U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–674PDF 2010

THE STATE OF POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS

FREEDOM IN THE MIDDLE EAST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 19, 2009

Serial No. 111–77

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

HOWARD DIAMOND, Subcommittee Staff Director 

MARK WALKER, Republican Professional Staff Member 

DALIS ADLER, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State ...................................... 10

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Gary L. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East 

and South Asia: Prepared statement ................................................................. 3

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 8

The Honorable Michael H. Posner: Prepared statement ...................................... 12

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 26

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 27

Statement of Representatives Anna G. Eshoo and Frank Wolf, Co-Chairs, 

Religious Minorities in the Middle East Caucus ............................................... 28

Questions of Representative Anna G. Eshoo ......................................................... 35

The Honorable Michael H. Posner: IRF Report, Introduction ............................. 38

(1)

THE STATE OF POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM IN THE MIDDLE EAST 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST

AND SOUTH ASIA,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary L. Ackerman 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The committee will come to order. 

In some places, and particularly in the Middle East, people may 

wonder about the sincerity of American concern about religious 

freedom. Skeptics, especially in the Arab world, may suspect that 

our professed interest in the freedom of belief, thought, and worship is merely a cudgel we use to beat our political opponents when 

convenient. 

Such thinking is not only completely wrong on the facts, but utterly misunderstands our national character, which has always 

held to the belief in universal rights and the hope that these rights 

would spread throughout the world. 

Among the Founders, Thomas Jefferson put it best in a letter 

sent only days before the 50th anniversary of our independence. 

Referring to that great July 4th 50 years earlier, he wrote:

‘‘May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some 

parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of 

arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free 

right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion.’’

So said Jefferson. 

Whatever his other failings, Jefferson understood and expressed 

better than any other of the founding generation the ideals that 

have set the United States apart and won for us a special destiny. 

And, in fact, that unique drive to share the blessings of freedom 

pervaded even those earliest years of the American diplomatic engagement with the Middle East. Though even few Americans recall 

or learn little of our Nation’s involvement in the Arab world before 

the 20th century, the fact is among our Nation’s very earliest foreign policy struggles and successes, the Middle East played a very 

2

prominent role. And in seeking to protect American ships from piracy in the southern Mediterranean from the very start, American 

diplomats and envoys took it upon themselves to seek protection for 

religious minorities. And this work continues to this very day. 

It is probably true that our relations throughout the region 

would be considerably simplified if we chose to regard religious discrimination and repression in other countries as purely internal 

matters. Many other states have taken this approach. But such an 

abdication of our most fundamental beliefs is not within the character of this country, not now, and not in the future. For better or 

worse, we are called to be witnesses. 

It is not within our power or desire to shape the affairs of other 

states, but we are not blind to the suffering and misfortune which 

is meted out daily throughout the world, and particularly in the 

Middle East, on the basis of religion, even among our close allies. 

So as we are not blind or deaf, we must not also be mute. 

There are several reasons for this obligation. First, we must be 

true to our own values. Religious freedom is a core American value, 

and remaining silent in the face of evil is to become complicit with 

that evil. 

Secondly, as we maintain our belief in the righteousness of our 

values, we must also maintain hope that others will recognize and 

come to accept what we have always held to be self-evident truths. 

And finally, both the victims and the perpetrators of religious 

bias, discrimination and violence should know that we are watching, and we are aware, and we are concerned. However certain the 

perpetrators of these acts may be of their authority, they rarely 

like to have their deeds exposed. Power cannot dispel shame. 

And we are not without misdeeds ourselves. Our own history is 

sadly rife with long years of repression and outbreaks of brutality. 

But while our history may be flawed, the ideals to which we are 

ever struggling to come closer are not. 

The right to believe or not, and to exercise that belief in worship 

and religious practice, is not a different thing here in the United 

States than it is in the Middle East or in any other place. 

Some of our allies will complain that behind the facade of religion lie threats of the utmost urgency to their states and to the 

well-being of their publics. That may be so. But the obligation to 

distinguish between legal association and criticism, and illegal conspiracy and treason, lies with the state. The responsibility to protect the weak and the helpless from the strong and the powerful 

lies with the state. The boundary between the religious character 

of a nation and the secular aspect of a government must be maintained by the state. 

