[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GENOCIDE AGAINST THE BURMESE ROHINGYA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-166
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.Govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-302 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
RON DeSANTIS, Florida [until 9/10/ JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
18] deg. ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
VACANT
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Ms. Greta Van Susteren, host, ``Plugged In with Greta Van
Susteren,'' Voice of America................................... 5
Mr. Stephen Pomper, program director, United States,
International Crisis Group..................................... 12
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Ms. Greta Van Susteren: Prepared statement....................... 8
Mr. Stephen Pomper: Prepared statement........................... 14
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 56
Hearing minutes.................................................. 57
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs:
Testimony by the Faith Coalition to Stop Genocide in Burma..... 59
Statement of the Honorable Sander Levin, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan.......................... 63
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: State Department report dated August
2018........................................................... 65
The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, and chairman: Human Rights Council report dated
September 17, 2018............................................. 72
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia:
Statement of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service...... 80
Prepared statement............................................. 83
Written responses from the witnesses to a question submitted for
the record by the Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Nevada.............................. 85
GENOCIDE AGAINST THE BURMESE ROHINGYA
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. Members, if you'll take your seat we are
going to call this hearing to order.
For more than three decades, the Government of Burma has
systematically denied the Rohingya people even the most basic
human rights. Add to that no access to education and no access
to healthcare.
Last year, this persecution reached a new low, horrific
levels, as the Burmese military drove 700,000 Rohingya from
their homes, burning villages and killing scores, doing so-
called ``terrorist clearance operations.'' That's what the
military calls it as they drive people to their death.
One Rohingya survivor recalled the attacks on his village,
saying ``the whole village was under random fire like rain.''
Just this week, the State Department released a report
detailing stomach-turning, systematic, and widespread acts of
violence against the Rohingya northern Rakhine State.
The report includes gruesome accounts of burning elderly
alive in their homes, gang raping women, and slaughtering
fleeing refugees.
The Burmese military made no distinction between men,
women, and children. One woman recalls watching as, to quote
her words, ``newborns and children who could barely walk, they
threw them in the river'' while she desperately hid in bushes
across from that river.
It is hard to hear these accounts without feeling queasy.
But we must catalogue these atrocities so that we can one day
hold the perpetrators accountable, and I want to commend the
administration for speaking out against these atrocities.
Ambassador Nikki Haley, in particular, has repeatedly
demanded that the international community not ignore the plight
of the Rohingya and that the U.S., as you know, we are
providing desperately needed humanitarian assistance to the
survivors, many who are now refugees in Bangladesh.
But I encourage the administration to go further. This is
more than just a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. To all
who have met with the Rohingya refugees, who have heard these
accounts, it is clear that these crimes amount to genocide.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, signed and ratified by the United States,
defines genocide as certain acts committed with the intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or
religious group.
Those acts include, among others, killing members of the
ethnicity or religion; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
that ethnicity; deliberately inflicting conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part; and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
I believe that a realistic accounting of the deliberate
campaign of murder, of intimidation, and displacement against
the Rohingya clearly meets this legal standard for genocide.
Making a formal determination of genocide must be the next
step for the U.S. Defining these atrocities for what they are
is critical to building international public awareness and
support to stop them.
The protection of human rights has long been our nation's
top priority in Burma, dating back to freeing Aung San Suu Kyi,
and today, that must include protection of the Rohingya people.
The Burmese Government and its military must ensure the
protection of all the people of Burma, regardless of their
ethnic background or their religious beliefs. Those military
leaders and security forces responsible for these atrocities
must face justice.
The U.S. must push the civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi to
rise to this challenge. Confronting genocide of the Rohingya is
a moral issue and a national security issue.
No one is more secure when fanaticism and unchecked
violence are growing in this part of the world.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these
issues today and now I turn to Mr. Eliot Engel, our ranking
member, from New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
calling this hearing. To our witnesses, welcome to the Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. Pomper, I am aware of the good work that you do and,
Ms. Van Susteren, it's good to see you again. From the first
time I appeared on your show, I was always a big fan. So thank
you both for being here.
Our last hearing on this topic, roughly a year ago, took
place at the height of the horrific violence against the
Rohingya.
We saw startling evidence of what was taking place and
heard about the desperate humanitarian crisis which, despite
heroic efforts, is, sadly, no less dire today--more than
700,000 refugees, 70 percent of whom are women and children.
It's interesting because our congressional districts all
have about 700,000 people each in them. So every Member of
Congress could imagine--if every person who lived in your
congressional district were a refuge, imagine what it would be
like. That's the magnitude of the problem.
Seventy percent of these 700,000 are women and children and
they now live in the world's largest refugee camp, in its
entirety--the constant risk of losing their temporary shelters
to monsoon rains and all kinds of other tragedies.
In the last year, though, we have also learned more about
who was responsible. The Burmese military has claimed that this
brutal crackdown is the response to a clash that took place on
August 25th of last year. This is simply not true. Ample
evidence shows that the Burmese military and police forces used
this campaign to specifically target Rohingya civilians, to
target them with rape, with indiscriminate killing, with slash
and burn tactics that have destroyed dozens of villages.
The U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission
Report has undertaken the most comprehensive investigation to
date. It recently called for the U.N. Security Council to
authorize the ICC to investigate and prosecute senior officials
in the Burmese military for crimes against humanity and ``so
that a competent court can determine their liability for
genocide.''
So after a year of unrelenting violence and suffering, what
will American policy be? The State Department quietly published
its report on these atrocities last week. No announcement, no
legal determination about what occurred, no indication of what
comes next.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that it be included in the record.
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Will Secretary Pompeo determine that ``crimes against
humanity'' occurred, which is, clearly, the case? Will he go
further and say that crimes occurred with genocidal intent?
Will he make the evidence behind the report available to use
against the perpetrators of these crimes?
I believe he should, as the Burmese Government is currently
bulldozing Rohingya villages and destroying any evidence that
remains.
Ambassador Haley announced $185 million in additional
humanitarian assistance for the Rohingya and communities in
Bangladesh who are hosting refugees. This is welcome news,
because funding humanitarian relief is necessary. But it isn't
a sufficient response, in my opinion, to such a grave human
tragedy. There is a range of other steps we should be taking.
There are ways we could exercise real leadership to help
mitigate this crisis.
First of all, the United States should advocate for the
U.N. Security Council to refer this case to the ICC. Instead,
the President went in front of the world yesterday and trashed
the ICC.
We should use our global statute to call this crime what it
is--clearly, a crime against humanity and likely also a
genocide, then rally a strong international commitment to fully
fund the latest appeal for humanitarian assistance.
Instead, the State Department is using language that lets
perpetrators off the hook. The President lobs insults at the
international institutions that could make a difference instead
of using our leverage to garner more support to address this
crisis.
We should be true to our history and our values and provide
safe haven for men, women, and children who have been driven
from their homes.
Instead, we are slashing the number of refugees allowed
onto our shores--a pittance of 30,000. It's really shameful.
The United States, of course, is not to blame for this crisis.
The Burmese military, starting with commander in chief of the
army, Min Aung Hlaing, bears primary responsibility. The blood
is on their hands.
Aung San Suu Kyi, the civilian leader once also hailed as
her country's moral leader, has proven herself, unfortunately,
to be part of the problem by failing to speak out, by denying
the abuses that have taken place, and for not addressing the
apartheid policies and conditions in Rakhine State that set the
stage for this catastrophe. I know that Mr. Pomper points this
out in his written testimony.
But even though we are not responsible for the crisis, for
decades American leadership has meant having the moral courage
to stand up and do the right thing in the face of this kind of
suffering.
The administration's policies send a clear message--we are
no longer willing to carry that mantle. When it comes to
standing up for human rights, for justice, for the rule of law,
for the world's most vulnerable and oppressed, the United
States has taken itself out of the running.
Complex challenges require multifaceted solutions and real
leadership and we are not, in my opinion, exercising either of
those. Shame on us.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses what our path
forward might look like if the administration were inclined to
take it.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
And before we move to our witnesses' testimony, we have a
video from Ms. Van Susteren that we are going to play which
includes footage from her recent trip to the refugee camps in
Bangladesh.
[Video played.]
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Greta.
Let me explain to the members here and to our witnesses.
There is some background noise from construction going on in
the building and our staff director, Tom Sheehy, is in the
process of trying to get that stopped.
So we will continue here with our hearing. But this
morning, I am very pleased to welcome Ms. Greta Van Susteren
and Mr. Stephen Pomper to the committee.
Greta Van Susteren currently anchors Voice of America's
foreign policy show ``Plugged in With Greta Van Susteren,'' and
you can access that online, by the way. She has spent 14 years
at Fox News, where she hosted the prime time news and interview
program ``On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.''
She has traveled the world to cover international news
stories, and most recently, of course, to Burma to observe the
current genocide against the Rohingya.
Stephen Pomper currently serves as the United States
program director for the International Crisis Group.
Previously, he was a senior policy scholar at the U.S.
Institute of Peace and a Davis Distinguished Fellow at the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum.
He also served on the staff of the National Security
Council where he served as the senior director for multilateral
affairs in human rights.
And we appreciate them both being with us here today.
Without objection, the witnesses' full prepared statements are
going to be made part of the record.
Members here will have 5 calendar days to submit any
statements or questions or extraneous material for the record.
So, if you would, Ms. Van Susteren, please summarize your
remarks and we will go to you at this time.
STATEMENT OF MS. GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST, ``PLUGGED IN WITH
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN,'' VOICE OF AMERICA
Ms. Van Susteren. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
The video you just saw is a shortened version but it's a
powerful witness to the tragedy unfolding for the Rohingya
people. This is pure suffering.
I am here today with Voice of America, part of the U.S.
Agency for Global Media, and I volunteer to host a weekly
affairs program, as the chairman noted, at VOA.
And as a journalist, my job is simply to tell you what I
saw, to tell you the truth. Today, I am sharing my personal
observations of the crisis informed by my reporting and I'd
like to share the work of VOA to report on and reach the
Rohingya people. My observations should not be construed as
official positions of the administration.
I've made four trips to Myanmar and the surrounding region.
My first trip to the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh was
in December 2017 in my own capacity.
I literally hitchhiked on the back of a cargo plane with an
NGO, Samaritan's Purse, and I returned with VOA Director Amanda
Bennett, again, to the refugee camp in June 2018, and as you
saw in the video, in June the monsoon season just devastated
the camps.
Shelters slipped away in mudslides, walls collapsed around
huts and people, and attempts at just basic sanitation were
obliterated.
The United Nations High Commission on Refugees estimates
800,000 Rohingya refugees from Myanmar are now living in those
camps that are adjacent to each other.
These people are forgotten. They are stateless. They are
homeless. They are nameless.
In Myanmar, the government has rejected the use of the term
``Rohingya.'' The Rohingya are non-people to them. They have
been dehumanized. This attitude was evident in nearly every
interaction I've had when I've been in Myanmar.
The trauma of the refugees' violent departure from Myanmar
is fresh. You saw in the video that pregnant women raped by the
Myanmar military are shunned in the community.
Children live with memories of unspeakable brutality. One
young boy proudly showed me a drawing he produced in an NGO-
sponsored art program. I asked him to explain his art work to
me and at one point I asked, ``What is that?''
He replied that it was a drawing of a severed bloody hand.
He saw it on the ground near his village home in Myanmar as he
fled with his mother.
