught, dug tunnels, constructed hot air balloons and built pulleys in their desperate attempts to escape a literal prison.

There are lessons to be drawn from this anniversary--lessons which must inspire our foreign policy today. People yearn for freedom, they crave dignity. These things are not bestowed by the government and as such cannot forever be denied by the government. People are inspired by words. Dictators cower when their lies are exposed. And seemingly impenetrable regimes can find themselves on ``ash heap of history.''

I rise in strong opposition to the bill because our Nation is going broke.

I rise in opposition to this bill.

We must carefully weigh the implications of a costly new government spending program at a time when the country already owes more than $56 trillion in entitlement obligations.

I am also deeply concerned about the national debt, which has doubled since 2000 and is nearing $12 trillion for the first time in our history.

Any plan put forward must control costs, not add billions of dollars to an already ballooning deficit.

America is going broke. Is this the legacy this Congress wants to leave our children and grandchildren?

News Release

``Health care is a very personal issue and there are very

real consequences to what Congress does on this issue.

Congress must be committed to offering affordable,

accessible, and portable health care choices with the goal of

fixing what's broken and keeping what works. I know there are

good and reasonable people with deeply held views on every

side of the health care reform issue. That's why I believe

all sides need an opportunity to be heard and offer ideas so

that a bipartisan consensus can be reached.

``I believe every fair-minded person would agree that

Congress needs to find a way for the millions of Americans

without health insurance to be assured of quality, affordable

health care when they need it and to address the concerns of

those who are paying for a plan they believe falls short of

the coverage they need. Part and parcel of that discussion, I

believe, also must be the recognition that there are many

folks are paying for a health insurance plan that they like

and want to keep and they don't want the government involved

in their health care decisions.

``I am very concerned, however, about the health care

reform process under way in Congress. House Democrats on

October 29 unveiled a 1,990-page health reform bill--H.R.

3962--which is estimated to cost just under $900 billion over

10 years. Especially troubling is the majority leadership's

intention to fast track the legislation for House

consideration within days of its introduction.

``Congress needs to listen to the American people, take its

time and get health care reform legislation right. This is

too important an issue to rush through under some artificial

timeline. It is for this reason that I am cosponsoring a

resolution calling for any health care reform legislation

considered by Congress to be made available online in its

final form 30 days prior to being voted on in the House. I

believe that every American must have the opportunity to read

and understand what Congress is considering. Now with the

latest bill covering nearly 2,000 pages, that is more

important than ever. A copy of H.R. 3962 is available on my

Web page, www.wolf.house.gov. ``I opposed the first version of the Democrats' health

reform legislation (H.R. 3200) that was introduced this

summer, and nothing that I have read so far in the newest

version introduced on October 29 changes my view. This

legislation would set up a government insurance option with

rates to be negotiated between providers and federal health

officials. It has mandates for every American to have

insurance and for employers to provide insurance. It would

expand Medicaid to historic levels adding new mandates on

states. The revenue sources identified include a surcharge

on wealthy taxpayers and changes to Medicaid and Medicare

which would translate to about $500 billion in cost

savings over 10 years, according to the Congressional

Budget Office.

``When President Obama earlier this year directed Congress

to come up with a health reform plan, I had hoped that both

Republicans and Democrats could work together on this issue

of such complexity in a bipartisan way and reach consensus on

a plan to address the needs of uninsured Americans, protect

those with insurance plans they like, and keep a lid on

deficit spending at a time when our economy is reeling from

recession and spiking unemployment. What we have seen,

however, is the opposite. The speaker and House majority

worked alone on H.R. 3200 that initially was to be voted on

by the House in early August. They have continued to work

behind closed doors to refine that plan, and the latest bill,

H.R. 3962, was drafted solely by the majority.

``I don't believe that is the right way to develop public

policy on an issue of such importance and far-reaching

consequence to every American. This is a complex issue to

legislate, and there are legitimate questions that Congress

must answer. Among the many questions to be resolved are how

to make sure health care decisions are patient-centered and

remain between physicians and patients and not prescribed by

some government formula; how to provide for Americans who

don't have health insurance and ensure those with pre-

existing conditions can get insurance; how to protect those

who have health insurance and don't want to be forced to give

up their plans or pay more for them; how to control health

care costs and pay for health care reform without increasing

the

deficit; how to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not

subsidizing health insurance for those illegally in our

country; how to ensure that the self-employed and small

business owners can afford insurance, and how to ensure that

young adults can continue to be carried under their parents'

health plan until they reach age 25.

``I have concerns about a government-run insurance option

and what that will mean in the way of costly mandates for

small businesses and other employers during a time when

unemployment is teetering near 10 percent. I am also

concerned about how Americans will pay for a $900 billion

plan as our country tries to work its way out of an economic

recession and faces trillions of dollars in debt and a

growing annual deficit that could be near $2 trillion. I also

have questions about finding a half trillion dollars in

savings in Medicare and Medicaid costs. What will that mean

for senior citizens today?

``We must carefully weigh the implications of a costly new

government spending program at a time when the country

already owes more than $56 trillion in promised entitlement

obligations through Medicare and Social Security. I'm also

concerned about the national debt, which has doubled since

2000 and is nearing $12 trillion for the first time in our

history, and unprecedented federal deficits, which could

result in increased interest rates for consumers if we

continue to finance government by borrowing from foreign

lenders. I have the leading bill in the House to establish a

bipartisan commission to review entitlement spending with tax

policy on the table to ensure that Congress addresses these

spending issues, which if left unchecked, will be disastrous

for future generations. (For more information about the SAFE

commission, go to www.wolf .house.gov/SAFE.)

``I again want to emphasize: it is important for Congress

to fix what's broken with our nation's health insurance

system. But we have to do it the right way without changing

what is working. We need a plan that controls costs without

adding billions of dollars to an already ballooning deficit;

ensures competition and choice; provides that patients and

their doctors make the decisions on medical care rather than

a government-run agency, and addresses skyrocketing medical

liability costs and tort reform.

``I believe that the legislation in the House falls short

of those goals and that Congress has a lot more work to do to

provide the kind of health reforms Americans want and need.''

I thank the gentlelady, and I particularly thank her for her comments about China.

I rise in support of this, but there is a connection because in China today there are 35 Catholic bishops that are either in house arrest or in jail and Protestant pastors that plundered Tibet.

China, unfortunately, and I think the American people know, has now become our banker. This ties in to the health care bill that we are ready to vote on tomorrow. That bill will cost $1 trillion.

To think America is unsinkable, the White House projects the Federal debt will grow by more than $9 trillion in the next 10 years. How big is a trillion? One million seconds equals 12 days. One trillion seconds is more than 30,000 years. China is our banker. This bill will cost $1 trillion, and it is important that we deal with this issue.

Now, the second poster sums up on where we are today. This happens to be Uncle Sam. He is saying, don't let the debt defeat a great nation.