We do not expect every, or any, nation to become cookie-cutter 

copies of the United States, but we do expect that states will adhere to their own international commitments and treaty obligations. 

Jefferson concluded his letter with,

‘‘All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to 

every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has 

not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few 

booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the 

3

grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our 

recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to 

them.’’

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerman follows:]


53674a-1.eps
4


53674a-2.eps
5

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank 

our assistant secretary, Mr. Posner, for testifying this afternoon. 

Today we are here to discuss the state of political and religious 

freedom in the Middle East, which our witness is well aware of 

with last month’s release of the State Department’s 2009 Report on 

International Religious Freedom. 

I recently joined several of my colleagues, including Chairman 

Ackerman, in sending a letter to the select member states of the 

United Nations about the defamation of religions resolution that is 

annually considered by the U.N. Human Rights Council and the 

U.N. General Assembly. This resolution is inconsistent with the 

basic freedoms of religion and expression, and the fact it is annually considered by the U.N. highlights the problem the U.S. faces 

in promoting these freedoms across the globe. 

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 named the promotion of religious freedom for all persons as a core objective of 

U.S. foreign policy. I agree with this as religious freedom is a fundamental human right. However, there are significant challenges 

to these freedoms throughout many parts of the world, particularly 

in several Middle Eastern countries. In these countries religious 

minorities do not enjoy equal access to the basic services and opportunities those belonging to the religious majority are afforded. 

I understand from your testimony, Assistant Secretary Posner, 

that the State Department is exploring ways to increase our capacity to engage the region’s faith leaders as a way to bolster human 

rights and religious equality throughout the region. However, in a 

region extremely leery of Western involvement, how do we do this 

while avoiding a political backlash from regional governments, and 

Islamists, and especially avoiding charges of meddling in domestic 

affairs? 

I look forward to hearing from you on this fundamental question. 

Again, thank you for being here. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, what an appropriate hearing 

as we continue to assess the conditions, both political, democratic 

and religious conditions, in the Mideast, a region in which I believe 

there is hope. But we cannot avoid the hard questions, and I look 

forward to hearing Assistant Secretary Posner on these issues. 

I want to just highlight my concerns in particular with Iran. 

Throughout 2009, the Government of Iran has persistently violated 

the rights of its citizens. The Government of Iran’s most overt display of disregard for political rights happened in the Presidential 

elections of June 12, 2009. And as I said on June 19th, 2009, we 

must condemn Iran for the absence of fair and free Presidential 

elections and urge Iran to provide its people with the opportunity 

to engage in democratic election processes. All of that contributes 

to the respect for individual rights. And we have seen repression 

and murder, arbitrary arrests, and show trials of peaceful dissidents in the wake of elections. It was a sad reminder. Right now 

Americans are being detained in Iran, which, again, emphasizes 

the lack of respect for human rights. 

6

This whole issue of religion is also a question. In spite of Iran’s 

constitutional guarantee that non-Shiite Muslims and other religious groups, including Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews, are protected, the State Department’s annual Report on International Religious Freedom describes discrimination for those groups and the 

situation for religious minorities in Iran as ‘‘deteriorating.’’ I might 

be more forceful and say ‘‘nonexistent.’’

National security and regional stability are overriding concerns 

with regard to Iran, but the rights violations that the Government 

of Iran perpetrates against its citizens are similarly unacceptable. 

I have constituents from Iran, families who have been separated 

from each other, who have not been allowed to reconcile or to engage because of the problems in Iran. When we consider our relations with Iran, human rights, including political and religious 

freedoms, must be a high priority. 

Just as well, even as we have made progress in Iraq, I am concerned about the political and religious freedoms in Iraq, because 

the degree to which Iraq protects those rights is a reflection on our 

own country and what we have been able to accomplish. There are 

groups, for example, that do exist, but do not have the protection 

in Iraq. 