I heard many others speak about the Myanmar military's
brutal use of machetes.
But what do we do now? The international community is aware
and concerned, but gaining traction with the Myanmar officials
has been difficult. In August 2018, the U.N. Human Rights
Council issued a report documenting atrocities against the
Rohingya people.
It details the military's mass killing of villagers, raping
of women and girls, and the torching of villages. The report
recommends that senior military leadership in Myanmar be
investigated and prosecuted for genocide against the Rohingya.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley confirmed that the
State Department's own fact finding report is consistent with
the U.N. report. She was right when she said, ``The whole world
is watching what we do next and if we act.''
As journalists, VOA is already acting by covering the
crisis from the start for its international audiences including
those in Myanmar. It's risky for VOA reporters in Myanmar to do
this.
Our reporters have faced pressures to stop using the term
Rohingya in their work. But they have resisted. VOA's coverage
includes interviews with representatives from the Myanmar and
Bangladesh Governments, U.N. officials, human rights
organizations, reactions from the State Department, and
congressional comments and hearings.
I want to emphasize that hearing the views of Congress is
of the utmost importance for VOA's international audiences. VOA
is also working to directly reach the refugees.
Director Amanda Bennett's visit with me to Bangladesh in
June was to assess how VOA can better report on and broadcast
to the refugees.
UNHCR representatives, NGOs in the field, and
representatives from the government of Bangladesh were highly
supportive. The assessment identified multiple options for
delivering content including radio and listening groups
established by NGOs.
Director Amanda Bennett and her team also spoke with people
living in the camp to learn about their news habits and issue
preferences. Without exception, every group, male and female,
wanted news and information. They are especially eager to hear
news from Myanmar and what the international community is
saying about them.
Some refugees with prior education recognize the VOA brand.
They were also interested in learning English. In April 2018,
VOA started transmitting 30 minutes of learning English
language across AM and short wave radio.
VOA is also planning to start limited broadcasting in the
Rohingya dialect. The value of bringing news and information to
the Rohingya cannot be underscored. Left in these camps long
term they will lack economic opportunity, be targets for human
trafficking or exploitation or violent extremism. VOA news can
make a difference.
I am extremely passionate about this project because I see
it as contributing to what I hope will be a strong decisive
response by the U.S. Government to seek a long-term peaceful
solution for the Rohingya people.
In closing, I must acknowledge the efforts of Secretary
Pompeo and Ambassador Haley to be forceful on this issue. I
must also thank the many NGOs that rushed to help the Rohingya
people fleeing from Myanmar last year, from Doctors Without
Borders to Samaritan's Purse, the World Food Program, and so
many more.
And finally, thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member
Engel for convening this hearing. Journalists must document
atrocities as they occur.
Based on my own reporting, I firmly believe this is a
pivotal moment for the United States and for being on the right
side of history.
When we say never again, we must mean it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Van Susteren follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Greta.
Mr. Pomper.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN POMPER, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, UNITED
STATES, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP
Mr. Pomper. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you so much for
the opportunity to speak to you today about the atrocities
committed against the Rohingya population of Rakhine State and
the ongoing human rights and humanitarian disaster that has
displaced hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to southeastern
Bangladesh.
My name is Stephen Pomper and I am the U.S. program
director at the International Crisis Group. Previously, I
served in a range of policy and legal roles in the U.S.
Government, which are summarized in my written testimony.
Mr. Chairman, the unfathomable horrors that the Rohingya
have suffered are documented in two recent reports that have
received considerable attention.
The first is a report by a U.N.-mandated fact-finding
mission which was cited by Ambassador Haley in her remarks to
the Security Council in late August and which describes the
``immediate, brutal, and grossly disproportionate'' operations
launched by the Myanmar armed forces known as the Tatmadaw in
the aftermath of a cluster of coordinated insurgent attacks in
August 2017.
That report concludes that the primarily Tatmadaw
operations, which included indiscriminate killings, the
targeting of children, gang rapes, villages burned to the
ground, and people burned alive suggest, by their nature and
scope, a level of preplanning by the Tatmadaw.
The second is a report by the U.S. Department of State
released just the other day which is based on a survey of over
1,000 Rohingya refugees who have been displaced to camps in the
Cox's Bazar region of Bangladesh and which led the State
Department to similar factual findings about the tragic events
that unfolded in August 2017 and its aftermath.
Mr. Chairman, against this factual backdrop it is hardly
surprising that the U.N. fact-finding mission found a
reasonable basis to conclude that the Tatmadaw and others had
committed crimes against humanity and war crimes and that there
was a sufficient basis to investigate and prosecute the crime
of genocide. These are all crimes of international concern--the
gravest of crimes.
Mr. Chairman, primary responsibility for these crimes rests
with the Tatmadaw including its commander in chief, Min Aung
Hlaing, and the other security forces that perpetrated them,
and these actors must be held accountable.
But, Mr. Chairman, this tragedy is all the more bitter
because it comes against the backdrop of what not so long ago
seemed a promising democratic transition which installed Aung
San Suu Kyi as the senior civilian leader of the Myanmar
Government.
While she lacks control over the military, this does not
excuse the fact that Suu Kyi has refused to face the reality of
what has occurred or to use her moral authority to urge the
country down a path that could culminate in the safe,
dignified, and voluntary return of the Rohingya to their homes.
Mr. Chairman, in the face of these terrible facts, the
tools and strategies that are available to the United States to
provide support to the Rohingya are few, imperfect, and
limited.
But in order to make progress, it will be important to use
them all, and energetically. These tools include targeted
sanctions adopted under the Global Magnitsky Executive Order or
other available authorities. While not a silver bullet, these
can send an important message that may deter other potential
bad actors.
These tools also include support for international
tribunals and courts that enjoy jurisdiction over the crimes in
question as well as the international mechanism that is,
hopefully, being created to collect and preserve evidence for
their benefit. These efforts may take time to yield results but
they are the only way to achieve a measure of justice for the
victims of these atrocities.
These tools include humanitarian support to the Rohingya in
Bangladesh and development support to the communities where
they are living, which is necessary both to meet the immediate
needs of the refugees and to prevent economic burdens from
driving a dangerous wedge between them and their hosts.
And, Mr. Chairman, these tools also include continued
engagement with Aung San Suu Kyi's government, which, though
frustrating, is the only way to encourage recognition of the
catastrophe that the Tatmadaw has wrought and to begin working
toward the critical changes required to enable the safe and
voluntary return of the Rohingya.
Mr. Chairman, there are steps that Congress can take to
support this effort. Congress can send a signal of support by
sending a delegation to visit Rohingya refugees in their camps.
It could ensure that the United States is funding
humanitarian and development assistance at generous levels. It
can fund efforts that serve the purpose of accountability, and
much like it created a powerful human rights tool in the form
of the Global Magnitsky Act, Congress could signal its
commitment to accountability by enacting a crimes against
humanity statute to help ensure that should perpetrators from
Myanmar ever set foot on U.S. soil they would face justice for
their crimes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for opportunity to share these
brief thoughts with the committee and I will look forward to
taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomper follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Thank you for being with us
today. We appreciate it.
We've also been joined by Sandy Levin, who's been very
passionate about this issue, involved in it for many years and
we appreciate the Congressman being with our committee today on
this.
Let me begin with a question, because the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as I
indicated, the United States signed it. We ratified it. It
defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy
in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious
group.
When President Reagan signed the legislation ratifying this
convention, he said, ``I am delighted to fulfil the promise
made by Harry Truman to all the peoples of the world, and
especially the Jewish people. This represents a strong and
clear statement by the United States that it will punish acts
of genocide with the force of law and the righteousness of
justice.''
Since then, the United States Government, often with the
encouragement of Congress, sadly, had cause to make several
determinations of genocide. We have had to do that, most
recently finding that ISIS had committed genocide against
religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria.
Ms. Van Susteren, based on your reporting, do you believe
the actions of the Burmese security forces are designed to
destroy in whole or in part the Rohingya and do you agree that
these atrocities are being carried out on a massive and
shocking scale?
Ms. Van Susteren. Mr. Chairman, if I could just break for 1
second--that the reason that it finally got signed by President
Reagan was because Senator Bill Proxmire from my home state was
so forceful in trying to get that finally signed by a U.S.
President. It took 40 years.
Secondly, let me speak personally and not on behalf of VOA
or the government. I don't speak for them. But I've been there.
I've witnessed this.
Do I think that it meets the definition? I absolutely do,
having witnessed it. I mean, I talked to people. I walked those
camps. I talked to them.
The Myanmar military elected to push the Rohingya out of
their country and it's a little bit like if six people commit
an armed robbery in Milwaukee you don't throw everybody out of
Milwaukee. You go after the six people.
But they systematically wanted to get rid of the Rohingya
and that's what they did and, of course, it hearkens back to
the history in 1982, where they made them noncitizens with
their constitution.
But there's no doubt that it's done on a mass level. It's
no doubt that they have been identified. But I should add is
that there are other groups in Myanmar like the Christians that
are likewise getting persecuted, but not to the magnitude or
the number of people of the Rohingya. But it does meet, in my
personal opinion, the definition of genocide.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Also, in talking to some of the survivors, part of the
issue has been getting journalists into that affected area.
What they share with me is that the attempt or the effort by
the military in Burma to control information gives only one
perspective every day to the Burmese people.
And so our efforts both on getting humanitarian assistance
in and getting journalists to cover this first hand in terms of
what's happening in Rakhine State is a huge challenge.
It's important that people in the region and throughout the
world understand the facts and it's important they get that
information in real time.
Sadly, we saw the two Reuters reporters convicted on framed
charges and we've heard about the major obstacles that Radio
Free Asia is facing.
Maybe you could talk about your experiences on this issue
and what the VOA is doing in the face of these challenges from
the Burmese military and trying to get the information all over
the world but also getting it to the Burmese so that they
understand what the rest of us are talking about and really
comprehend not what the military is telling them is happening
in Rakhine State but what is actually happening up there.
Ms. Van Susteren. You used the word challenges, which is a
nice way to say what's really happening. The press isn't
getting in. I mean, you have got an instance where a VOA
stringer was invited to the Rakhine State but as part of a
press pool with limited access.
I've been to North Korea three times and they stand next to
you and take notes as you do anything. Well, if you're not
allowed in--if you don't have free access you're not really
reporting.
You make the best of what you get. But reporters are not
getting access to the Rakhine State. I had the Ambassador from
Myanmar to the United States on my VOA show and he said that he
would take me--I am still waiting--because I would like to go
into the Rakhine State.
But there's a reason why those two reporters from Reuters
are spending 7 years in prison and that's because they dared to
begin reporting on mass graves of Rohingya inside the Rakhine
State.
But there is no access. I think even Senator Dick Durbin
tried to get into the Rakhine State and a U.S. senator couldn't
get in there.
So it's tightly controlled. The news that does come out
often is the Myanmar military-controlled press.
So to suggest that we are getting any accurate news, the
best we can do is talk to the survivors and they're all giving
us consistently the same story.
We are all hearing the same stories and they're not all
getting together and cooking up a story. We are talking
individually to them and they're telling us these horrors.
That's the best way we can get this information.
But if Myanmar wants to be playing the world stage they
might want to invite journalists in so we can fairly report and
not in a controlled environment.