We are obligated to China. China holds a large portion of our debt. The Saudis hold a large portion of our debt. The Saudis, who funded the radical madrassas up on the Pakistan-Afghan border and some who were on the airplanes that killed the people on 9/11, 30 or more so from my congressional district, hold our debt.

We need to get control of this debt. And the health care bill will not lower costs. The health care bill will cost over $1 trillion. What kind of legacy are we leaving for our children, and I have five, or our grandchildren, and I have 14? A legacy of debt and deficit.

So $1 trillion for this health care bill. We have $57 trillion of unfunded obligations. We have $12 trillion in debt.

So I close by saying to vote against the bill, because it costs us money; and on behalf of Uncle Sam we say, don't let debt defeat a great nation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the following statement released by former Egyptian presidential candidate and political prisoner Dr. Ayman Nour who was restricted from traveling to the United States by Egyptian authorities.

On November 3, 2009, the Egyptian public prosecutor issued

an administrative decision preventing me from traveling to

the U.S. and to other countries in the Middle East and

Europe. My visit to the U.S. was scheduled for November 6,

2009.

The decision by the public prosecutor came as a shock, and

is unjustified, especially in light of the recent permit I

was granted for a visit to the European Parliament in April

2009. During that visit, I met with various European leaders

and underwent substantial medical examinations. I was forced

to postpone other necessary physical examinations because I

could not obtain a visa for the UK from Belgium.

The public prosecutor's decision conflicts with Egyptian

Constitution, Article 52, which stipulates that, ``it is not

acceptable to prohibit a citizen from staying somewhere or to

be forced to stay somewhere.'' Article 52 states that

``citizens have the right to permanent or temporary

immigration abroad.'' Adding to this is the absence of

objective reasons given by the authorities that would have

prevented me from practicing my right. In other words, there

is no probability that I will escape while I am abroad, and I

do not owe money to any entity, which means that restricting

is uncalled for and unnecessary. The double standard in my

case is evident in the fact that the public prosecutor

permitted others with real legal obstacles, similar to those

described above to travel abroad in the past.

The public prosecutor justified his politically motivated

restriction by referring to the fact that I was released from

prison on February 18, 2009 for medical reasons, while my

official release date had been set for July 22, 2009. This

decision was based on claim 12886/63Q dated April 21, 2009,

which allowed me to obtain an automatic curtailment of my

sentence according to Article 86 of Prisons Bylaw 79/1961.

The fact that I was granted an exit permit on March 15, 2009

for my Europe visit mentioned above, is further indication

that the current travel restriction is unwarranted.

I would like to present the following facts:

(1) The public prosecutor's decision is only one example in

a series of aggression, abuses, and insistence of the

political regime to deprive me of my basic human rights,

including the following:

a. The right to work and earn a living as an attorney. The

temporary governmental committee which ran the Association

Bar canceled my membership in April 2009. I was the only

individual to receive this cancellation despite the fact that

there were dozen of similar cases.

b. The right to sell my assets. The notary public offices

were instructed to prevent me from registering any contracts

unless I provide documents proving my release. To date I have

been unsuccessful in obtaining a legal declaration of my

release from any governmental authority. Likewise, they

subsequently prevented me from opening a bank account. These

restrictions not only affect my professional life, but

intrude upon my personal life, including the ability to

sustain my family and to seek the necessary medical attention

I require after incurring serious injuries during my four

years in prison.

c. The right to healthcare coverage. As a registered

journalist, I should enjoy the benefit of health insurance

coverage through the Supreme Council of Journalism and Press

Syndicate. This has also been restricted to me, as the

syndicate was instructed to freeze my salary and prevent me

from my legal right to receive medical treatment.

d. The right to appear in court to claim my civil rights. I

have been prevented from appearing before several courts to

make any claims for my basic civil rights.

e. The right to file claims of defamation. The public

prosecutor prevented me from filing the claims of defamation

to the criminal court. I subsequently published these claims

in the media. More than two thousand of these claims have

been frozen, which encourages more illegal moral attacks

against me.

f. The right to re-open my case in light of new evidence

proving my innocence. The public prosecutor has failed to

grant my request to review my claim in light of the newly

acquired evidence of my innocence. This evidence would serve

to acquit me from the original verdict by the Court of

Administrative Justice, which took criminal proceedings

against me on January 29, 2005.

g. The right to speak to the state-owned media. I am

currently restricted from responding to claims broadcast

against me in the state-owned media. The public prosecutor

did not consider my claims to respond to the claims against

me in the state-owned media.

h. The right to establish an NGO or join any social

organization or group. At the instruction of the State

Security forces, I have been deprived from establishing any

nongovernmental organization or from joining any social or

sport clubs. They threatened one of the clubs that granted me

an honorary membership and forced them to remove me.

i. The right to privacy. I am monitored at all hours of the

day by government security forces. Recently, I have embarked

on a ``knock-on-the-door'' campaign to meet citizens

throughout Egypt. During these events, government security

personnel followed me continuously. In addition, my phone

calls remain illegally tapped.

j. The right to actively participate in politics. I have

been restricted from practicing my political and partisan

rights. This decision is being held up by an outdated 1937

Supreme Constitutional Court ruling, which subsequently has

been discontinued by newer rulings from the same court which

provides persons in my similar situation to receive the right

to participate in politics, even after serving prison time.

It is evident to the public that such abuses arose in

response to my political stances in an attempt to control my

political and personal life. The authorities claim they are

doing right by me in releasing me for health reasons on

February 18, 2009, only very few months before the legal

release. It is plain to see that this early release is in

line with their goal of suffocating me politically and

depriving me of my basic human rights.

(2) Regarding my trip to the U.S. and other countries, the

following facts should be stated:

a. I received an invitation from the Coalition of Egyptian

Organizations in the U.S. to speak to Egyptians and Egyptian

Americans living in various states. The same coalition

invited Gamal Mubarak, Omar Suliman, Amr Mousa, Ahmed

Zweil, Mohamed Elbaradie, and a number of other public

figures.

b. The aforementioned invitation met my earnest desire to

meet with Egyptian communities abroad and to discuss their

problems and issues of interest. I also received some other

invitations from other organizations and entities including

the following:

Council on Foreign Relations, National Endowment for

Democracy, various think tanks, American universities, U.S.

congressmen and political figures, Egyptian communities in

three major states, U.S. media representatives.

c. The invitations do not include any meetings with

representatives of the U.S. Administration. I have already

announced that the main purpose of my visit is not to conduct

high-profile meetings. I plan to focus solely on meetings

with the Egyptian and American citizens and U.S. public

representatives. This visit was motivated by my belief in

communicating with the global community to advocate our

political and partisan views. Other political figures from

Egypt made similar visits recently, including Gamal Mubarak,

who visited the U.S. several times, and Chief of Parliament,

Fathi Sorour, who is set to meet today with Egyptians in the

U.S.; the same day I received the government decision

preventing my travel plans.

d. My request for travel was submitted to the public

prosecutor three months ago, to which I received no response.