This year, 3 months after United States forces turned over control of Camp Ashraf, Iraqi security forces violated the human 

rights of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran. Camp Ashraf detains over 

3,400 exiled Iranian political dissidents or members of the PMOI, 

including over 1,000 women. Detaining is one we disagree with, but 

the oppression and violence is one that we cannot tolerate. The 

PMOI opposes the current Iranian regime, and for their political 

beliefs they have been exiled from Iran and sequestered in Camp 

Ashraf. Several women detained in this camp have reported acts of 

intimidation and threats of physical and sexual violence by members of the Iraqi security forces. I would only suggest that as we 

begin to highlight this question, we have to stand as well for the 

respect of all faiths. 

I conclude by saying just in the past week, we were able to meet 

with the mayor of Jerusalem, who envisioned a Jerusalem where 

people of all faiths can live and worship as they choose. For those 

of us who have visited Israel, we can see where all religions converge. I support that concept. Let us have all religions converging, 

wherever they may find themselves, and let us hold as sacred the 

rights of people to practice their faith, a faith that is nonviolent, 

their faith that promotes unity, their faith that promotes love. And 

all the religions that I have been able to study in the world follow 

in that tradition. It is only when those traditions are violated when 

horrible and horrific acts are perpetrated under the name of religion. I hope we can support the religion that brings unity and reconciliation. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. 

We will now hear from my partner on the subcommittee, the distinguished ranking member from Indiana, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to once again apologize. This 

is my third or fourth—I can’t remember—hearing today, so I may 

start talking about a subject that is not even relevant to this hearVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Apr 16, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\111909\53674 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

ing because of another committee. If I do, would you kind of hit me 

in the arm? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. We have never done that before. 

Mr. BURTON. I am going to submit my statement for the record 

so we can get to the witness. 

But I would like to just say, Mr. Chairman, that there are a 

number of resolutions that we have talked about that have been 

supported and sponsored by Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Wolf 

and myself that deal with religious freedom and understanding in 

the Middle East, and I was hoping we might be able to talk about 

those or have a markup today. But since we haven’t been able to, 

would it be possible for us to maybe take a hard look at those down 

the road? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. We will be taking a look at it. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, if you could, I would appreciate it. 

I yield back, and just submit my statement for the record. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the distinguished gentleman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]

8


53674c-1.eps
9

Mr. ACKERMAN. It is now my pleasure to introduce the new assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 

Mr. Michael H. Posner. We are delighted to have him here with us 

today. 

Secretary Posner may be new to the subcommittee, but he has 

a long and distinguished history when it comes to promoting 

human rights. Prior to being confirmed as assistant secretary in 

September 2009, Mr. Posner was the executive director and then 

president of Human Rights First. During his tenure at Human 

Rights First, the organization was at the very forefront of U.S. and 

international efforts to enhance refugee protections, to demand accountability for crimes against humanity, and to combat all forms 

of illicit discrimination. Secretary Posner is probably best known 

for his effort to reintegrate human rights principles into even the 

most sensitive parts of the American national security efforts. 

Mr. Secretary, without objection, your full written statement will 

be entered into the record, and I would ask you to summarize your 

testimony so that we could then move directly to questions. 

You may begin as you will. 


53674c-2.eps
10

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. POSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN 

RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. POSNER. Thank you. Chairman Ackerman and members of 

the subcommittee, it is an honor to be here today to discuss this 

important issue. In addition to my written statement, I would like 

to ask that the International Religious Freedom Report’s introduction and executive summary be entered into the record. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. POSNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the universal application of 

human rights standards, and that is, in fact, one of the cornerstones of the Obama administration’s approach to these issues, 

very much in the spirit of Jefferson. We believe that there are 

international and know that there are international standards that 

allow for free expression of religion, and allow people to choose and 

practice their religion, and that there be a tolerance of differences. 

We also are very much committed to what we are calling principled engagement. President Obama’s important speech in Cairo 

in June of this year set the tone for that, and he spoke about the 

importance of religious tolerance and religious freedom. He said 

people in every country should be free to choose and live their faith 

based on the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. 

This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. 