Chairman Royce. Thank you very much for your testimony. My
time has expired.
We'll go to Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. I want to again thank our witnesses today. It's
very interesting to hear their thoughts, and the chairman and I
are one when it comes to this kind of thing.
When we talk about acts of genocide or crimes against
humanity or decide what we call it, why would the U.S. State
Department be reluctant, based on all the available evidence,
to upgrade its current designation of ethnic cleansing to at
least crimes against humanity, if not genocide? Anyone have a
thought on that?
Ms. Van Susteren. I don't speak for the State Department. I
don't know what maybe they haven't seen it. I don't know why
the State Department doesn't. Maybe there's a legal
distinction. But I don't speak for the State Department.
Mr. Engel. Okay.
Mr. Pomper. So neither do I anymore. But I would say on
this issue, let me not speculate about motivation but let me
just say the findings that were released in the report make
pretty much a facial case for crimes against humanity.
It doesn't use the term crimes against humanity but all the
sort of legal predicates are sort of spelled out in language
that, frankly, does have legal weight.
They speak about indiscriminate killing. They speak about
widespread and large-scale violence and they speak about
premeditation.
All of those are the key elements of a crimes against
humanity finding. And I don't know why they wouldn't take the
extra step there.
In the past, past administrations have struggled with
issues around legal characterizations either because they
really had trouble sort of making the legal case to themselves
internally or because they were concerned that announcing a
legal conclusion might put a burden on them to take policy
actions that they weren't prepared to take.
I fear, in this context, it might be the latter, at least
as it concerns crimes against humanity because it seems like
such a straightforward determination. It really seems, based on
the way in which the report is written that they've arrived at
that conclusion and just been reluctant to articulate it.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
The civilian Government of Burma seems to be focused on
economic development in northern Rakhine State as the way to
encourage Rohingya to come home, notwithstanding the desperate
economic conditions there.
These efforts seem devoid of an acknowledgment of the
systematic denial of basic human rights which Rohingya in
northern Rakhine State have endured for decades.
So given the challenges of Rakhine State and the mixed
results of peace-building and transitional justice initiatives
following mass atrocities in other parts of the world, what
would potential transitional justice mechanisms look like for
Burma? What kind of initiatives should we be supporting as part
of a broader policy toward Burma?
Ms. Van Susteren. First of all, inviting them back, they've
got a problem is that, number one, they're noncitizens. They're
not people under the constitution.
Secondly is that for a while they're saying they'd have to
have some identification cards to come back. But it's not like
they walked out with a passport and a driver's license. I mean,
their homes were burned to the ground and everything they had.
They left with the shirt on their backs, if they had a
shirt on their backs, and oftentimes not with their children if
their children have been murdered or wandered off.
So it's a little unrealistic to think that this is some
sort of economic development. I think sort of even before we
get to that there has to be some recognition that these are
people and we are not even there, and I think the condemnation
as genocide is helpful.
Obviously, sanctions, as has been suggested, has
historically been somewhat helpful. But I think that we are so
far off from thinking that they're going back anytime soon.
Mr. Pomper. I agree with that. I think, in order to have a
transitional justice mechanism to begin thinking seriously
about them, you need to have a real transition and this is, at
best right now, a stalled transition.
You have a situation where there really isn't meaningful
access to many areas of northern Rakhine State by humanitarian
actors, that access is controlled by the Tatmadaw.
You don't have a recognition of the catastrophe that's
happened on the part of either the civilian or the military
leadership. You don't even have a civilian leadership that's
willing to call these people by their name.
Without these kinds of predicates, thinking about a
transitional justice mechanism, which is the kind of mechanism
you would put in place when you had a sort of consensus--a
political consensus in the country--that there was a time to
take a step forward to a new political moment, we are not there
yet. There's too much that needs to be done.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Let me ask one final question. Some of our colleagues in
the Senate would argue that disciplinary measures against
Burma's military might make it harder to transition to
democracy and end the civil war.
However, the U.N. fact-finding mission report found that
these same military leaders are one of the greatest barriers to
democratic reform.
So given the political entrenchment of the Burmese military
and the constitutional weakness of the civilian government,
what can be done by the United States or the international
community to encourage the military to get out of politics?
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, first of all, we thought that
lifting the sanctions in 2012 some of the sanctions would
somehow coerce them--it was a recognition of moving toward a
democracy.
That, obviously, didn't work and, again, I am speaking as
myself. We can't police the world and I don't think we can
police the world. But we don't have to participate. We don't
have to let people participate in the world like the military
leaders who are behind this.
So I don't know how you get the military to sort of back
off. We've tried many things over many decades. But I think
letting them participate in the world and the United States not
taking a stronger stand makes it--I think we should take a
stronger stand.
Now, the reference to the International Criminal Court--if
that worked I would be all for it.
But the International Criminal Court has been somewhat
feckless historically. It has had an outstanding genocide
indictment against President Bashir of Sudan for, I don't know,
what--5, 6, 7, 8 years and nothing has been done. So I don't
think we can think of the ICC as some answer to all this. I
think it really is incumbent upon the United States and
Congress to make a decision about what kind of statement it
wants to make.
But I think what's been most successful, and not
particularly successful, is when the United States takes a
strong stand and doesn't participate with nations that are
doing ethnic cleansing or genocide.
Mr. Pomper. I will--just a couple of thoughts about this. I
think the challenge that all international criminal justice
mechanisms face is they don't have enforcement powers of their
own. They really need to rely on member states to enforce their
warrants and their judgments.
So if the international community gets behind an
accountability effort, which I think is certainly warranted in
this case, it's also going to be important to do the diplomacy
that's necessary to mobilize the international community to
deliver on judgements that are reached and warrants that are
issued.
In terms of the question, how to bring the military along
on this case, I mean, I tend to agree there's not a magic
bullet.
I think the impulse is going to have to be sort of driven
from--internally by a reform effort that, frankly, just is not
evident right now--that that group or that basis of reformers
has not, I think, yet materialized.
I think one hopes that the kinds of pressure tools that
we've talked about targeted sanctions, threats of
accountability, and the like can help demonstrate that this is
not a satisfactory status quo for anybody involved.
And then I think the other piece of this is continued
engagement and a conversation with the civilian leadership and,
frankly, conversations with the military leadership as well to
make the point that if Myanmar wants to progress, if it wants
to diversify its ability to engage diplomatically and
militarily with a full range of international actors, then it's
going to need to evolve beyond the sort of straitjacket that
it's placed itself in at this point.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Chairman Royce. Yes, thank you, and I think Beijing's
pressure to the Security Council has been a very real
impediment to trying to move the international community on
this, given their veto.
We go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Chairman Royce and
Ranking Member Engel, for holding this important hearing.
It's great to see you again, Greta. Thank you for
everything that you have been doing with your VOA show and
shining a light on--and your important advocacy on human rights
issues on your show every week.
And thank you, Mr. Pomper, for being here to testify in
front of us. For years now many of us on this committee have
been speaking out in support of the Rohingya people.
In 2014, we supported a resolution that this committee
passed--Jim McGovern's House Resolution 418, which called for
an end to persecution and for the U.S. to take more action on
behalf of the Rohingyas.
In the years since, members of our committee have sent
letters after letters asking for the administration to take
more action, urging more pressure on the Burmese Government,
sanctions against those responsible for this genocide, access
for humanitarian assistance.
And just last month, we joined a letter by Ranking Member
Engel urging the administration to levy additional sanctions
against Burma's military leadership to make a public
determination over this genocide.
And this month we sign on to Jan Schakowsky and Ranking
Member Engel's letter again expressing concern about the
imprisonment of the two Reuters journalist.
The list goes on and on, and in the wake of the U.N. report
saying that the Burmese military actions meet the legal
threshold of genocide, which we've been discussing, it also
called for a formal international independent investigation
into these crimes.
And it's important to note Ranking Member Engel's BURMA
Act, which still needs to be passed and that aims to impose
additional sanctions and ensure accountability about the human
rights violations in Burma.
We had Joe Crowley and Steve Chabot, who's a wonderful
member of our committee, pass an important bill condemning the
ethnic cleansing going on.
So, many efforts on behalf of Members of Congress,
especially of this committee, but we need to start seeing
results with real consequences--real deterrents to stop this
genocide from happening.
And the administration has commendably implemented some
necessary sanctions. But it's also important and necessary to
ask was there anything that could have been done differently.
When Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Burma's political process
in 2011, so many were encouraged by very limited democratic
steps. But, as I said in 2012, it was far too soon to start
easing sanctions as the last administration was committed to
doing, never mind its outright lifting of sanctions in 2016.
This is not to say that anyone but the Burmese military is
responsible for the genocide. But, Greta, I would ask you is
this a case of moving too fast too soon? Was the easing and
lifting of economic pressure and sanctions against Burma's
military regime a case of wishful thinking and how can we make
sure we don't make this mistake again?
Ms. Van Susteren. First of all, 20/20 hindsight is far
different than reviewing something at the time. At the time
that the sanctions were being considered for lifting and that
they were actually lifted, I thought it was a good idea. I
think we'll try anything, encourage anyone to be a democracy.
So I had hoped and I think everybody else involved with it
had hoped that those sanctions would encourage a greater move
toward democracy in Myanmar.
It has not turned out that way, despite everyone's best
effort and the U.S. Government's best effort to do that. I
think, and you have listed, Congresswoman, all the many things
that Congress has done--the letters--and I tell you, in my
personal opinion, those are so well received and it's so
appreciated.
I mean, the fact that holding the hearings today for these
people who are a bazillion miles away sitting in horrible
deplorable conditions and the fact that the U.S. Congress cares
about them certainly should be significant to the American
people. It shows about what we are.
Frankly, if I have any sort of disappointment in what you
have laid out, my disappointment really is in my own business
in the media. I think the media has large--I mean, there's a
lot to report on the world. I got that.
But I don't think the media has put the spotlight on this
story enough so that enough people are informed about it so the
American people can participate in this and help as well to
give some sort of guidance to their leaders--the Members of
Congress. It takes 2 seconds to tweet something and it goes--we
all have 1 million followers in the media.
So, I thank Congress for what it's doing. I appreciate what
the Obama administration tried to do and was ineffective. But
we are in a new time and I hope now that there's a bigger
spotlight on this and I hope that Congress can fashion
something. My personal opinion is I would like to tighten the
sanctions on those military leaders because I see that as the
problem.
Aung San Suu Kyi, we all hoped that she was going to be the
answer. But she doesn't have much power as a civilian leader.
I think we sort of almost built up in our own minds that
she was going to be able to do these magical things. She won't
even mention the word Rohingya. She won't even say that and
maybe she's worried for her life.
I don't know what it is but she won't even say that. But I
think we can stop putting our money on her. I don't think that
she has the power and she hasn't indicated the willingness,
although I would hope things have changed.
But I think it's really going to take a collective effort
and I really call out the media. It takes 2 seconds to tweet
things and it doesn't take a lot to report on this because we
need to give you guys the spotlight by informing the American
people so people care about this.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Well, thank you. My time is up, so now I
get to interrupt you.
Ms. Van Susteren. Okay.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much for your advocacy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Thank you.
We go to David Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and
the ranking member for calling this hearing and thank our
witnesses.
I was on the trip--the fact-finding mission with Senator
Durbin and Senator Merkley in November and I want to begin by
saying thank you to Greta Van Susteren for the attention you're
bringing to this.