I subsequently re-submitted the same request several times

until he finally got back to me with demands for more details

about the invitations I received from the U.S., as well as

information about the medical examinations I plan on

undergoing. After several back-and-forth messages dealing

with requests for translation of documents' authenticity and

such, it was clear that the public prosecutor was insisting

on delaying procedures. This situation concluded with a

negative response today in answer to my 3-month long request

for travel permission.

In conclusion, we would like to thank the various

organizations and groups which invited me to visit the U.S.

Because of the unfortunate decision by the Egyptian public

prosecutor, I am forced to remain in the country at this

time. I will continue with my plan to address the Egyptian

and American community via video conference. I would like to

thank in particular the Coalition of Egyptian Organizations

in the U.S. and its leaders, among which include: Cameel

Halim, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Dina Guirgus, and Omar Afifi, all

who exerted tremendous effort to organize the proposed events

in the U.S. and worked closely with colleagues here in Cairo

to make the necessary arrangements for my potential visit to

the U.S.

The Egyptian public prosecutor's decision to prevent me

from traveling abroad compels us to work even more fervently

overcoming the legal obstacles we face. We are not canceling

the visit to the U.S., but consider this only a postponement

for another date, which we are tentatively scheduling for

2010.

We call upon the Egyptian and international community, as

well as to human rights organizations worldwide to condemn

the aforementioned abuses, which are an assassination to my

civil rights and human rights, and are more painful and

damaging than the physical suffering I yet experience. My

treatment in Egypt is in direct contradiction to the

international conventions signed by Egypt, most importantly,

the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

We assert that insistence on violating our rights will

increase our belief in the right of Egyptians to democratic

and nonviolent reform. We will work diligently on putting an

end to the unjust and unacceptable situation of civil and

human rights in Egypt. We will continue to fight against the

inheritance of our country to despotic rule, and against the

deprivation of our people from practicing their rights.

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the following testimonies of two Chinese human rights attorneys who submitted testimony for a hearing last week of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

[Written Testimony submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission

on the rule of law in China, Oct. 29, 2009]

On the Religious Case in Shanxi and the Status of Religious Freedom in

China

(By Mr. Dai Jinbo)

I. The Status of China's Religious Freedom in Recent Years

Since the release of the Regulations on Religious Affairs

(hereafter abbreviated as Regulations) by China's State

Council in 2004, house churches and other unregistered

religious organizations have all been regarded as illegal by

the ruling administration. House churches that do not want to

join TSPM (Three-Self Patriotic Movement) churches, due to

disagreement concerning their beliefs, have become targeted

because they refuse to acquire administrative approval by

registering their house church as a religious organization.

The Regulations have become the basis for government

departments to carry out selective law enforcement on

unregistered religious organizations including house

churches. This is also a result of China's

institutionalization of religious issues.

Therefore, with the official implementation of the

Regulations in 2005, house churches in various places have

all faced or have experienced being banned, fined and /or

requested to suspend their religious activities by the

government. This can cause such administrative sanctions

against them on the grounds that they are not registered. In

terms of banning, there are various kinds of different

rulings authorizing the ban. These rulings include

administrative penalties meted out by the religion management

departments to ban illegal religious organizations, ban

illegal venues for religious activities and ban illegal Bible

training workshops. The religious affairs departments also

manage civil affairs departments and use their capacity as a

governing entity for social organizations and religious

organizations to ban and crack down on house churches on

grounds that they are illegal social organizations. An

example is the persecution experienced by the Autumn Rain

Church in Chengdu in June 2009. Even public security agencies

would also interfere in the internal affairs of religious

organizations and prevent them from making progress towards

autonomy. Further evidence of this type of religious

persecution is the case in Baixiang, Wenzhou, in March 2009.

While the Chinese government was attempting to control and

crack down on unregistered religious organizations, including

house churches, these unregistered religious organizations

did not succumb. Instead, they took the path of defending

their rights in accordance with Chinese law. By defending

their rights, they have exposed the Chinese government's

violation of the rule of law and the principle of human

rights. While cracking down on unregistered religious

organizations on grounds that they are not registered, it is

a violation of the international

convention and the relevant provisions concerning religious

freedom in China's constitution. This has also made more

religious organizations reach a consensus, that is, whether

being registered or unregistered is not a criterion for

defining a religious organization as legal or illegal. If

they are no legally registered, this should not deprive the

citizens of their right to religious freedom.

An excessive number of cases involving violations of

citizens' religious freedom would negatively affect China's

international image. Controlling unregistered religious

organizations by banning them could not achieve the desired

effect. Some local governments have changed their strategies

of cracking down on the unregistered religious organizations

and turned religious issues into non-religious issues, thus,

trying to control unregistered religious organizations by

means of limiting their access to venues. This is mainly

reflected in two approaches. One approach is targeted at

urban religious organizations that primarily rent their

venues. The government departments often secretly force

the landlords to cancel the lease or not to renew their

lease so that the religious organizations will not have

stable venues for religious activities. The second

approach is to forcefully demolish unregistered facilities

for religious activities on grounds that they were

illegally built. The religious case in Xiaoshan in 2006

was evidence, as was the case in 2009 where the Land and

Resources Bureau in Jinghai County, Tianjin, ordered the

party concerned to demolish their newly-built church

facilities. They also fined the church in excess of 10,000

Yuan on grounds that they had violated the law of land

management. Therefore, the unregistered religious

organizations in China cannot obtain legal church assets.

This has caused a breakdown in achieving religious freedom

in China.

The recent case in Linfen, Shanxi, will produce a profound

impact on China's religious freedom. This is also an issue of

church assets. Since according to the current Law of Land

Management and the relevant provisions in the Urban Planning

Law, a construction project not only requires a certificate

of land use but also requires a planning permit for the

construction project. However, the government departments

would absolutely not want to process these procedures for

houses that may be used for gatherings of house churches.

Churches are often unable to obtain approval when they are

trying to resolve the problem of meeting venues by building

new houses, this includes some TSPM churches. Some registered

legitimate historical facilities, used for religious

activities also found it very hard to obtain approval for

construction of new churches. If houses are built without

approval, they would be considered ``illegal constructions''

and would face the risk of being demolished at any time.

At dawn, on September 13, 2009, more than three hundred

police officers, without producing any legal paperwork,

stormed into ``Gospel Shoes Factory,'' a gathering venue for

house churches in Fushan County, Linfen, Shanxi. The

government broke into the gathering place of the church

members and used military weapons, wood sticks, bricks, iron

hooks and other sharp instruments beat the people, while

smashing and looting the property. They severely beat more

than one hundred Christians who were caught entirely off

guard. Many lost consciousness and many more collapsed in

pools of their own blood. At the same time, bulldozers and

other heavy machinery were dispatched to destroy and demolish

many buildings. All this had occurred because the government

departments deemed their meeting venue as ``illegal

buildings'' for the sake of cracking down and oppressing

house churches.