A third element of what we are trying to do is to support broader 

civil society and allow civil society to flourish in countries around 

the world, including religious minorities. Sadly, in the Middle East 

region, as you have indicated, as all of you have indicated, there 

are a range of very troubling problems. I just want to highlight 

very quickly three countries, and then we can open up to questions. 

The first is Iran. Congresswoman Jackson Lee made reference to 

it. It is one of two countries in the region that are designated countries of particular concern, and has been for some time. And, as she 

said, there is a much broader pattern of disrespect for human 

rights in Iran, intensified after the election with the crushing of 

demonstrations, imprisonment of people, detention and mistreatment. 

But the respect for religious freedom in Iran is also a serious 

problem, the disrespect, and it continues to deteriorate. The government’s rhetoric and actions against all non-Shia religious 

groups, particularly the Baha’i, the Sufi, evangelical Christians and 

Jews, is something that simply can’t be tolerated. We continue to 

receive reports of imprisonment, harassment, intimidation and discrimination based on religious beliefs. 

One case in particular that I would mention is the case of seven 

Baha’i leaders who were detained between March and May 2008. 

They weren’t charged for 9 months, at which point they were 

charged with security offenses, including spying for Israel. In February of this year, a spokesman for the judiciary said that in addition to espionage, they also are going to be charged with ‘‘spreading 

corruption on Earth,’’ which is a crime punishable by death. The 

Baha’i community in particular has really been targeted in Iran. 

I will just say finally with respect to Iran that either today or 

tomorrow the U.N. General Assembly is going to consider a resoluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Apr 16, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\111909\53674 HFA PsN: SHIRL
11

tion on human rights in Iran, which has, more than it has ever had 

in the past, reference to and expression of concern about the denial 

of religious freedom to the Baha’i, Sufi and others. We are very 

much supporting that, and we are at this point cautiously hopeful 

that that resolution will be adopted, as it has been in the last several years. 

You might ask, why do we spend the time and energy doing it? 

We do it because it is a signal to democratic forces in Iran that the 

world is watching, and we know what is happening. It is a piece 

of solidarity. 

The second country that I will mention very briefly is Saudi Arabia, which is also a country of particular concern for what we call 

systematic, ongoing egregious violations of religious freedom. Freedom of religion is not recognized or protected, and for non-Muslims, 

there is not even the ability to practice their religion in public. 

Even Saudi Shia face significant religious discrimination, which I 

would be glad to go into if people want to discuss it further. 

But it is the case that we continue to follow very closely a very, 

very restrictive regime there and believe that much work needs to 

be done. And Members of Congress have been helpful in that regard by constantly reminding us of the seriousness of the situation. 

The third and last country that I will mention, again very briefly, 

is Egypt. It is a place where actual respect for religious freedom 

has declined in the last 3 years. And in particular I want to raise 

our concerns about the government’s inaction, or insufficient action, 

in protecting the Coptic Christian population of Egypt. There are 

attacks against that population, and the government continues to 

try to avoid any legal accountability for the perpetrators of those 

attacks. 

An example is the assault on the Abu Fana Monastery in 2008. 

Two Coptic brothers were arrested in connection with that bombing. They were held for 14 months. They were finally released, but 

their release was conditioned on an agreement with the government that the monastery drop criminal charges against those who 

actually perpetrated the attack. That lack of accountability we 

think actually perpetuates more violence and attacks against the 

Coptic community. 

The last thing with respect to Egypt is the unified law. We are 

particularly concerned about the lack of attention to passing that 

law, which would treat all religious groups equally with regard to 

requirements for obtaining building permits to construct or repair 

worship facilities. And the effect of not having that law and existing laws on the books is that religious groups, including the Coptic 

Christian community, are often precluded from building houses of 

worship or repairing them. 

So these are practical things we believe can and should be done 

in all of these places. 

With that I want to stop and just take your questions. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Posner follows:]

12


53674b-1.eps
13


53674b-2.eps
14

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me ask a general question. How do we engage those countries in the region on this issue, countries that are 

our friends or our allies or who are helpful to us? 