I do hope that maybe as a result of this hearing that there
will be additional attention from the media because it was the
most haunting trip I have ever made.
We had the opportunity to hear directly from members of the
Rohingya community in Bangladesh about unspeakable atrocities
and they showed us the burns on their bodies and recounted
stories of the slaughter of their children and family members,
and it is horrific.
And we were in fact denied the right to go into the Rakhine
State, and as a kind of consolation prize they took us to Aung
Mingalar, which is a ghetto in Myanmar where they've rounded up
the Rohingya, taken them away from their homes, and they are
forced to live in this ghetto. They ran businesses, had shops
nearby.
They're not allowed to work in those shops anymore. There's
no education, no health care, and they've done nothing at all
other than be Rohingya and they're put into this. And so they
were very proud to show us this place as an alternative.
We then heard stories from that government that, oh, no,
the Rohingya burned down their own villages. I mean, it was
just horrific. There was no willingness to accept
responsibility in any way. So I appreciate the work that you
have both done to bring attention to this.
My first question is in terms of an ICC referral, you know,
having an international forum where some evidence can be
presented so the world can understand what's happening, it
seems to me, would be very useful and I am just wondering, Mr.
Pomper, what you think would be the consequence if the United
States stood in the way of that.
The reason I raise that question is Mr. Bolton has said in
a speech that we don't believe in the ICC--we'll never
cooperate or assist them in any way.
And so in this moment this becomes particularly important,
in my view.
Mr. Pomper. Thank you for the question.
I mean, I agree generally with the tenor of the
observations that have been made today that the United States,
by itself, is obviously a very powerful voice and a powerful
actor and can be a real leader on situations like this.
But it's most effective when it also works with
multilateral institutions that have within their remit
addressing these kinds of situations.
And in this particular context, two of the leading
institutions that have those capabilities and that have that
remit are the Human Rights Council and the International
Criminal Court, and those are two institutions that this
administration has spared no effort in recent months attacking
their legitimacy, and I think that's a terrible mistake.
And I think you saw a little bit of a tacit recognition of
that when Ambassador Haley associated herself with the fact-
finding commission's findings when she spoke to the Security
Council.
That fact-finding mission was mandated and supported by the
U.N. Human Rights Council and it's an extremely credible
commission and the work that it's done has been absolutely
critical in framing international conversation around these
atrocities. Why one would delegitimize that is absolutely
beyond me.
I think as far as the International Criminal Court I would
make a couple of observations. First, the International
Criminal Court has actually already seized itself of this
matter.
It's done so in an incomplete way. There was a judgment by
a pre-trial chamber of the court recently that asserted
jurisdiction over certain crimes that have, as part of their
predicate, actions that took place in Bangladesh, which is a
state party to the ICC.
So it has partial jurisdiction. Obviously, a referral by
the Security Council would give it greater jurisdiction and
would allow it to do a more complete job in terms of
investigating and potentially prosecuting these cases at some
point.
I think that would be useful. But it's also important to
give them the support that they need to do that.
Mr. Cicilline. All right. Thank you very much.
I think also one of the principal issues that you both
touched upon is the stripping of citizenship. We had the
opportunity to meet with members of the National Assembly--
their parliament--who were elected and served the members of
the Rohingya community that have now been stripped of their
citizenship.
So to say to these folks, you are not citizens of this
country when they served in the government I think shows the
absurdity and I think the question of how do you have a
repatriation process that makes sure that the Rohingya can
return safely and with full citizenship so that they can return
to their country free from intimidation, the fear of death and
violence, I think is, obviously, an important issue.
And I know Aung San Suu Kyi, who may not have a lot of
power in the current construct, has a lot of moral authority
and she has completely failed in any way to speak out against
this violence, to acknowledge it.
The fact that she may have less power than the military may
in fact be true but she has the power of her voice and her
international standing and she has completely failed in that
responsibility and it's been a grave disappointment to many of
us here in Congress.
And I know my time has run out, but I thank you again for
your thoughts, and yield back.
Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of
California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Where does the Burmese military get their weapons and
ammunition? What type of weapons and ammunition do they have?
Ms. Van Susteren. I will defer to you. Do you know that
answer? I don't know where they get them.
Mr. Pomper. I would be speculating. I am sorry.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We know they're shooting people. We have--
--
Ms. Van Susteren. They use a lot of machetes, they burn,
and they rape. So that's been their----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I don't like----
Ms. Van Susteren. They've weaponized a lot of things like
that. But I don't know about their weapons.
Mr. Pomper. Not from the United States, which has an arms
embargo in place.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. So would I be just really off base
if I suggest that it's very possible that the Chinese are
providing the Burmese military the weapons they need for these
type of actions?
Mr. Pomper. You're free to suggest that. Certainly, not a
crazy suggestion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Well, let me just note that the
type of genocide and brutality and mass killings that the
Burmese Government has been known for for three decades now, at
least.
I remember being very active when trying to support the
Karens and the others, and the Burmese Government and their
military has not just been focused on the Rohingya, which we
need to worry about today because those are the ones who are
bearing the brunt of this brutality and genocide, but this is a
history of this type of activity and we should know where their
weapons are coming from.
And I would suggest they're probably coming from China
and----
Chairman Royce. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. We should do something about
it. Yes, sir?
Chairman Royce. If the gentleman would yield.
Their weapons do principally come from China. One of the
oddities is that the other separatist ethnic groups in Burma
also are supplied. The Chinese sell them weapons as well.
So they sell the weapons to the government in Myanmar and
they sell weapons to different ethnic separatist groups.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So it sounds like--thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for this hearing, by the way. I appreciate
your leadership, as usual, on human rights issues.
And let me just note, the chairman and I had a difference
of opinion on the title of the Magnitsky Act but not the
substance of the Magnitsky Act.
Is this time for us to have sanctions against the specific
leaders of the Burmese military?
Mr. Pomper. Yes.
Ms. Van Susteren. And, again, I am not here representing
the Voice of America or the government, but let me answer
personally. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. So, Mr. Chairman, today I would
hope with that whatever comes out of this hearing that we stand
together and that we are going to hold the individuals and
leadership of the Burmese military responsible--personally
responsible--as well as the government itself, and let us
declare that the Government of Burma is an outlaw among nations
because this is not inconsistent with their behavior over the
last 30 years and the military has--and we declared that the
military is guilty of crimes against humanity.
So one of the things I would be--now, those are things we
can recognize now. What I don't understand is how come we are
the ones that are upset? Where are Saudis and all of these
wealthy Muslim countries that have enormous resources available
to them? Why are they permitting their fellow Muslims to live
in this type of brutality and squalor?
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, I can't answer those questions
either but I can tell you that Bangladesh is very upset because
this is very difficult for that nation. That's not a rich
nation----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That's right.
Ms. Van Susteren [continuing]. And they--and this----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Bangladesh has almost no money for
helping. We know there are several countries in this world that
are Islamic countries that have enormous resources, and are
they the helping?
Ms. Van Susteren. I can't answer that. I can tell you that
there were some NGOs from different countries like Doctors
Without Borders. But that's France. But I don't know if any of
these other nations--I would defer to you, Mr. Pomper.
Mr. Pomper. So I can't give you a complete answer. But I
recall from actually your reporting that there's a very
substantial number of Rohingya refugees living in Saudi Arabia.
I also know that the Organization of the Islamic Conference
has been very active diplomatically.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I didn't catch that. The Saudis and the
Kuwaitis and the Qataris--are they kicking in to help the
Rohingya people?
Mr. Pomper. I don't know how much money is flowing from
those.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, when you see pictures of standing in
this--the horrible--in the middle of this village or the
horrible conditions that you just showed us, it is more than
disappointing to think that, okay, we need to be concerned but
what about these filthy rich Muslim countries. They don't allow
Syrian refugees in.
They expect Europe to take all of them. They aren't even
helping the Rohingyas and other people who are being targets of
genocide. Shame on them. Shame on them, and I would hope that,
Mr. Chairman, that they're listening right now.
But all we can do with us is we can make our own commitment
to having standards and, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
leadership and the Magnitsky Act, although I disagree with the
title, and other things like this that you have made sure that
we are part of the solution and as compared to the Saudis and
the Chinese.
Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
We go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I also believe the Islamic world
should be doing more. To just commit diplomatic resources is
not the same as hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
It's my understanding that the United States is by far the
most generous of all countries in this and many other crises.
Many of us supported the efforts of Aung San Suu Kyi. We
met with her. We pushed. We adopted sanctions, and it is
disillusioning to the entire democracy and human rights
movement worldwide. How do I get people involved in the next
human rights champion--in the next democracy champion when we
see someone with a lot of influence use that influence to
protect the military of Myanmar?
Now, in September 2018, I joined with several of our
colleagues on a bipartisan letter urging Secretary Pompeo to
press for the release of the two Reuters journalists who were
sent to prison for 7 years. I am so troubled that Aung San Suu
Kyi has defended the conviction of these journalists.
Ms. Van Susteren, you speak as much as anyone for the
journalistic community of this country. What should we be
doing?
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, first of all, let me just add to
this that I appreciate that letter, on behalf of journalists,
and I shared disappointment with the U.S. media. Why aren't we
hearing about this from my fellow journalists more? I mean,
that would help.
This is a partnership. The media can't do it alone.
Congress can't do it alone. Nobody can do all this alone.
So I share that sort of disappointment with the
journalists. They are not, of course, the only journalists held
in jails across the world. But these two journalists, just to
fill in the gap, were framed by the police.
They were given some documents and in a restaurant, and as
soon as they walked outside the restaurant they were arrested
for having the documents. So it's terrible.
Aung San Suu Kyi, a huge disappointment. Maybe we expected
way too much of her but we can all sort of look back and think,
what could she have done? I think it really sort of behooves us
to sort of in this crisis, as we look at what's happening to
the people now, to figure out what can we do for them.
But the people in this camp, they're penned in. They can't
leave. They can't go to school. They can't do anything. It's a
breeding ground for all sorts of diseases and for trouble--
which is one of the reasons why the director of Voice of
America wants to get news into the camp so that people see that
there's opportunity outside the camp and that at least there
are people paying attention.
Mr. Sherman. The purpose of the Burmese military--the
Myanmar military--is to ethnically cleanse the area, to reverse
what they think is the wrongful act of people moving into their
country 100 or 1,000 years ago. Most American families have
moved into this country in the last 100 or at least the last
1,000 years.
And so we can hope that there are well maintained refugee
camps in Bangladesh. But that achieves the purpose of what
seems to be a genocide and a crime against humanity.
I would point out that when the Government of Sudan waged
war against its own people in the south, we saw an independent
South Sudan. Now, things didn't work out recently.
Mr. Pomper, if north Rakhine State was either independent
or part of Bangladesh, would its people be safe on their own
land? Because we know they can be more or less safe in refugee
camps, but then they have limited opportunities.
Mr. Pomper. So forgive me, sir. I am going to resist the
logic of the question a little bit for the very reason that you
said, which is that I think these kinds of separationist
solutions, unfortunately, honor the logic of ethnic cleansing
and I think at this point the best way to think about this is
in terms of trying to affect a situation where it is actually
possible for the Rohingya to come back----
Mr. Sherman. You really think that the Rohingya could move
back and wouldn't be killed 2 years from now, 10 years from
now, 20 years from now?