The local government has tried to negotiate with local

church leaders since this religious incident. The

negotiations between the government departments and the

church failed. On September 23, Yang Rongli of Linfen Church

and six other church members decided to report the situation

to the provincial government. On their way to the province

capital they were stopped by the local government. A large

number of PAP officers were stationed at the Cathedral in

Linfen city, blocking the entrance to the church and

confiscated important items in the church. They also

prohibited believers from going to meet there. Many church

members, including the pastor of the Linfen Church, Huang

Xiaoguang, were detained illegally, put under house arrest,

or closely monitored. It seemed that the local government

wanted to completely destroy the house churches in Linfen. At

present, the situation is still developing yet the media has

not reported any incidences on this case.

According to Mr. Fan Yafeng, who is rather familiar with

the situation, states that house churches in Linfen, Shanxi,

are one of China's ten major house church systems in China.

If house churches in Linfen were destroyed by the government

through the use of illegal force, this would be the ultimate

invasion in the Chinese government's crackdown on house

churches and persecution of citizens. According to Professor

Li Fan's research at the World and China Institute, a non-

governmental think tank, house churches in China make up at

least half of China's NGO resources. If such respectful and

honorable house churches are destroyed, this will be a major

regression of China's religious freedom and a serious

violation of citizens' religious freedom. This would cause a

massive blow to China's non-governmental forces of freedom

and would seriously hinder China from making any progression

toward religious freedom and the rule of law.

II. Specific suggestions to the U.S. Congress

1. We request that the U.S. Congress review and forward the

religious case in Linfen and relevant information concerning

the status of religious freedom in China to President Obama.

It is our desire to increase attention to the religious case

in Linfen. Furthermore, it is our desire for President Obama

to convey this religious persecution to the Chinese

government during his visit to China.

2. We request the U.S. Congress to immediately ask the

spokesperson of the U.S. State Department to hold a press

conference focusing on the religious persecution case in

Linfen.

3. We request the U.S. Congress pass a resolution to adopt

strong measures in response to the Chinese government's

infringement of human rights and religious freedom.

4. We request the U.S. Congress encourage and support the

U.S. Embassy in China to periodically meet and communicate

with the groups of Chinese human rights lawyers and

advocates. We also request that the U.S. Embassy will make

U.S. entry visas more accessible for these people who are

fighting for China's democracy, freedom, and rule of law.

5. We request that the U.S. Congress send a letter to the

Chinese government expressing concern for Pastor Wang

Xiaoguang of Linfen Church in Shanxi who is currently being

detained, as well as church leaders, such as Yang Rongli,

Yang Hongzhen, Li Shuangping, Yang Chaizhen, Yang Xuan, Cui

Jiaxing, Gao Fuqin, and Zhang Huamei.

[Written Testimony submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission

on the rule of law in China, Oct. 29, 2009]

The Challenges Rights Defense Attorneys in China Face and Its Future

Prospect

(By Mr. Li Fangping)

We are now living in the China set against such a dramatic

background of the times: First, the economic system is fast

evolving while its political system has seen little changes

over the years. Second, its legal system is increasingly

improving, but the public power is often not restrained by

the law. Third, the citizens' awareness of their rights is

increasing and the more the awareness to defend one's rights,

the more prominent the abuse and the shirking of

responsibilities by the public power becomes.

With the advent of the Internet in China, the first

widespread and passionate participation by the citizens in

political matters occurred in 2003 during the ``Sun Zhigang

Incident,'' which successfully made the State Council

announce the annulment of the system of ``internment and

deportation.'' In the next year, ``The State respects and

safeguards human rights'' was solemnly written into the

Constitution. In the next five years, right defense attorneys

have, as a professional social group committed to promoting

rule of law and safeguarding human rights, presented

themselves before the world.

Certainly, in a country where rule of law is still far from

realized and where there is full of terrible things against

ordinary citizens, the work and life of right defense

attorneys must be full of obstacles and frustrations. Just

because we engage in work involving human rights, government

departments not only do not understand the significance of

our existence, they also regard us as the targets of their

domestic defense. We seem to have become personae non gratae

in the eyes of the government and we are often treated

unfairly. Some of us have been beaten and kidnapped. The

personal freedom of some of us is illegally restricted and

some of us are illegally stalked by force. Some of us are

forced to report our activities and some are driven out by

our landlords due to pressure from the government. Some are

threatened and given a disciplinary warning by Bureau of

Justice and lawyers' associations. Some are simply fired by

their law firms due to pressure from the government.

This year, the right defense attorneys as a social group

are enduring more pressure than ever before. As far as I can

confirm, there are now at least 17 attorneys at this time

unable to practice law. These attorneys have always persisted

in providing legal assistance or defense services for clients

to safeguard their legitimate rights. They include victims of

Sanlu poisonous milk powder, parents of children victimized

in the earthquake, HIV carriers, peasants who have lost their

land, detained Tibetans, house church Christians, Falun Gong

practitioners, right defense activists, political dissidents,

victims of family planning policies and clients from other

various areas.

Judicial administrative departments in Beijing and other

places have terminated attorneys' rights to practice on the

ground that these right defense attorneys have not passed the

so-called ``annual evaluation'' or that the law firms where

they work have not passed the ``annual inspection.'' However,

the ``annual evaluation'' for attorneys and the ``annual

inspection'' for law firms themselves are not the

administrative penalty that can terminate the right to

practice of the attorneys or of their law firms. We can see

that the ``annual evaluation'' for attorneys and the ``annual

inspection'' of law

firms have degenerated into an illegal, disorderly and

remediless administrative penalty in disguised form that

overrides the disciplinary penalty in the industry and

administrative penalty on the practicing attorneys.

What delights us is that on the one hand, the right defense

attorneys have not given up their idea of safeguarding rule

of law and human rights. Each time they negotiate with

judicial administrative departments, they express their

criticism on the illegal administration and their firm belief

that China will certainly develop into a country under rule

of law. On the other hand, the disadvantaged social groups

whose rights are harmed also express their desire of

``attorneys for us, and we for attorneys.'' It is my belief

that the appeal for rights by the ordinary people whose

rights are harmed, and the sense of mission of the attorneys,

will combine to form a powerful synergy in promoting the

progress of our country in human rights and rule of law.

Though the road to rule of law and human rights in China

will be hard and long, yet the long march of this time is

attracting more and more people, including you, us and them.

Given this situation, I, as a member of this social group of

defense attorneys, personally am full of confidence for the

``Same World, Same Human Rights.''

Finally, let me express my gratitude for all my friends who

are concerned about the rule of law in China and the progress

in human rights!

Uncle Sam is saying, Don't let debt defeat a great Nation.

America is going broke. We must carefully weigh the implications of a costly new government spending program at a time when the country already owes $56 trillion of entitlement obligations to China and to Saudi Arabia.

I am deeply concerned about the national debt, which has doubled since 2000 and is nearly $12 trillion for the first time in history. Any plan put forward must control costs, not add billions of dollars to an already ballooning deficit.