Mr. POSNER. We are, Congressman, engaging with these countries in a range of ways. We can’t treat all of these countries in the 

same way, given the nature of the relationship. We don’t have a 

relationship with the Iranian Government, for example. There is a 

long list of things I would love to be able to push——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I wasn’t exactly counting them as our friends. 

Mr. POSNER. That is right. 

I think with the two other countries I mentioned, I mentioned 

them particularly because they are countries that we have a close 

relationship with, and I think it is particularly incumbent on us in 

places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt to be raising these and related 

issues constantly. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. It was basically a ‘‘how’’ question. How do we do 

it? 

Mr. POSNER. Well, I think we do it on several levels. At the 

30,000-feet level, the President’s speech in June set a very positive 

tone. It was a speech of engagement, but at the same time a speech 

that recognized the importance of these issues. 

We are now involved with Egypt in a set of discussions, a set of 

bilateral discussions, that will include these issues. And that is 

part of my job is to make sure that these issues are getting raised. 

I plan to visit Egypt in the near future. We have a dialogue scheduled for mid-December with the Egyptians. It is critical that these 

issues be on the agenda and that we keep raising them and keep, 

again, reaching out to the religious community—in the case of 

Egypt the Coptic community in the case of Saudi Arabia the Shia 

community—to make sure that we are highlighting the importance 

we place on these subjects. 

We need to keep—it shouldn’t be just me or the Human Rights 

Bureau that is saying it to them. This needs to be done across the 

government. Again, the interest that Congress shows reinforces 

that commitment and allows us to do this in the best way possible. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. A lot of that does go on with respect to the legislative branch. We have Members, besides all of our general interests, who have specific and keen interests in specific minorities, 

and many in all minorities, and their ability to practice their 

rights, including freedom of religion high among them, in these 

various places in the Middle East. 

On the level of the administration, besides the necessary handholding, for lack of a better word, with those communities that 

need the assurances and bolstering up that we in the world are 

watching, is this brought up in any other way besides through your 

position? You just mentioned it should be through others as well. 

Do we seek—and I am talking about with our friends now. It is 

easy to beat up on our enemies because we don’t have to be as sensitive sometimes, at least we think that, in the way that we cudgel 

them. But is there or should there be conditionality on the things 

that they expect from us? When we talk about those within the defense wing of our administration, should they be bringing this up? 

When we talk about trade issues, should we be bringing that up? 

When we talk about even humanitarian or other kinds of aid, 

15

should we be bringing it up? And then after you say yes to all of 

that, I don’t want to preempt you, the real question is are we 

bringing it up, and when was the last time we did? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. Again, I think there is a larger question of the 

relationship between a whole range of human rights issues and 

conditionality of aid, and it will depend on each situation. 

I would say both on a bilateral basis and a multilateral basis we 

can and should be doing more. We have, for example—again focusing on Egypt, we have a very strong relationship with the Government of Egypt, and there is a long list of things that I would like 

to see us raise, and I will be raising with them. But it has to be 

raised across the board. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. But specifically, it should be, it must be, it 

ought to be, it needs to be; my question is, is it being? Has it been? 

When Egypt comes to us and says they need, legitimately we will 

stipulate, certain types of military equipment or defense things, or 

Saudi Arabia needs some information, or ‘‘pick your country’’ 

does—and this is outside of your shop, but you know it needs to 

be done because you brought it up, and we know it has to be 

brought up, because we bring it up on all levels that we engage, 

at least most serious Members of Congress that I know—is it being 

brought up? Is this an issue for the Secretary of Defense, or are 

the other issues too important to dull his other messages with this 

goody-goody stuff? 

Mr. POSNER. Mr. Chairman, this is essentially the centerpiece of 

what I am committed to do in this job. I have been on the job 2 

months, and I am convinced that if we don’t have an integrated approach to human rights issues throughout different agencies, we 

are not going to be effective on these things. 

Has it been done? It has been done episodically in various ways 

in various places. Could it be done more? Yes. Should it be done 

more? Yes. Am I committed to trying to make that happen? Yes. 

Am I going to succeed? I don’t know. 