Mr. Pomper. I don't----
Mr. Sherman. Do you really think that they can live in
peace and security and confidence in a land controlled by the
Burmese military?
Mr. Pomper. So let me answer the question in two parts.
I think, first, if the government succeeds or the Tatmadaw
succeeds in this campaign, what is to stop it from then moving
down the list of ethnicities with which it has similar
grievances?
Mr. Sherman. Well, if it grants independence to each of
those ethnicities, that's exactly what they don't want to do.
If the Burmese state loses north Rakhine as part of its
sovereign territory, it's not going to want to repeat that
elsewhere.
Mr. Pomper. I would worry about the precedential value
inside Myanmar and I would worry about the precedential value
outside Myanmar as well.
I think, in general, the best solution under these
circumstances--and I agree, it's difficult to look into the
future and say 2 years, 5 years, 10 years from now we will
certainly be in a situation where we know that this will be
solved in terms of creating the circumstances for repatriation,
but that needs to remain the objective at this point. In the
meantime----
Mr. Sherman. Well, I think we are in favor of repatriation.
What the question is are we in favor of the Burmese military
having sovereignty over the repatriated individuals.
Mr. Pomper. The Burmese military should not have
sovereignty over anybody.
Mr. Sherman. Well, the Burmese military can operate in the
territory of Burma--or Myanmar--and as long as that--asking the
people to go back and say that's the army of the country I will
live in and I hope they don't rape my wife and slaughter my
children, but that's why I move back----
Mr. Pomper. So I think you put your finger on it when you
referred to----
Mr. Sherman. Safety requires a government that is dedicated
to your safety rather than dedicated to your extermination.
Mr. Pomper. Correct, and it also requires civilian control
over a military that----
Mr. Sherman. Well, the civilian control is also in favor or
defending what's going on.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Steve Chabot of Ohio.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this very important hearing.
In the past month, two reports were published detailing how
horrific the crimes actually were that we are discussing here
today.
First, at the end of August the U.N. fact-finding mission
on Myanmar released a preliminary report that argued that the
Burmese military had genocidal intent against the Rohingya and
called for a competent international authority to try cases
against the individuals responsible.
The final report, issued just last week, makes the case
even clearer, and in a hearing like this it's really hard for
any of us to comprehend the horrors that happened to the
Rohingya during that period of time--what they endured.
These were human beings that endured some of the most
horrific things that's possible in human existence and I would
ask unanimous consent that the full U.N. report, which I have
here, be entered into the record.
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
Mr. Chabot. And this report contains in great detail those
horrors which, again, in a civilized hearing like this it's
hard to speak about those things.
The second report, from the State Department, was released
2 days ago on Monday evening. This spring, the State Department
commissioned a survey of Rohingya survivors in Bangladesh
together from eyewitnesses and Monday's report discusses their
stories, and the report calls the violence extreme, large-
scale, and widespread and states that, ``The scope and scale of
the military's operations indicate that they were well planned
and coordinated.''
Of the, roughly, 1,000 Rohingya refugees interviewed the
vast majority--about 80 percent--witnessed killings and the
destruction of villages. So these are people that actually saw
other people murdered, and probably most of the people,
hopefully, in this room haven't experienced that in their life.
But we are talking about 80 percent of those people actually
saw one or more people slaughtered.
In total, we know that 400 villages were burned. Further,
about half of those surveyed actually witnessed a rape.
Statistics really only tell part of the story. The true
perversity of these atrocities is clear from the types of
crimes the military committed.
Widespread gang rape, mass murders, throwing infants and
children, literally, into fires, and burning the elderly in
their own homes. The report describes in gruesome detail
various crimes, and I can't read this stuff--it's so horrific--
and I am not going to.
But we are talking about pregnant women who were literally
murdered and their unborn children destroyed in front of them,
and as was mentioned, babies thrown into rivers and their
mothers shot. There's no way in the 21st century this ought to
happen anywhere.
And I want to thank Mr. Pomper and Ms. Van Susteren for
coming here today and sharing this with us and trying to make
sure that the world knows what happened and that there's
accountability here.
This havoc occurred against a group of people but there was
another group of people that did it, and they still exist and
they're still in power, and something has to be done about this
or it will happen again.
So with the facts and the reports that I mentioned in mind,
I, along with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, plan to introduce a resolution condemning the Burmese
Government's crimes and their efforts to suppress information
about those crimes and to call it what it is--what it was--and
that's genocide.
Words are not enough, however, which is why I also urge the
swift passage of the BURMA Act, legislation that Ranking Member
Engel and I wrote to apply sanctions on those individuals
responsible for these horrific crimes.
As I say, these perpetrators must be held accountable.
Mr. Pomper, let me ask you about that. As I mentioned, Mr.
Engel and I introduced the BURMA Act to impose sanctions on
those responsible for the genocide. You mentioned sanctions in
your testimony.
Is that appropriate? Is that one of the tools that we
should at least consider? What would be your opinion on that?
Mr. Pomper. Yes, targeted sanctions are an appropriate
tool. They send an important signal and they should be applied
against the perpetrators.
Mr. Chabot. Okay.
Ms. Van Susteren, let me ask you this, and I am running out
of time. I am co-chairman of the House Freedom of the Press
Caucus and concerned about the two Reuters journalists
imprisoned in Burma.
Earlier this month, many of us on this committee sent a
letter to Secretary Pompeo asking that he continue to advocate
for their release. And as a journalist yourself, I would like
to hear your perspective on that case and whether you think
that international pressure could be effective in securing
their release and what, if anything, else ought to be done to
secure that release.
Ms. Van Susteren. I think that the pressure of that would
help enormously for these reporters. When I went deep into
these refugee camps--now, obviously, you're talking about into
Myanmar where they're held--is that the refugees were aware of
things that were being done inside the United States.
So the word does get out. It's far away but that does send
some sort of hope that somebody cares. You went through the
litany of things that you have read about. When I've been there
and these people tell me these things that happen, you just
stand there sort of--it's just thoughtless. You can't imagine
these things can happen to human beings. So it's just
incredible.
But the reporters trying to report it can't even get to
them inside Rakhine and there's no way that we are going to get
this word out if they can't get there and if Myanmar is going
to lock the journalists up who try, few journalists are going
to risk their lives.
One of the journalists you talked about--one of the Reuters
reporters--I think his wife had a baby while he's been locked
up. So, he's got 7 years before he'll live in a home with his
child.
So I think that pressure from the United States--it does
mean something. I mean, people look up to the United States and
our freedom of the press and the Constitution and we are quite
proud of it and it's very important to our Government, and I
think that if the United States puts pressure on it I think it
will help them.
I am not saying it's a magic bullet. But it, certainly,
does send a message.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, and my time has expired,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go to Norma Torres of California.
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
guests that are here today.
It is incredibly offensive to humanity the crimes that we
are seeing coming out of this place. It is unfortunate, I
think, that the military has been in power and continues to be
armed by China to commit these horrible crimes.
I don't think that we truly understand how many women and
how many children have been born out of rape and I don't know
if we'll ever truly understand the fact that we can't get into
Burma to assess the situation as reporters. It is incredibly
disappointing and unfortunate.
But more disappointing than that, as a community and world
leaders have stood by and I think where is the responsibility--
where does China stand on this? Are they just being complicit
by supplying the weapons that are going into the military?
Mr. Rohrabacher asked that question earlier about the
Chinese weapons that are being used by the Burmese military. So
how would you characterize China's involvement in Burma and if
China wanted could it force the Burmese military to change its
policy?
Ms. Van Susteren. In terms of China arming them, I am just
learning that here. I didn't know that. But a lot of the
destruction I saw didn't take any weapons. It took a match, it
took a machete, and it took raping women and putting fear, so a
lot of that.
The question is whether China would show any sort of moral
leadership to try to encourage the Myanmar military to stop
doing those things.
Ms. Torres. With a 1,500-mile border, you would think that
they would show some leadership.
Ms. Van Susteren. Yes, if they bothered to even recognize
these people as human. They're not----
Ms. Torres. Which was exactly my point as I began.
Ms. Van Susteren. I mean, they are not recognizing them as
human, and to the extent that they continue to be corralled
without any chance at education, they can't work, they can't do
anything. The women, by the way--you talk about the women--I
met women who were pregnant--I was there about 9 months after a
lot of them had left--who were pregnant and they didn't know if
their babies were their husbands' or whether it was the Myanmar
military.
But it didn't matter, because they were said to have evil
in their bellies and they were shunned. And the women are
sitting in these huts in this God-awful weather--monsoon--where
it's about 100 degrees that we can't stand it, and they don't
even come out.
I mean, it gets far more graphic and terrible than we can
ever put on the screen or put in a report. I mean, it's just
incredible.
I so much appreciate the delegation that has come from
Capitol Hill to go there and see some of this stuff because it
really does bring it home when you see it. That's why I love
CODELs.
Ms. Torres. I want to make one more point. I think that we
can all agree that Aung San Suu Kyi has failed to stand up
against the Burmese military. She's failed to stand up for
these children. She's failed to stand up for these women, and
she's failed to stand up for basic human rights.
But, yet, I know that the Nobel Committee does not
generally revoke Nobel Prizes. But should they make an
exception for her, given the gravity of what has taken place in
Burma?
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, I don't speak for them and I don't
know. So I am going to duck that question. I just know that she
won't even say the word Rohingya and that she identifies about
26 terrorists of ARSA--the terrorist group of Rohingya--and she
is content to have 1 million people essentially persecuted for
the conduct of a few.
Ms. Torres. You were talking about American focus on this
atrocity that is happening there. Where is the international
community--something as simple as this--to send a clear message
that, as human beings, we are not going to tolerate this? It
is, to me, just--they are being complicit to what is happening
there.
Mr. Pomper. I will link that comment back to your questions
about China. I mean, one place where China has been,
unfortunately, very effective in a negative way has been in
terms of blocking a clear statement by the U.N. Security
Council.
Ms. Torres. Absolutely.
Mr. Pomper. And that would be very--the things that the
Council could do--the tools that it could bring to bear--
probably could be pretty effective in sending a clear signal
and applying meaningful pressure through sanctions, through
referrals, et cetera.
And so I think China is a very, very good target for
diplomatic suasion in this case because they are standing in
the way of meaningful action and that clear voice you're
talking about.
Ms. Torres. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Congresswoman Torres.
Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Van Susteren, Mr. Pomper, thanks for being here.
We met a year ago tomorrow on this very subject and
lamented the circumstance where we sit here, comfortably, and
these people are being slaughtered halfway around the world and
we have conversations, but there's no action and that's the
frustration of this place. There is no action.
But the United States and the world can't turn their face
away from what is happening. Seventy years ago this happened
halfway around the world and people were shoved into ghettos
and exterminated and now we see it happening in Burma and
across the little portion of water where they're all housed and
corralled in.
And I applaud you, Ms. Van Susteren, as a member of the
press. Eighty years ago a man won a Pulitzer Prize for lying
about the terror famine executed by Russia in Ukraine and that
Pulitzer Prize still hangs today in the New York Times office,
as far as I know.
So it's important that we see, that we hear, that we are
made aware of what's happening. I remain frustrated because I
don't see any action. The U.N. is not going to be--unless, Mr.
Pomper, and I doubt--Ms. Van Susteren, it's not your expertise
but, Mr. Pomper, I doubt you can tell me that the U.N., with
China and Russia involved, are going to support the United
States or any of the freedom-loving countries of the world in
robust meaningful action against the Burmese military, right?