America is going broke. Is this the legacy Congress wants to leave to our children and our grandchildren? Don't let debt defeat a great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the following testimonies of two Chinese human rights attorneys who submitted testimony for a hearing last week of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

[Written Testimony submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission

on the rule of law in China, Oct. 29, 2009]

By Cracking Down on Heresies, the Government Reduces Venues for

Religious Activities in Rural Areas

(By Mr. Wang Guangze)

From May 2006 to July 2007, I was working as Beijing-based

editor and commentator for the magazine Phoenix Weekly, a

subsidiary operation of Phoenix Satellite TV. During that

period of time, I had tried to make some reports on the

status of religious freedom. Phoenix Satellite TV and its

subsidiary magazine Phoenix Weekly were registered in Hong

Kong, but due to their pro-CPC features, the CPC gave them

the special permission to set up a reporter's station in

Beijing and recruit employees. The restrictions on its scope

of news reporting are rather lax as compared with other media

outlets in mainland China. This is also the main reason why

this witness was able to report on religious cases, while

other media outlets in China had no such right to report on

related content during the same period of time.

The religious case of ``Three Grades of Servants'' was

published in the eleventh issue of Phoenix Weekly in 2006, in

a Chinese article of as many as 11,000 characters. The entire

report consisted of three articles: ``An underground church

and sixteen cases involving death,'' ``Xu Wenku and his

religious kingdom,'' and ``Religious reality in a rural

village.'' The entire report was written by two journalists,

Deng Fei and Liu Zhiming, after they conducted interviews.

They were notified by a witness, who also gave guidance on

conducting interviews. In the end, I edited on the articles

and published them.

Through investigations and interviews, we found that the

mainland Chinese Public Security department and prosecution

department accused ``Three Grades of Servants,'' a Christian

church under the management of Xu Wenku, of carrying out an

order to murder twenty members of another Christian house

church that called itself ``the Lightning in the Orient.''

Both police and prosecution agencies believed that the two

parties not only had the motive of competing for the

recruitment of believers, but that there were also conflicts

between their religious creeds. After the case was cracked,

mainland Chinese police effectively cracked down upon this

type of mutual hate-killings between different religious

factions, stopping this kind of hate-killing from spreading.

In the meantime, mainland police also destroyed the religious

activities of the two house churches. According to estimates,

the religious belief of tens of thousands of people's may

have been affected.

According to the indictment, Xu Wenku and others swindled

people out of 20.5 million RMB in various parts of mainland

China by illegally hiring believers and collecting

contributions, etc. At the beginning of 2007, Xu Wenku and

other core members of ``Three Grades of Servants'' Church

were sentenced to death and were immediately executed.

Through investigations and interviews, we believe that the

relatively secluded venues for religious activities in rural

areas have given rise to religious heresies or have led some

people to be engaged in illegal activities in the name of

religion. On the other hand, mainland police, while cracking

down on heresies, also take the opportunity to destroy venues

for religious activities in rural areas, reducing the number

of venues for villagers' religious activities. I believe that

mainland police have failed to distinguish the normal

religious activities from the illegal and criminal behavior

in the religious activities that should be cracked down. As a

result, the religious environment in the countryside

continues to deteriorate and has entered into a sort of

vicious cycle: While cracking down on heresies, the venues

for religious activities were reduced. After the venues for

religious activities were reduced, the religious activities

of villagers were forced to be more secret, and secret

religious activities often tend to nourish the creation of

heresies and varying degrees of illegal religious activities.

For more evidence, please view the following relevant

report at: http://www.boxun.com/hero/wanggz/.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To meet the President's deadline for closing Guantanamo, there has been a rush during the past 2 months to transfer as many detainees as possible to their home countries, or to a third country that would accept them.

On September 26, the administration announced that a detainee named Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed was transferred to Yemen. The announcement did not reveal the terms of his transfer but said the United States has coordinated with the Yemeni Government to ensure that the transfer took place under, quote, appropriate security measures.

There is an ongoing and very real concern about detainees returning to terrorism. According to data from the Department of Defense, at least 15 percent of former Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorist activity. The 15 percent that have returned to terrorism following release were merely those detainees who were perceived to be low security risks. That's why they were released years ago. The detainees pending release now are the worst of the worst. Their recidivism rate may be much higher than 15 percent.

If these detainees are to be transferred, they should go only to governments that are willing and able to try, detain, rehabilitate or monitor them. Yemen does not meet that standard. An economic crisis, domestic security challenges, and Islamic terrorism are right now threatening to overwhelm the Yemeni Government. The FBI director recently highlighted Yemen as an area of persistent al Qaeda activity. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula openly advertises their intent to attack the United States and our overseas interests, and is able to work in relative freedom in Yemen. Counterterrorism measures in Saudi Arabia have forced extremists to seek refuge abroad, and many have relocated to Yemen's ungoverned areas. Known al Qaeda terrorists, including USS Cole bombers, have escaped from prison in Yemen to return to terrorism. The Christian Science Monitor reported last month of the rising threat to Saudi Arabia from the deteriorating security situation in Yemen. Saudi police prevented a bomb attack on October 13, and one of the perpetrators was a former Guantanamo detainee who entered the country from Yemen.

The bottom line is that terrorist detainees should not be sent to Yemen where al Qaeda operates freely and the government appears unable to control their actions and movements. Reuters has reported that the Obama administration has already cleared 75 of the remaining detainees for transfer abroad, and that includes 26 detainees from Yemen. Based on what we know, this administration is planning to send more, perhaps many more, detainees to this lawless country, increasing the risk of future terrorist attacks on Americans.

The administration should immediately terminate the return of detainees to Yemen, and the congressional committees of jurisdiction should investigate and demand a full justification. The release of any detainee to Yemen represents a potentially dangerous threat to the United States and U.S. citizens, both military and civilian.

As of now, the administration has gone down a dangerous road, and Congress is idly allowing them to make these misguided decisions.

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the following testimonies of two Chinese human rights lawyers who appeared at a hearing today of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

Written Testimony Submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission

on the Rule of Law in China by Mr. Jiang Tianyong

Dear members of U.S. Congress, ladies and gentlemen:

How are you? My name is Jiang Tianyong and I come from

mainland China. I am an attorney and most of the cases I take

on involve religious belief, and are usually referred to as

``sensitive cases.'' I am also a Christian and as such a

person, I need to worship God in gatherings with my brothers

and sisters in Christ. I am going to discuss three things,

and I hope I can give you an idea of the actual status of the

rule of law and religious belief in China.

The first one is an event I would like to share: On the

afternoon of Mother's Day of May 13, 2007, I was praying and

singing hymns of God with my brothers and sisters in Christ

gathering. It was in a private large room in Beijing.

Suddenly, several dozen people broke into the room. Only

about a dozen of them were wearing uniforms and the rest were

in plain clothes. One of them forced us to stop our

activities and to remain still where we were. We were not

allowed to leave the place. The intruders claimed that they

were law enforcement officers from the Beijing Municipal

Bureau of Religious Administration. They said that our

gathering was an illegal one and abolished it immediately!