But I can say to you, and I will make this commitment, that in 

dealing with countries that are our closest allies, we ought to be 

using every opportunity we can and across the government to make 

sure that these central issues which matter so much to us in our 

own society are registered as issues of concern. It is precisely either 

the Trade Representative or the Defense Department that ought to 

be raising these issues. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I have overextended my time, and I will yield—

my colleague is indicating that—I will extend whatever time you 

need. 

Mr. BURTON. I never worry about you overextending your time, 

Mr. Chairman. You are my buddy, and you can have another 5 seconds if you like. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. It is good to have buddies like that. 

I hear what you are saying, and your appreciation and effort on 

the issue is duly noted historically through even the short tenure 

that you have had on your current job. We cannot hold you responsible for other agencies of the executive branch, either to know 

what they are doing or to be responsible for them not doing it. But 

would it be inappropriate for you to send a memo to the secretary 

of this and that, whatever ‘‘that’’ and ‘‘this’’ is, to suggest to them 

16

that these issues are of great overriding national concern on a humanitarian basis, and it is really what America is all about, and 

ask them to bring it up? Because we do badger them from time to 

time, but I think somebody from inside that shop might lend a little bit of additional suasion. 

Mr. POSNER. It took me 6 or 7 months to get through the confirmation process. And part of what I did was to reach out to other 

agencies in just the way you are describing to get a better sense 

of how I can communicate more regularly with both the economic 

and trade people, as well as people in Defense and Justice, et 

cetera. So I very much take to heart what you have just said, and 

it is something that I intend to keep doing. 

If I just say one thing on the multilateral side, too, if you will 

just give me 1 second here. We have done two things. Congressman 

Green mentioned the defamation of religion resolution at the U.N., 

which we fought very hard against. I think there are opportunities 

in the context of the U.N. and other international organizations for 

us also to be raising these concerns and enlisting our allies, European and other allies, to join that fight. 

It seems to me there is some combination of trying to figure affirmative ways to work with governments, in this respect Egypt, on 

a resolution on freedom of expression that we cosponsored at the 

Human Rights Council and got unanimous support for. It gave us 

the ability to then go in and challenge the overreaching and totally 

unacceptable defamation of religion resolution which they and others have been driving. Egypt and Pakistan drive that train. Those 

are both allies of the United States, and I think we ought to be 

very mindful of the fact that our close allies should not be fighting 

with us about these very basic things at the United Nations. So 

that is another piece of this which I am very keen that we bring 

in. 

Susan Rice’s shop is now engaged in those issues. Esther Brimmer, who is the assistant secretary for international organizations, 

is trying to broaden the discussion of this beyond just the particulars to also find a way for us to be pushing some of our allies to 

be stronger on some of these things. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe the secretary just said that interest that Congress 

shows has an impact, and I realize that the State Department 

going to these other Middle East countries—and I presume that is 

what you will be doing, Mr. Secretary—has a positive impact. But 

a resolution or resolutions passed by the Congress talking about religious freedom and understanding, I think, would be a real asset 

to our State Department people that go over there. 

Therefore, I would like to ask you one more time, Mr. Chairman, 

to take a hard look at the bills that are cosponsored on a bipartisan 

basis regarding religious freedom that have been introduced and 

that I think would augment what the State Department is trying 

to do. This is not a partisan issue. It is a bipartisan issue. 

I would also like to thank the chairman of the full committee for 

moving the Iran sanctions bill out of our committee in October, and 

I hope that we can get the other relevant committees to sign off 

17

on that so we can get that bill to the floor as quickly as possible. 

And with your tremendous influence, I know you can help us get 

that done. You are from New York. You can get all kinds of things 

done. You even got the Yankees to win the World Series. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I was no help to the Mets. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, that is true, too. 

I do want to talk about one serious thing, and that is the Saudi 

Arabians. The President, when he was over there, he bowed to the 

Saudi King, and he showed deference. Many of us were concerned 

about that. But, nevertheless, it was his way of showing, I guess, 

respect to the Saudi King. 