They're not going to do anything. The U.N. is going to be
feckless.
Mr. Pomper. Things do not look good at the Security
Council.
Mr. Perry. Yes, they don't--yes.
Mr. Pomper. The Human Rights Council might be a different
story.
Mr. Perry. That's a larger discussion. But I guess for you
I have a question. China is, in my opinion, enabling this
whether it's arms or whether it's their agreement with Burma
and the port, and while the President is offering trade tariffs
on China regarding their malign behavior around the world and
particularly the United States, is it time to sanction China?
Is it time to sanction--use the word sanction--China for
this action? Will it make a difference.
Ms. Van Susteren, the Voice of America--you're saying we
want to get that information into the camps. We want to inform
them that people around the world and people in the United
States. We want something done about it. We understand their
plight. We are horrified by their situation.
Is there something impeding that effort?
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, first of all, I have to tell you
that the director of the Voice of America, Amanda Bennett, who
first approached me about telling me that she wanted to get
information into it and it reminded me a little bit of the
mission of Voice of America with the Iron Curtain. It was to
get information behind the Iron Curtain.
When I went into the camps, I was surprised, you know, at
how hungry they were for information. The refugees inside--they
were getting little bits and pieces and I don't know what tools
or what's needed by Voice of America or what they need. I don't
know that. I am not privy to that. It's above my pay--my
volunteer job pay grade.
But I do know that if we can get more information into the
refugee camp, if we can get broadband in or if you can get
radios in and they can hear a little more that certainly would
benefit the people inside because they are completely lost. I
mean, even hearing that the United States has a congressional
hearing at least gives them a little hope that somebody cares
halfway around the globe.
And I always think putting a spotlight on a crisis--if the
American media were more engaged in this I think more people--
maybe China would pay a little more attention to it.
I don't know. I think that's important. But I do think
getting Voice of America inside that camp and getting
information would help.
Mr. Perry. Okay. So that's a do out for us here on this
committee and in this body to do a better job and to find out
what the hang-up is and what the holdup is and what the
obstruction is and take action.
Ms. Van Susteren. That hang-up may be on the ground,
though. It may not have anything to do with the United States
or Voice of America. I don't know. That's above my pay grade.
Mr. Perry. I understand, but we got to understand that and
try and--we want to be people of action. We want to see some
results, right--that talk is cheap but people are suffering.
Mr. Pomper--China.
Mr. Pomper. I think I agree with what Greta said about
trying to raise the profile of this issue. I think the U.S.
Government could be speaking with a much clearer voice.
I think there was a lot of value in the report that the
State Department put out earlier this week. But it was a little
bit of a missed opportunity in terms of using specific terms
about their legal conclusions, which I think they pretty
clearly had reached. That's just my supposition, based on
reading it.
I think it's important to pressure China through diplomatic
channels by making clear that we see what's going on--that
we've analyzed it. We should associate ourselves with the good
work that's done by international bodies on this.
Mr. Perry. With all due respect, Mr. Pomper, everybody
knows. China knows that these Burmese people--these military
officers that have been designated as specially designated
nationals and blocked persons and put on that--they don't care.
If you're willing to hack somebody apart with a machete, I
don't think you're worried about being put on a list as a
designated bad person.
So while the diplomatic--look, that's--we wish that would
always be effective. What we are looking for is something to be
effective and, from my standpoint, I don't see China buckling
under the withering diplomacy from the United States.
It seems to me that action regarding their significant
investment in that port is something that they might buckle to.
Mr. Pomper. Yes. It's hard to make great powers buckle and
so I am hesitant to sort of suggest coercive measures there.
But I will say I do agree that they should--I understand your
point about not caring. I think there is a great callousness, I
think, toward the suffering and I don't want to defend them in
any way.
But I do think that continuing to raise the pressure,
speaking with a clearer voice, can create greater costs for
people who take that posture.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. We go to Joaquin Castro of Texas.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony today, and I was glad to
see yesterday the announcement about the United States
committing another $185 million to help combat this
humanitarian tragedy.
Let me ask you about--because I am co-chair of the U.S.-
ASEAN Caucus--about the involvement of the ASEAN nations or any
effort that they've made to help in this situation that you all
may be aware of.
Ms. Van Susteren. I am not personally aware but with 1
million people on the ground--there are almost 1 million
people--there are NGOs from literally every place.
I was privy mostly to the American ones--Samaritan's Purse,
of course. I mean, there's other ones, too. Doctors Without
Borders are doing incredible--but you hear stories about how
everyone is so proud that they've vaccinated 400,000 people
from cholera.
But the problem is when they told me that and they were all
excited, I am doing the math and I think, well, what about the
other 400,000. So a lot more help is needed.
Mr. Pomper. Yes, and I am afraid I am not sort of on top of
the specifics of the ASEAN response. But I do associate myself
with Greta's comments that more is always needed and
particularly if we are talking about multilateral responses,
getting the region on board with whatever the United States has
in mind in terms of coercive measures--if there's going to be
some sort of international criminal justice proceeding that
might result in arrest warrants at some point, getting the
region on the same page so that those will actually be
meaningfully enforced is incredibly important.
Mr. Castro. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. All right. We go now to Dan Donovan of New
York.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you both for
your insight and you describe this atrocity tremendously in
your video, Greta. It was, if not eye opening, stomach
sickening because of what's happening to these people.
I just wanted to ask two different areas, one about helping
these poor people. Is there a struggle getting resources? Is
there a blocked--is someone trying to block our abilities to
assist the people who are now refugees? Or is it a matter of
just getting more help and relief to them?
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, I mean, getting--they always need
more medicine. When I was there they needed more medicine. They
were out of medicine.
There's always a food shortage. There always--so yes, they
can always use more. One of the other sort of practical
problems is that to get there from Cox's Bazar, which is the
city that where you'd probably start positioning things, is
that it's the worst roads you can imagine--the worst traffic
you can imagine.
I mean, it's really sort of hard to get the trucks through
when you have--even within the camps themselves, when I was
there, is that we went into the camp and an hour later that the
bridge--the mud bridge that got us into the camp had washed
away from the monsoons, and there was an ambulance that
couldn't get across the mud bridge because it had washed out.
So, I mean, it's all sorts of problems like that with any
giant catastrophe. The good news is all these organizations
that are on the ground are so well coordinated because they
have responded to every single crisis you can imagine.
Whether it's an earthquake in Haiti or it's a refugee camp
in Sudan, they all sort of know each other and work well
together and the U.N.
It appeared to be really well organized. The problem is the
magnitude of the problem and you have got the weather, which is
so punishing--the monsoon. It's indescribable.
Mr. Donovan. But the local government services, and they're
not preventing us from getting there?
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, I don't think they are. But the
local people are starting to get upset. Much like you see with
the Syrian refugees going into Jordan, when people do sort of
slip out and then they start taking the jobs, then the local
people start get upset.
And you have got the other problem that it was a beautiful
lush area and the Rohingya have come in and they've cut down
every single piece of foliage there so they could build huts
and have fuel.
There's nothing there, which, of course, then contributes
to the whole problem with the mudslides when the monsoon comes.
So naturally, this is such a burden on Bangladesh. I
scanned the newspapers when I am here and it has been
relatively quiet in the media about complaining about it.
I think they've been quite generous. But this is a huge
burden on a very poor country and at some point they're going
to break.
Mr. Donovan. All right.
Mr. Pomper, you spoke earlier about our message--the United
States message about the crisis not being clear. What should we
be doing?
Mr. Pomper. What I meant by that was when the State
Department issued its report it sort of went up to a point in
terms of the conclusions that it reached but it did not
actually crystallize those conclusions around the kinds of
provisional legal conclusions that people were expecting the
report to articulate.
It also wasn't rolled out in a very clear way. It wasn't
accompanied by any kind of policy vision. Normally, when you do
an exercise like that I think the hope is that while you're
doing it you're also thinking about what you're going to say
about where a policy is supposed to go and how it's going to
create sort of a meaningful context into which this kind of
work can laud and I think that work still needs to be done.
Mr. Donovan. But it didn't indicate that our commitment is
wavering at all, did it?
Mr. Pomper. I just think it was a little bit of a missed
opportunity.
Mr. Donovan. Okay. My last question in my last minute is
about a lot of my colleagues spoke about China's ability, if
they wanted to, to influence the atrocities that are happening
and help us to stop the genocide that's occurring.
Are they the only other country? Are there other people who
have influence in the region that could be helpful to us?
Mr. Pomper. So the entire region is going to be important
to any kind of response that the United States wants to help to
craft and to lead. The Chinese are by far the most important
because of their veto power at the Security Council and because
of the importance of the Security Council to creating a legal
framework for collective action.
Mr. Donovan. Back in New York we would say, who else could
we put the arm on.
Mr. Pomper. I think I would be very liberal in terms of
outreach at this point because the entire region is going to be
important to the response.
Mr. Donovan. Okay. I thank you both.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our two
distinguished witnesses for their leadership as well as for
their testimony today.
It's very challenging and certainly you put a very
important bit of emphasis on the need for significant action.
We are nowhere near doing what we could or should be doing.
You mentioned the ICC and I think the ICC has had two
convictions since its founding, at least up to 2016. I've met
with Bashir in Khartoum.
He still has what should be a Sword of Damocles being held
over his head and he travels the world. He goes to China, and
they don't grab him and send him to the Hague for prosecution.
So it has been feckless.
But I would hope that there would be a referral by the
Security Council. China will likely veto that, but we ought to
pursue that. So thank you for that.
Let me just ask, and maybe you might want to comment on
that I was the House sponsor of the Global Magnitsky Act.
Pushed very hard. We got it into the NDAA. It is an excellent
law and it makes a difference.
Since 2017, General Maung Maung Soe was sanctioned. In
August 2018, three more military and one police sanctioned--the
33rd Light Infantry, the 99th Light Infantry.
The first question would be, is that enough or should more
be listed on that sanctions list?
Secondly, in 2013, one of my staffers interviewed the
infamous Buddhist monk Wirathu, who called himself the Buddhist
bin Laden, and he instigated, as we know, much of the violence
targeting the Rohingya.
And he concluded--and this goes to your point, Mr. Pomper,
about the list of ethnicities that could still be targeted and
we know the Christians were targeted before.
I remember when we called this junta the SLORC and they
continue to be as bad as they have ever been, if not worse,
with this genocide against the Rohingya.
But he said, and this is his words to a member of my staff,
``First the Muslims, then the Christians. Both are threats to
our Buddhist future.'' And as been said by my colleagues, we've
all been disappointed in Aung San Suu Kyi and others.
But it seems to me that they're not going to stop with the
Muslims and, of course, there's already killings of Christians.
But you might want to speak to that as well.
Let me also ask you about, and some of my colleagues have
referenced it, but China's goal is to make the world safe for
dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.
They certainly want a warm water port on the Bay of Bengal,
and you got a situation, as we all know, where they are not
only providing weapons but they are simpatico. They are in
solidarity with the atrocities being committed by this regime.
We need to put more pressure on China and you might want to
speak to that. Are we raising it sufficiently with Xi Jinping
or not and if you could speak to that as well.
And finally, on trafficking, I am the author of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We have another bill
pending today--this hour--over on the Senate side. Hopefully,
if it does pass it'll be my fifth law on combatting human
trafficking.