They sealed our donation box and took videos and photos of

many of us. They also recorded the identification information

of every one of us. After that, they conducted a long

interrogation. It was after 1 AM that I left the site.

Between that day and July 2009, I had no place where I could

meet with my fellow Christians in a gathering. This is my

experience in China as a Christian.

The second event occurred on April 16, 2009. Attorney Li

Fangping and I became the defense counsels for the living

Buddha from Burongna Convent in Tibet that day. The living

Buddha is the abbot of Burongna Convent and Ya-tseg Convent

in the Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Ganzi of Sichuan

province. He was charged with weapons possession and

functionary embezzlement. However, after a detailed

investigation, we found the living Buddha was actually

charged for some other reasons. After the March 14 Incident

in 2008, people in the Tibetan prefecture were organized by

the government to engage in a ``Campaign of Education in

Patriotism.'' Monks and nuns were forced to study in the

convents and were kept there for a long time. What, then, was

the content of their education? They were commanded to

criticize the Dalai Lama and to call him a jackal and to

break away from him. Every one of them was commanded to

trample on the portrait of Dalai Lama and spit on the

portrait before he or she was allowed to pass the test. Given

such a situation, over 200 nuns from Burongna and Ya-tseg

Convents could no longer endure this, and they finally broke

out of the convents on May 14, 2008 and went to protest in

the streets, demanding religious freedom. As the living

Buddha was the leader of these two convents, he was arrested.

His case was tried on April 21, 2009 and both of the

attorneys and the living Buddha denied the charges. There is

still no result from the case, but we worry about the fate of

the living Buddha.

The third piece of evidence I would like to share is that

starting from 2008, I began to defend Falun Gong

practitioners in nearly 20 Falun Gong cases. I have found

that the crackdown on Falun Gong is indeed a serious human

rights disaster. My clients were arrested simply because of

the practice. They were tried simply because they gave

practice books to others. Some of them were sentenced to

imprisonment just because they distributed materials that

expose the facts of persecution. They often face torture and

there are special funds, special locations, special people

and special tools in torturing Falun Gong practitioners. When

Huang Cheng from Jinzhou, Liaoning province was tried in

court, everybody could see the scars on his body; Chen Xinye

from Shenyang, Liaoning province suffered a bone fracture in

the beatings; they poured mustard water into the nostril of

Li Zhigang from Harbin, Heilongjiang province; Zhou Huimin

from Chengdu, Sichuan province was beaten to death.

When it comes to Falun Gong cases, the law is often

trampled and it is hard to safeguard the defendant's right to

defense. Sun Feng from Tangshan, Hebei province was deprived

of his right to meet with his attorney; Ge Hefei from Handan

of Hebei province was sentenced while his attorney was

forbidden to intervene. In Falun Gong cases, attorneys are

forbidden to defend their clients on the proper application

of law or the nature of the incident. They are forbidden talk

about the Constitution or human rights. They are only allowed

to say whether the defendants did something or did not do

something.

I and other human rights attorneys in China are suffering

an increasing level of harassment, suppression, and

persecution [by the government], because we serve as defense

counsels in cases of safeguarding the freedom of religious

belief.

Respectively in 2006 and 2008, the Beijing Municipal Bureau

of Justice intentionally fabricated complications in the

annual inspection and registration of my attorney's license.

On July 9, 2009, the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice

announced that my attorney's license was revoked. We [human

rights legal defenders] are often stalked, harassed and

threatened by the secret police from Domestic Defense

Protection Squad. On special occasions or when foreign

leaders visit China, we are often forbidden to leave our

residences. For example, when President Obama visits China

next month, I will be forced to stay at home. My family

members are also often harassed and people from the Bureau of

Justice often come to talk with us and forbid me to get

involved in some cases. Because our landlords can't endure

the pressure from the secret police, they refuse to renew our

leases, and therefore we often are forced to move out.

Because we handle cases involving religious belief, Li

Heping, Li Xiongbing, Wang Yajun, Tang Jitian, Liu Wei, Wen

Haibo, Xie Yiming, Wei Liangyue, Zhang Xingshui, other

attorneys and I have still not passed the so-called ``annual

inspection.'' Therefore, there is no way we can continue to

work as attorneys at this time.

However, legal professionals, including attorneys, members

of house churches and other religious believers, have not

abandoned their rights in face of the crackdown. The civil

society in China is growing and will become more mature. I

think all of you present here today should keep your

confidence in this. We also need the attention and support

from all of you present here today, and the U.S. government.

I propose the following:

1. We recommend that you pay more attention and give more

support to the non-governmental forces in China, such as the

US State Department's International Visitor Leadership

Program, so that more human rights attorneys can participate

in the program;

2. We recommend President Obama and other government

officials meet with human rights defenders and attend

gatherings of house churches during their visit to China;

3. We recommend President Obama can talk with President Hu

Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao and restore the freedom of Liu

Xiaobo, Chen Guangcheng, Hu Jia, Guo Feixiong and Guo Quan.

We also hope that with President Obama's visit, we will be

able to know the whereabouts of Attorney Gao Zhisheng;

4. We recommend officials in the U.S. Embassy in China make

contact with human rights defenders and dissidents more often

and more widely, and invite them to attend some activities

held at the embassy.

Thank you!

A Testimony on the Current Status of China's Law on Religious Freedom

(By Mr. Zhang Kai)

As a human rights attorney in China, I am hereby making

this statement concerning the current status of its law on

religious freedom as well as some suggestions based on cases

related to house churches affairs and their human rights

advocacy in recent years.

Over the past few years, a large number of Chinese people

have been seeking faith and have become Christians. However,

they are often unable to enact their everyday religious

spiritual life under the law. Christian churches in China

consist not only of the officially recognized TSPM churches,

but also house churches organized by the believers

themselves. The development of house churches was a result of

the Christian belief that Christ, rather than the government,

should be the leader of the church. Because of the

theological differences between the TSPM and the house

churches, many Christians prefer to have religious gatherings

with their relatives and families at their own homes.

However, members of these house churches are often

interrupted, harassed and pressured by the government during

religious services while meeting in their homes, with some

believers administratively detained, reeducated through

labor, and even criminally punished.

I. illegal intervention in christian belief mainly includes the

following aspects

1. Banning house churches on grounds of being ``cults.''

In 2000, the Ministry of Public Security issued The

Ministry of Public Security Circular Concerning a Few

Questions About Identifying and Banning Cult Organizations.

In this regulation, the following are confirmed: there are

seven types of cult organizations clearly defined in the

documents by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee

and the General Office of the State Council, and there are

seven types of cult organizations identified and confirmed by

the Ministry of Public Security, totaling fourteen types of

cults. However, of these fourteen cults, eleven are related

to Christianity--including the Shouters, the Disciple Union,

and the Total Scope Church. Since this regulation runs

directly counter to the basic principle of the modern rule of

law concerning the separation of the government and religion,

it has further led to the direct crackdown on a large number

of house churches composed of bona fide Christians, tried or

labeled as cults, in the course of law enforcement.

