Mr. Chairman, over the past three decades, we have seen a steady increase in the quality, candor, and scope of the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In fighting the plague of human rights abuse, sunlight is often the best disinfectant. On the whole, the Country Reports shine brightly into some very dark corners. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Department of State who work so hard to compile them.

    Although we do not claim to be perfect and are ourselves subject to the universal ideals we espouse, the United States continues to be the world’s most prominent champion of fundamental human rights.

    This Congress, I have re-introduced the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 which seeks to promote and defend human rights related to this increasingly influential communication medium. I am pleased to note that the State Department has implemented one of the action items of this proposed legislation by including important additional information in the Country Reports, such as the domestic legal authority for internet restrictions and penalties imposed for the exercise of free speech via the internet. This information is critical to efforts to address internet repression in countries like Tunisia, China and Belarus, and to convince governments that free speech restrictions are contrary to their national interests.

    It is worth noting that most of the major human rights efforts undertaken by the United States Government in recent decades – including the Country Reports themselves – have been the result of Congressional mandates: The Jackson-Vanik Amendment; The International Religious Freedom Act; the Torture Victims Relief Act; the Lautenberg Amendment; the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; the North Korean Human Rights Act. These were Congressional initiatives undertaken in the face of skepticism – and sometimes outright opposition – by the Executive branch.

    For example, I recall when Assistant Secretary Shattuck appeared before this Committee ten years ago to oppose the International Religious Freedom Act. He argued that he was “particularly concerned” that the bill would “harm the very people it seeks to help” because it would “legislate a hierarchy of human rights into our laws” that could “severely damage our efforts to ensure that all aspects of basic civil and political rights … are protected.” Not surprisingly, this doomsday prophecy did not come to pass.

    To the contrary, once such issues have been forced by legislation, the Executive branch eventually internalizes, and sometimes embraces, those human rights priorities. For example, religious freedom and trafficking are now mainstream policy priorities that receive far more international attention and action than they did before the laws were on the books. Other mandates are embraced more slowly, such as the refugee title of the North Korean Human Rights Act, which has not yet been adequately implemented.

    I certainly do not wish to appear to downplay the seriousness of human rights violations in many countries of the world, including Zimbabwe with its recent horrific crackdown on the political opposition, North Korea, Eritrea, Belarus, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Ethiopia and Iran. The Report provides disturbing details about how these countries in particular – though not exclusively – continue to thwart universal principles of respect for fundamental human rights. However, time limitations prevent me from examining each one, so I will focus the spotlight on three human rights violators in particular – China, Sudan and Vietnam.

    This year’s report repeats the assessment of prior years that the Chinese Government’s human rights record “remained poor,” but even when many of us thought the situation could not get much worse, it adds that the Chinese record “in certain areas deteriorated.” One of those areas often ignored or downplayed by the international community is the appalling lengths to which the government will go to enforce its one-child per couple limit. 

    The Chinese government has a long record of oppressing its people through its population control program. Beijing does not deny levying huge fines against people who have children the State deems illegal. In fact, at a hearing that I chaired several years ago, Secretary Dewey testified that “couples who give birth to an unapproved child are likely to be assessed a social compensation fee, which can range from one-half the local average annual household income to as much as ten times that level.” Indeed this is a horrific government that decides which children are legal and which are illegal --- that is, which children will be allowed to live and which will not. 

    These acts are truly a crime against humanity executed in conjunction with the UNFPA. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes against humanity of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered - their mothers robbed of their children by the State. This barbaric policy makes brothers and sisters illegal, and makes women the pawns of the population control cadres.

    This barbaric policy has now given rise to a new problem for China. An article published in the guardian several years ago, stated that China could find itself dealing with as many as 40 million single men by the year 2020 because of the one child policy. According to the article Li Weixiong, a population advisor to the Chinese government, said a cultural preference for boys was creating an artificial disparity between the number of boys and girls representing “a serious threat to building a well-off society.” He then also said that the lack of women in China will lead to a dramatic rise in prostitution and the trafficking of women. “This is by no means a sensational prediction,” he said. 

    On that point Mr. Li is right, in fact, the combined effect of the birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female unborn children at a rate of 116.9 to 100 overall, and a shocking 151.9 to 100 for second pregnancies. As a direct result of these ongoing crimes against humanity, China today is missing millions of girls--girls who were murdered in the womb simply because they are girls. A couple of years ago, the State Department suggested that as many as 100 million girls of all ages are missing – that is to say, they should be alive and well and are not, a direct consequence of the government’s one-child policy. This gendercide constitutes one of humanity’s worst blights, and a far greater peril to peace and security than is being credited at this time.

    The world is all too aware of the continuing genocide in Sudan, appropriately identified as such in the Country Reports. Current reports estimate that the conflicts in Darfur and in Southern Sudan have resulted in the deaths of more than 2 million people and left over 4 million others either internally displaced or as refugees. When confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, extensive trafficking in persons, and the acts of torture and violence against women.

    Just two weeks ago, on March 14^th, I introduced a House resolution calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release several political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who have been arrested in a recent wave of government oppression. One of those individuals specifically mentioned in the resolution is Father Nguyen Van Ly, who has already spent over 13 years in prison since 1983 for his advocacy of religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam. Tomorrow, Fr. Ly will be given a kangaroo trial for exercising his fundamental human rights, and he faces 20 years in prison in the likely event that he is convicted. 

    This is a case worthy of our particular attention as the Vietnamese Government audaciously resumed its past oppression of human rights after Congress agreed to Vietnam becoming an official member of the World Trade Organization in December 2006. A focus of this hearing is the promotion of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, and it is important to keep in mind that those of us in Congress play an important role in our country’s foreign policy. While substantial criticism is likely to be leveled at the Administration during this hearing for its shortcomings in promoting and defending human rights, those of us in Congress should also look in the mirror and ask what priority we give to human rights, both individually and as an institution.

    I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.