The question is, what is your sense of what's happening?
And you have been to the camps, Greta. Thank you for your
leadership on that.
What's the deal with the trafficking? Do you have any
insights you could provide us?
Ms. Van Susteren. First, I can tell you about the
trafficking.
Mr. Smith. Yes, please.
Ms. Van Susteren. That's just a growing crisis in there
because you have got a lot of young girls in there and what
happens is the brokers come in and that's a huge problem and
it's only going to get worse. It's not going to get better
because what happens is--at least I talked to someone who was
working on the camps and trying to combat it--is that the
brokers come in and they say to these families, look, send your
13-year-old girl with me--I will take her to beauty school in
Saudi Arabia or China or something and she'll send all this
money back.
So trafficking--we haven't even touched that. That is such
a problem. It's a bad problem now. It's not going to get
better. So you can put that one on your list.
The question about the Christians--the attention, of
course, is on the Rohingya--the Muslims. But information that I
am told is that the Christians--the Karens--they're also
getting persecuted, just not at the numbers. But they're not
getting the media attention, either. So we don't know much
about that and, of course, they don't have the magnitude of the
Rohingya.
The ICC--I don't have a lot of hope in the ICC but I
definitely think we should do everything we can and use every
tool in your tool box, and to the extent that we can get the
ICC interested in this I think that's good. It puts attention
on it.
And you mentioned China protecting Bashir. Well, it's not
even just China. Even South Africa Presidents--then President
Zuma helped Bashir sneak out of South Africa and they're a
signatory to the ICC.
So the ICC is not going to answer this but it's going to
put more world pressure. It's sort of collective. It's why we
need them--we need Congress. We need the U.N. We need the ICC
and all those things.
Sanctions--and I say this personally is that if we can put
more sanctions and more people put a squeeze on more people.
Mr. Pomper. I think I agree with all that. I think,
starting with the ICC, yes, it's an imperfect institution with
a track record that's a little bit better than it was a few
years ago but still it's struggled to be effective and I think,
as I mentioned earlier in this hearing, one of the issues is
that the international community needs to support this effort.
It doesn't have a police force. It doesn't have an enforcement
arm. It relies on member states. It relies on the international
community to support it.
So that's where U.S. diplomacy can actually be helpful.
Right now, U.S. diplomacy is committed to actually undermining
the coordinates' legitimacy. So it's going in the wrong
direction.
In a perfect world, the U.S. Government would actually be
supplying information and actually helping them build the case,
which they've already sort of started in the--to build. They've
launched a preliminary examination. They've seized themselves
jurisdiction. There is an opportunity there. Unfortunately, I
think we are missing that opportunity.
On targeted sanctions, the fact-finding mission, I think,
listed a number of potential targets who have not yet been
designated by the United States. I would hope that the State
Department and the Treasury Department would be looking into
those targets.
On the other ethnic minorities, yes, the Shan and the
Kachin were both, I think, subjects of a little bit of the
fact-finding mission report. There's a lot that should be
explored there. It would be great if Congress could bring
attention to their plights as well.
Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Okay. We are going to go to Sandy Levin of
Michigan and then Mike McCaul of Texas.
Mr. Levin. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the
committee letting me join in.
I don't know--is it appropriate for me to enter a statement
in the record? Is that appropriate?
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
Mr. Levin. So let me just say very few things. I think I
wanted to come here to congratulate the committee on paying
attention to this serious issue and to your testimony.
I think the evidence is totally clear. I think genocide is
occurring. There's been some hesitation to say that is recent
with the State Department to report where they spelled it out
so clearly as was spelled out in the U.N. report.
But they hesitate to call it genocide when it is.
Secondly, I think there's been hesitation because of the
role of Aung San Suu Kyi, and I understand that, and others who
have met her can understand that.
She was a champion. The problem is that the events there
have, I am afraid, caused her to pull back and it's had a
dramatic effect, I think, throughout. And you mentioned the
failure of the media here to really bear down.
And I think at times there was some hesitation within this
Congress. I think it was a year and a half or more ago that the
late John McCain and Dick Durbin introduced a resolution in the
Senate that said it very clearly, and I essentially took that
resolution and I introduced it in the House.
And, again, I think because of Aung San Suu Kyi there was
some hesitation. But I recently read a comment of hers--it's
one of many--and this is what she said about the treatment of
the Rohingya: ``There are, of course, ways in which with
hindsight, I think, the situation could have been handled
better. We believe for the sake of long-term stability and
security we have to be fair to all sides.''
When it comes to this circumstance, to genocide, there
really is only one side.
And I want to close, Mr. Chairman and others, by
remembering a time. It was a couple decades ago, and President
Clinton was there with Elie Wiesel. It was on a different
subject, and Elie Wiesel turned to the President of the United
States and said, ``Don't forget the Bosnian genocide.''
And so I want to close, Mr. Chairman, again saying the work
of this committee is so important, and while it's too late, I
think, before we recess Friday, it's my hope that in addition
to what has been done by this committee and the Congress so far
that when we come back there will be further steps taken.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. So let me thank you again for this opportunity
and I want, with so many others, to join you in taking the
further steps necessary to bring to the attention of the world
and everybody in this country including the release of those
two reporters, the need for still further action.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, sir, and I also want to thank
Tom Garrett here with us. Tom was here since before 10 o'clock
this morning and, without objection, I would like to go to Mr.
Garrett for his questioning now, if we could.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you a lot, Mr. Chairman, and I really
appreciate this hearing and I appreciate the work of the Voice
of America, let alone Ms. Van Susteren.
The Voice of America, when properly levied, has been
instrumental to the freedom of literally hundreds of millions
of people and that shouldn't be underestimated, but not
properly levied we probably are pouring bad money after good.
But in this circumstance we are on the right side of history.
As it relates to the points made by Mr. Pomper, I find both
agreement and disagreement. And Ms. Van Susteren said earlier,
Mr. Chair, that we should use all of the above. I
wholeheartedly agree.
Having said that, the questions as it relates to the U.N.
Human Rights Commission, et cetera, exacerbates some of us
because, candidly, those bodies have been used to stymie
progress in the right direction, right.
I mean, when you have a body wherein there are members like
the DRC, Angola; Pakistan, who horribly exploits ethnic
minorities; China, who has imprisoned north of 1 million Uighur
and oppress that population; Saudi Arabia, who I need not speak
to; and Cuba, who maimed members of the U.S. State Department
staff on the UNHCR, maybe their credibility is in question.
Having said that, work with the tools you have, not the
tools you wish you had.
Refugee camps breed hopelessness, hopelessness breeds
extremism, and extremism stymies the most fundamental of human
rights, that being paramount the right to life, amongst others.
I spent 8 months in a tent standing between Bosnia and
Serbs and Muslims in the Army when I was younger, better
looking, and had more hair, and I think it's been poignant that
some members of this committee, Mr. Chair, have pointed out the
role of China in these egregious circumstances.
There is a role of China, some of which I can't speak about
in this forum. How dare China wag its finger at us when they
continue to perpetrate this aforementioned violations against
the Uighurs, against the Falun Gong, against those who practice
the Christian faith?
And yet, we need to understand how China works. China
drives wedges between potential alliances. There's probably no
more important region in the next 30 years of our world than
ASEAN, and Burma maintains the second--Myanmar maintains the
second largest standing army in that region after Vietnam. They
are wholly dependent upon the Chinese and the Chinese have
interests, again, that I can't discuss in this forum in some of
the atrocities that have been perpetrated. We need to speak the
truth to that.
I understand, as Mr. Pomper said and I will paraphrase that
sometimes it's hard to move a great power. You will not
accomplish anything you do not try to do. So we need to try.
Understanding the Chinese drive wedges between potential
alliances, use proxies to advance Chinese interests, create
regional vacuums that the Chinese can fill, and then lie, lie,
lie. That's the China paradigm.
So what can we do here today, and this is a passion of
mine. I've had the opportunity to work with Americans both
Muslim and non-Muslim in groups like Our Aim to send aid to the
Rohingya; building wells, building houses, building bridges,
because when children can't get across a raging torrent during
a monsoon then you have a secondary child separation.
But we need to worry about what we can do and we need to
understand where we come from. We had Dred Scott. We had Jim
Crow. We had the first Article 1 with three-fifths of a person.
We even proved, because the Preamble calls for forming a
more perfect union, not establishing a perfect one--we should
demand the same of those with whom we work.
Global Magnitsky--it's been hit on. I have to tip my hat
repeatedly to Chairman Royce, to Chris Smith, to members across
the aisle. We should walk this dog all the way to the end of
the line and pound everybody we can. We can do that
unilaterally and we should.
And I've heard--in fact, I've called for in this committee
the revocation of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi's Nobel Peace Prize. But
we can't control that.
What we can control is the Congressional Gold Medal that
was awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi in 2008 and then given to her
in person in this town 400 yards from where we sit by this
body.
It is the highest honor bestowed by Congress and has been
enjoyed by Pope John Paul, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ronald
Reagan, Raoul Wallenberg, who saved tens of thousands, Mother
Teresa, and the Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi.
So we can't control the Nobel Prize but we can send a
pretty loud signal. Now, I understand that there are
complexities here--that Ms. Suu Kyi's hands at some level are
tied. But silence at some point is complicity, and the words
that she has spoken about democracy and freedom for individuals
across communities ring hollow in light of her current inaction
in the face of a massive, massive displacement and murder and
rape and enslavement of human beings in her nation.
So these are things we can do now. We need to ramp up
Global Magnitsky. It is an amazing tool, and this body bestowed
upon her an award enjoyed by the likes of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. and Mother Teresa. We should see immediately about
revoking that because that we can control.
I will yield back and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Garrett, thank you.
We go now to Mike McCaul, chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
Ms. Van Susteren, thanks for putting a media spotlight on
this, and I agree with you--the media should call more
attention. We did that in Sudan and exposed the genocide
happening there. I think it's happening here in this case in
Burma.
It is a crime against humanity, and what I worry about is
the role of China because we know that they are providing the
Burmese military--they're basically arming them with major arms
suppliers. They are trying to invest in Burma under the One
Belt, One Road Initiative where we've seen time and time again
they go into countries, leverage them, and then take over their
ports like in Sri Lanka, like in Djibouti.
Here, they have the Indian Ocean ports in Burma. So we know
they're trying to--that's their strategy going in and so the
question is diplomacy, sanctions.
I know some in the Senate think we need more diplomacy.
It's not time for sanctions. But what--the two of you, what are
your thoughts on sanctioning the military--the Burmese military
and, if so, what impact would that have on the Burmese
Government to possibly turn to China for more investment?
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, first of all, let me speak
personally, not for the Voice of America. I keep saying this
like a broken record but just that everyone is clear.
Look, I am all for whatever--as I said, every tool we have
is to use it and to increase the sanctions I think is
particularly good.
When you say what is going to happen if we do that with
Burma, well, we've seen with the trade war that we have with
the tariffs, with the soybeans, is that China just went
someplace else. They're getting it from Brazil and they're
getting it from some other nations.
So, there's always a problem when you put in sanctions that
they just look for another market and they get the market.
Nonetheless, the question is, as a nation do we want to
stand up to this? That's really sort of the issue and that's
really your decision as Representatives and not mine.
But there's no question that if you put in sanctions
oftentimes they just go someplace else.