In accordance with Item 1 of Article 27 of the Security

Administration Punishment Act currently in effect, anyone

would be subject to administrative detention or fines (I) for

organizing, abetting, intimidating, seducing and defrauding,

or instigating other people into practicing cults or

superstitious activities or for using cults or superstitious

activities to disrupt security and order, and to harm the

health of other people; (II) for conducting activities under

the pretext of religion or Qigong, to disrupt security and

order or harm the health of other people. This article has

led to the confiscation and damages of the large amounts of

church assets as well as the detention or reeducation through

labor of believers.

2. Punishment on grounds of conducting cross-regional

preaching.

In some local regulations, believers are prohibited from

cross-regional preaching. However, one of the characteristics

of Christianity, as a religion, is that Christians preach

wherever they go and spread the Gospel to every corner of the

world. In the Provisional Regulations on the Management of

Religious Activities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, it

is clearly set forth: ``Professional religious people shall

not conduct cross-region, prefecture, city or county

preaching without approval from the religious affairs bureaus

of the government.'' In one place in Xinjiang, a believer,

who went to another church, had barely read one sentence from

the Bible when he/she was removed from the position in the

church by the Religious Affairs Bureau. In some places,

violators of this law are directly given administrative

detention and even reeducation through labor.

3. Banning on grounds that they are not registered.

At present, the regulations on religious affairs require

that the establishment, change, or cancellation of religious

organizations be registered in accordance with Regulations on

Management of Registration of Social Organizations. However,

house churches are unable to register independently. As a

result, they are banned by local governments or the Public

Security as illegal congregations or on grounds that they

were not registered.

4. Intervening at will in the religious activities of

believers.

According to the surveys conducted in some cities in

southern Xinjiang this year, the government religious affairs

departments (i.e., Ethnic and Religious Affairs Commissions)

of Wensu, Baicheng, and the Aksu area, appointed or removed

at will clergymen at the house churches and restricted the

normal religious activities such as ``breaking of bread'' and

baptism, without going through democratic elections by

believers. Even the programs celebrating Christmas by

believers must all be reviewed and approved by the religious

affairs departments. Some religious venues were illegally

shut down without following any legal procedures.

5. Suspected intention of insulting Christians.

In 2008, the People's Government of Wensu Town even issued

a plaque of ``Peaceful Mosque'' to the Christian Church in

Wensu. This action, by blurring the Christian and Muslim

faiths, caused a widespread revulsion toward Christians, and

may provoke the conflict among peoples of different religions

in the future.

6. Large numbers of facts show that administrative penalty

rulings are not issued and that fines were imposed without

legal and official tickets.

For example, Li Enfu, a citizen in the Wushi area who has

believed in Christianity ever since he was a child, had been

appraised as an ``Excellent Self-employed Individual''

several times, even though he is handicapped. Yet, just

because he had participated in religious activities, Li Enfu

was fined repeatedly. In 2002, this citizen was fined 4,000

yuan and actually paid 2,000 yuan, just because he took a

Christian calendar from the Wensu church and this calendar

was an official publication of the government. In 2006, he

was fined 8,500 yuan for attending a Christian gathering held

at his own home. And in March 2009, Huang Ming and Li Enfu

were fined a total of 3,000 yuan for holding the gathering

and leading the prayers.

7. Punishing Uyghur ethnic minorities in Xinjiang for

believing in Christianity.

In the Xinjiang region, it is especially difficult for the

Uyghur people who believe in Christianity. They basically

operate underground. In southern Xinjiang, there are about

one hundred Uyghur Christians. They can only hold completely

secret gatherings in groups of two or three people. Last

year, their leader, Wusiman, was reeducated through labor,

and co-leader Alimujiang was criminally punished.

II. comments on the ineffectiveness of legal relief concerning

christian belief

When lawyers involved in these kinds of cases provide legal

services for believers, they often experience tremendous

obstruction. For example, the courts refuse to take the

cases; when they do take cases, they don't hold hearings; and

when they hold hearings, they do not give rulings.

It is extremely difficult to file relevant cases with the

courts, which do not go through any standard legal

proceedings. According to Chinese law, if a case cannot be

established, there should be a ruling that the case is not

established. And based on that ruling, the party concerned

has the right to appeal. However, very often, these courts

neither process the filing of these cases, nor give any

rulings. This year, in the Hanzhong

region in Shanxi, we instituted the relevant administrative

proceedings, and the court just refused to take the case.

Such phenomena are quite widespread. Although some cases were

filed and the litigation fees were paid, the courts kept

postponing the hearings. Four years ago, when I started

administrative proceedings in the Hanyin area in Shaanxi, I

was told by the local political and judicial commission that

there wouldn't be any court hearings. Even now there still

hasn't been any court hearing.

III. based on the above facts, we are making the following suggestions

As the aforementioned facts mainly include the harm

directly brought upon house churches by the judiciary or law

enforcement, we hope that the international community can

give more attention so as to increase surveillance and reduce

such harm. We hope that the U.S. government will carry out

more specific implementations in the following areas:

1. Urge and help the Chinese government to draw up the

Religious Freedom Law, which should be consistent with

universal values.

2. Have more American officials or those at the U.S.

embassy in China attend worship services in house churches in

China.

3. Have American government officials or staff at the U.S.

Embassy in China periodically communicate with human rights

lawyers to learn about their situations.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the ``Sweats for Vets'' initiative taking place in Virginia's 10th District, which I am honored to represent in Congress.

When I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center during August recess, I learned about an effort being undertaken by groups of veterans and other organizations across the United States to provide ``pieces of home'' to our wounded warriors in veterans' hospitals. Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1177, based in Leesburg, Virginia, is one of these groups. Their ``Sweats for Vets'' program has provided sweatpants, sweatshirts, and books to patients at the Martinsburg Veterans Hospital, as part of the hospital's support program. This gesture helps make a hospital more comfortable for our wounded soldiers.

The town of Purcellville, also located in the 10th District, has joined with VFW Post 1177 and American Legion Post 293 in collecting sweat sets for patients in local veterans' hospitals. The ``Sweats for Vets'' initiative has become a tremendous morale booster. I would like to recognize the Purcellville mayor, Bob Lazaro, for leading the initiative in the town. By undertaking this project, he is leading an important effort to help our wounded warriors and improve their stay in the hospital.

I salute the efforts of both VFW Post 1177 and the town of Purcellville, to help bring comfort to those service personnel recovering in veterans' hospitals.

Madam Speaker, the national unemployment rate is 9.8 percent with nearly half of the states reporting increases in the month of September. And it is growing--it could reach 10 percent.

The national debt is approaching $12 trillion, and the `09 fiscal year registered a staggering $1.4 trillion in red ink. Meanwhile the House is expected to consider a health insurance reform package with a price tag nearing $900 billion, with a Government run public option.

America is going broke.

We have watched the dollar slide--recently reaching a 14-month low against all other major currencies--which if not addressed this could lead to even higher consumer prices.

We can't spend our way out of this mess, and it won't magically get better without action from Congress.

The country is in trouble and it's time to stop the bleeding.

The action that will lead to a solution is the bipartisan commission Jim Cooper and I have proposed with every spending program on the table with tax policy. Over 75 members of the House support this idea.

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and ranking member Gregg have similar legislation in the Senate. So do Senators Voinovich and Lieberman.

The Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission bill is an opportunity to create a renaissance in this country for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, this is a poster of Uncle Sam going broke. America is going broke, and we are taking away the future economic security of our children, grandchildren and of everyone listening.

The national debt is racing toward $12 trillion, and it is growing at rates that haven't been matched since World War II. It will double over the next 10 years.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, hit the nail on the head in this week's National Journal when she said, ``It's like fiscal jenga, where people are piling on more and more debt, and finally, something's going to be the cause of it collapsing, but no one believes their thing is going to be the tipping point.''

Why is this Congress, Mr. Speaker, willing to keep piling on the debt? Why are we turning a blind eye toward our children and grandchildren?

The FY 2009 fiscal year ending September 30 registered a $1.4 trillion deficit, leaving red ink as far as the eye can see, and leaving trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Medicare and Social Security add up to a massive $57 trillion in promises Uncle Sam has made but can't keep.

Make no mistake. Unsustainable spending has far-reaching implications for the United States. It touches every sector from health care to job creation, and it gives the foreign investors who hold America's debt more control.

What is this administration doing? Is Congress prepared to let America sink? How can this Congress stand by record joblessness that is almost reaching 10 percent? Does Congress care?

Our manufacturing base is crumbling. The state of the dollar is falling. Foreign lenders own nearly 40 percent of our domestic economy, and China

and Saudi Arabia have now become our bankers. If lawmakers in this body were serious about the debt and about the deficit issues that Americans are increasingly worried about, Congress would have an honest conversation and would do something about it.

In June of 2006, they stood in the same place, and spoke about the introduction of a bill called the SAFE Commission Act. They explained that the country is having trouble. It's a bipartisan commission, and it puts every spending program on. It comes back and requires--it requires, Mr. Speaker--that Congress vote up or down. In a bipartisan manner, Congressman Cooper and I have had this bill in now for 3 years.

I have little faith that this Congress will act through regular order and will tackle this enormous, growing problem. It will take this approach: Instead of dealing with these issues, Congress will ignore them.

In closing, it reminds me of the Simon and Garfunkel song, which they sang in Central Park, called ``The Boxer.'' It says: Man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. I would change the words to say: Congress hears only what it wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

Therefore, this Congress is allowing Uncle Sam to go broke. It is time for us to deal with it in a bipartisan way for the good of our children, for the good of our grandchildren and for the good of everyone who lives in this country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Virginia House Speaker William J. Howell for receiving the Carrington Williams Preservation Award. The Carrington Williams Preservation Award is presented by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation to an individual whose accomplishments in furthering the cause of preservation have been noteworthy and will be long-lasting. This year, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation selected a Virginian of remarkable accomplishments for the Commonwealth and to the preservationist cause to receive this award.

The award is made in honor of Carrington Williams, whose dedication to preservation, especially Civil War battlefields, is well known. He served as chairman of the predecessor organization to the Civil War Preservation Trust, the Association for Preservation of Civil War Sites. He was chairman of the federal commission that wrote the management plan for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, and he served as the founding chairman of this organization.

The Honorable William J. Howell is the 54th Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, a nearly 400-year old institution and the oldest continuously elected law-making body in the world. First elected a delegate in 1987, he represents the 28th House District which includes parts of Stafford County and the City of Fredericksburg.

In addition to his noteworthy legislative contributions to public education and public safety, the 2007 enactment of his legislation for historic land use changes were supported by statewide and regional funding of roads, railroads, and transit. He has been a strong supporter of restoring the Chesapeake Bay and also led the effort to enact Virginia's national model program for preserving open spaces using free market principles. He has stood firmly with battlefield preservationists in many of their efforts, including those at Slaughter Pen Farm in Fredericksburg, as well as more recently at the Wilderness. And his leadership enabled the General Assembly to appropriate $5 million in state funding for Civil War battlefield preservation.

Speaker Howell is chairman of the Virginia Sesquicentennial American Civil War Commission that is now preparing to mark the 150th Anniversary in 2011 of Virginia's entry into the Civil War. He has been twice honored by the Civil War Preservation Trust with its State Leadership Award. He was one of the overseers of the recent State Capitol renovations as well as one of the leaders in organizing the commemoration in 2007 of America's 400th Anniversary at Jamestown.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the Conference Report for H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 because it includes more than just the comprehensive annual defense policies and budget authority for the Department of Defense, which is the intended purpose of the bill.

I continue to fully support the efforts of our troops on the ground, but have serious concerns about controversial hate crimes legislation added by the Senate. When the House voted on this legislation in June, I voted yes, because I supported the policies laid out in the House version of the bill. But the Senate's addition has no place in this bill.

I was also disappointed to see that provisions to fix Concurrent Receipt that were included in the House version of the bill were removed in conference. This is a well deserved and long overdue benefit for our nation's veterans.

I want to express my support for the provisions in this legislation which will improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families, strengthen commitments to military retirees, and bolster our national security. Without the hate crimes provision, this bill in total is good legislation for our troops and veterans. In addition to the pay raise for our military, it includes important TRICARE provisions that I continue to support. I have a long history of supporting our troops and veterans and will continue to work to support policies that benefit our military and hope that future defense related legislation can be considered without the inclusion of extraneous and inappropriate provisions.

I also strongly support provisions included in this legislation with regard to federal employees that will improve the efficacy of the federal workforce and remedy historic inequalities in federal retirement benefits. These improvements will strengthen our national security workforce, including more than 700,000 civilians employed worldwide by the Department of Defense.

I am particularly pleased that legislation I have introduced with Representative Jim Moran, which would credit unused sick leave for federal employees, has been included in this bill. According to a Congressional Research Service report, current inequities in sick leave policy result in a loss of productivity costing taxpayers more than $68 million each year. This will remedy this and result in a more productive and cost-effective workforce.

The other important federal workforce provisions included in this legislation will: change the computation of certain annuities based on part-time service; expand the class of individuals eligible to receive an actuarially reduced annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System; authorize the re-deposit of retirement funds under the Federal Employee Retirement System; change the retirement credit for service of certain employees transferred from the District of Columbia service to the federal service; alter the retirement treatment of Secret Service employees; and phase in the use of locality-based comparability payments to replace cost-of-living adjustments for certain federal employees, and include a provision from the Senate-passed bill allowing for the re-employment of federal retirees on a limited, part-time basis without offsetting their annuity from salary.

I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the last several months to advocate for the inclusion of these provisions from the House and Senate bills and I am pleased that they have been maintained in the conference agreement. Although I am disappointed that I cannot support this bill, I strongly support the inclusion of these provisions strengthening the federal workforce.