Mr. McCaul. Right.
Mr. Pomper. Where I've been on this is that targeted
sanctions against perpetrators of these atrocities is an
appropriate consequence and it sends the right message and it's
something that the United States should pursue.
It's important as much as anything as a signal to future
perpetrators both in Myanmar and elsewhere and making it clear
that the United States and others who, hopefully, it can bring
along in this effort and will not let these kinds of crimes go
unanswered.
Mr. McCaul. Well, and I tend to agree. I think we have a
moral obligation here to do something and I think Congress has
that authority--that we can issue sanctions.
The United Nations, the International Criminal Court--
they've been called upon to prosecute this. I think I agree
with you, Ms. Van Susteren--they have been a bit feckless,
powerless. They can't go into these countries and you and I
were prosecutors and it's hard for them to adequately prosecute
if they don't have access to the witnesses.
And the U.N. has its problems. But that's one thing I think
Congress can do here and it is issue sanctions against the
Burmese military.
And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I--in the interests of
time, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much.
We'll go to Mr. Ted Yoho, chairman of our Asia and the
Pacific Subcommittee.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for
having the endurance to stay here.
Ms. Van Susteren, when you started off you said journalists
must document atrocities, and I agree with that because that's
the only way that message gets out.
And I think you followed up that when we say never again,
we must mean it, and I agree. So the question always comes out
how, who, and when, and just as we've heard over and over again
the history. When Nazi Germany went in and they were going
through Europe collecting, rounding up, separating, processing,
and murdering the Jews, the world stood by.
I don't think purposely. It was happening while Hitler was
taking over Europe and conquering countries. It was the
aftermath of that, and we all remember, I guess us older ones
remember, when General Eisenhower stated, ``Never again,'' when
they went to Auschwitz and they saw these camps, that exposed
that to the world. That was the journalists. And I commend you
for what you're doing.
And so we say never again, yet here we are saying never
again, and all we have to do is look back in the last 20 or 30
years. We see Darfur. Mao Zedong murdered 80 million people in
his own country. Darfur, Sudan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Syria, Yemen,
now the Rohingya.
Never again, like you said. When do we mean that? So the
questions that come up, who should be the policing force? Is it
one country? Can the U.S. do that by itself?
I would think not. How do you do that? And we've heard
sanctions. We do sanctions all the time, and yes, they have
some effect. But as Chairman McCaul brought out, we can
sanction but China comes in, another country comes in, and it's
the same thing we are going through with the DPRK. We put
sanctions on there but if another country cheats, so there's
got to be a better enforcing body that we together,
collectively as nations, agree this will be the body that goes
in there, and you can do isolation. You can isolate a country.
You can put embargoes and then, of course, the last one is the
kinetic actions.
In your opinions, in your experience--both of you--if you
could write policy and direct and say, if you guys would do
this we could have this outcome, how would you like to see it?
Because I know you're on the ground all the time and you
see it and you will probably see some things that are just
obvious.
Ms. Van Susteren. Well, first of all, we can't police the
world. I mean, you listed a couple places. There are other
places even that aren't on your list like the Nuba Mountains in
Sudan that nobody's paying attention to. I mean, it's just
impossible to think of us as policing it.
I think for me at least as an American is that I at least
want to stand up to this and say we know about this and we are
not going to be part of it.
We are not going to do business with you. We are going to
sanction you, and just from a moral standpoint we are going to
do everything we can not to let you, meaning Myanmar, to
participate in the rest of the world.
I think that's the best we can do. We can't solve all these
problems. I mean, it's unrealistic.
But at least we can have the confidence that at least we
are trying to do something and we are making a statement about
where we are on these human rights things.
You know, and the other problem too is that, quite frankly,
the more practical thing is that these refugee camps are
breeding camps for some very bad things.
Mr. Yoho. As we know.
Ms. Van Susteren. Eventually, the women go off to the
trafficking. The men go off to the fishing boats and then we
have extremist groups--that it's a fertile breeding ground
because they've got nothing to do all day long.
They even--I mean, they're lucky if they get food that they
need or medicine that they need. They see their kids die--their
babies die because Doctors Without Borders might not have
enough medicine.
I mean, I hear--when I was there the stories, you wouldn't
believe what these doctors are trying to do. I mean, we can put
people on ventilators here. What they have to do they have to
take a bladder and just pump it all night long--pump it, if
they've got a dying child. Well, that makes a very unhappy
situation inside the camps.
So, I don't think we can solve this but at least we can
have moral authority in the world and we can say we are not
doing business with you and we are going to sanction you.
But that's just--you asked me what my wish list is it's in
light of being very practical that we can't solve all these
problems. But we can at least stand up to them.
Mr. Yoho. Well, I think one of the most important things we
can do is expose it and I commend both of you for doing that.
Mr. Pomper, do you have any ideas or thoughts of what you
would recommend?
Mr. Pomper. I agree that there are limits to American
influence. I think American influence does get expanded when it
works----
Mr. Yoho. Oh, yes.
Mr. Pomper [continuing]. Through other bodies and with
international partners. I do agree that the tools out there are
imperfect. But one has to work with the tools that are there.
And so I think as part of efforts toward pressure and
accountability the United States needs to sort of survey the
landscape and be very realistic about the fact that if it wants
to be effective in this space there's a Human Rights Council
that's actively seizing this matter and it's done a lot of good
work.
There's an International Criminal Court that is actively
seizing this matter and has the potential to do something more
and think about ways it can support those efforts.
At the same time, I do think that the United States needs
to keep on talking to the civilian government, needs to keep
talking to the military and helping to coax them along, as
frustrating and as limited as those prospects might be at this
point.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you both. I am out of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Ann Wagner of Missouri.
Mrs. Wagner. Last but not least. It's probably all been
said but we all haven't said it yet.
So, Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for hosting this
hearing on a topic that I have drawn attention to again and
again. I have worked with my colleague, Congressman Castro--it
was here earlier this month--to send a letter to Aung San Suu
Kyi urging her to commute the sentences of the two Reuters
journalists who were sentenced to 7 years of jail time for
investigating the Rohingya massacres.
Last week, I was pleased to see that the U.N. finally
recommended that Burmese generals be investigated for the
genocide of Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State.
This is a welcome, albeit long overdue, first step in
bringing the perpetrators to justice. I am proud, really proud,
that so many members and in a bipartisan way of this body have
not hesitated to call the violence against the Rohingya what it
is.
It is genocide. There is broad bipartisan consensus that
the United States should be doing everything it can to prevent
and end genocide. Yet, I will say that our track record is
deplorable. We failed to stop genocides in Rwanda, in Syria,
and now in Burma.
We have waited on the sidelines as the Burmese Government
actively attempts the extermination of the Rohingya. I am just
beyond outraged that the officials responsible for this
genocide have gone unpunished and remain unaccountable.
Mr. Pomper, the International Crisis Group has done great
work, and I don't mean to diminish that work in any way. But I
am curious about something.
In 2013, sir, your organization awarded its In Pursuit of
Peace Award to President Thein Sein. This award followed on the
heels of a wave of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing
of the Rohingya beginning in October 2012, which the Thein Sein
government failed to adequately respond to and even encouraged.
Can you elaborate on why the International Crisis Group
gave this award to the man who refused to address an emerging
genocide? I know that many human rights advocates at the time--
because I was here in Congress--were very upset and I remember
hearing about it then.
Would you like to elaborate?
Mr. Pomper. I mean not to dodge this question, but I was
ensconced in the U.S. Government at that time. So I don't
actually know what the thinking specifically behind the
provision of that award was.
I mean, as has been discussed broadly, about a lot of this
sort of encouragement that different bodies inside the United
States gave to different elements of the reform effort, there
was a hopeful logic that was animating a lot of decision making
at that time that did not pan out, clearly.
But beyond that, I don't really have anything--I have
literally no insight to give you. I am sorry.
Mrs. Wagner. Well, if there's anything that you can find
out. I know that you work closely with the organization now,
obviously, and there was such outrage at the time and it made
no sense and I just would--if there's any insight that you can
provide my office or the committee I would--I would greatly
appreciate it.
And, again, I don't mean to diminish in any way, shape, or
form the good work that you do do.
Mr. Pomper. Thank you.
Mrs. Wagner. The House recently passed my bill, the Elie
Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which I
introduced to spur significant improvements in the way the
United States responds to genocide and other crimes against
humanity.
One of its provisions would mandate training for foreign
service officers in early warning and response measures.
Mr. Pomper, what resources did U.S. entities on the ground
lack, do you think, that impaired our response to the crisis?
Mr. Pomper. Sorry. The resources that the entity--I didn't
quite follow the question.
Mrs. Wagner. My legislation provides that Foreign Service
officers in early warning and response measures they would have
to be schooled up in their crisis prevention on these kinds of
things.
Were there other things that at the State Department level,
at the U.S. level, that we could have done in response to this
crisis that were lacking on the early side of this?
Mr. Pomper. The early warning--gosh, I don't--I don't have
a particularly complete answer for you but--I don't see this as
a function, frankly, of the United States' failure to see what
was happening.
I think this is really a function of a premeditated plan on
the part of the Tatmadaw--that they were determined to carry
that out.
Mrs. Wagner. I am just concerned that our Foreign Service
officers have the kind of training on the front side of these
kinds of crises when it comes to warning and response measures.
So----
Mr. Pomper. So let me be supportive of that. I certainly
think that every time we cross a threshold like we've crossed
right now of an atrocity happening where it was not possible to
prevent it, it's important to take stock of the toolbox and
make sure that the United States is doing everything it can--
that it has all the resources that it can muster to do better
the next time.
And so if there's a way to get more training and resources
into the sort of effort of prevention that is certainly a
worthwhile----
Mrs. Wagner. Well, I hope you take a look at the
legislation. We'll be sending it along. It's a good first step
in the right direction.
I've run out of time. Ms. Van Susteren, thank you for being
here. I have some questions for you too. We'll submit it for
the record.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Well, thank you. I think this has been a
very informative hearing and I think you surfaced many, many
bits of information about this because of your firsthand
knowledge of being there.
And let me just concur with you, Greta, on your observation
that one of the most important things we can do here is try to
get this information out not just to the American people but to
the world, and that's one of the things you're trying to do.
Ms. Van Susteren. And can I just add one thing----
Chairman Royce. Absolutely.
Ms. Van Susteren [continuing]. Just a personal standpoint
is that I really appreciate this because I know this hearing
back home probably doesn't play--the people across America
probably don't--this is not going to help you in any way.
You're doing this for all the right reasons.
There's no politics in this one. It's just to help people,
because we don't get any more money out of this--the U.S.
Government--nobody gets anything out of it. We just get a
chance to maybe do the right thing.
Chairman Royce. We just, hopefully, get some level of
humanity for those who've been through this and some hope for
their future for all the reasons that you have detailed out
besides the horror of what we've been through and the fact that
we've made a commitment on this issue of genocide.
As they say, never again, and here it is going on with the
international community held spellbound in the middle of it.
So thank you to both of you for what you're doing to try to
drive awareness on this issue and drive action on this issue.
And thank you to the members for being here today, and we
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman,
Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman,
Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: The preceding document has not been printed here in full but may
be found at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108717
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Steve Chabot, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and chairman,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: The preceding document has not been printed here in full but may
be found at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108717
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Gerald E. Connolly,
a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]