But I went over to Saudi Arabia with a CODEL, a congressional 

delegation, a few years ago, and I think you are probably aware of 

that, Mr. Ambassador. The reason I went over there was we had 

a number of women who had married Saudi young men when they 

were in college or they had met them someplace, and they went 

over there full of love and understanding, and they end up with 

their children sleeping on the kitchen floor and living a life that 

was hellacious, to say the least. We even had one woman who got 

away from her husband, took her children to the U.S. Embassy, 

and our charge, I believe it was—I don’t think it was the Ambassador, but the charge at that time told the Marine guards to take 

her and her children to the front of the embassy gates and return 

her to her husband. And Lord only knows what happened to that 

woman. 

I had other women come up to me that were Americans that 

said, do anything you can to get us out of here, and they told me 

about their husbands threatening to carve them up with knives 

and kill them, and women are treated without almost any respect. 

So we are talking today about religious freedom, but also human 

rights. 

I think since the Saudis do so much business with us in the area 

of oil and other trade, I think it is important that we continue to 

pressure them to show human rights and freedom to American citizens. These are not people that are not citizens; American citizens 

that are being held against their will over there, women and their 

children, and many of their children are being forced into marriage 

when they are 12 years old, and they are completely brainwashed. 

I had a woman call me just the other day who had been over 

there. I met with her when I was in Saudi Arabia. She went over 

there to try to get her daughter out, and the religious police came 

in. And because her head was not properly covered—and I was 

talking to her—they were going to arrest her or whip her across 

the ankles or something. When they found out I was a Congressman and didn’t mind going to jail, they rescinded their position. 

So, I think it is important, since you are going to be over there 

and you will be working with our Ambassador, that we continue to 

press them for more equal and free rights for women over there 

and the children. The stories, I had women come to meet with me 

who said if their husband knew they were talking to us, they would 

kill them, and they could probably get away with it because of the 

sharia law or the law they have. I never can pronounce that right, 

sharia law. 

18

So we, as a free country that has trade and diplomatic relations 

with Saudi Arabia, need to do everything we can to help those 

American citizens, women and children, have their rights respected. I know this is a tough issue, but we need to have continual 

pressure. And I hope when you meet with our ambassador over 

there, you will convey my concern and other Members’ concerns 

that have concerns here in the Congress of the United States. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I have any questions of 

the secretary. I think he has been there 2 months. I wish him well. 

If we can do anything to work with you to help solve these religious freedom issues as well as the human rights issues over there, 

give us a call. We would love to work with you. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Did you want to respond? There was no question 

asked. 

Mr. POSNER. No. I would only say on the cases that you raised, 

it is, in fact, much easier for us to intervene when U.S. citizens are 

involved. So if cases like that come to your attention now, it would 

really be helpful for me if you would send them my way so that 

I am aware. I am sure the embassy gets them, but it would also 

be helpful, if they come to your attention, that I see them. I will 

convey your concerns, and I agree with them. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Posner, I realize you have been on the job for a couple 

months, but I would like to get a better idea of how your Bureau 

of Democracy and Human Rights and Labor is set up; how you are 

going to make changes, if any, in terms of your operation; and how 

you are going to work in conjunction with obviously the Secretary 

of State and the President as you pursue efforts to expand democratic institutions and focus on human rights as well as the recognition of oppression when we see it and religious freedoms as we 

know them to be, which clearly is different in the part of the world 

we are talking about; i.e., the Middle East. 

First of all, tell me what are the tools and leverage that your Bureau has to deal, to provide pressure or leverage. How would you 

best describe them, quickly? 

Mr. POSNER. Really three things. One, we are involved in the policymaking process. I think we need to be more involved in that 

within the State Department and within the government. 

Mr. COSTA. You are going to get more involved in that policymaking process. 

Number two? 

Mr. POSNER. Number two, we are involved in reporting. We do 

the annual Country Reports on Human Rights and Religious Freedom, et cetera. But we lay the factual predicate for the government 

to act. Those reports have taken on a life of their own. We need 

to do those well. We need to disseminate them more aggressively. 

Mr. COSTA. Are those reports confirmed? Are they utilized by any 

credible world agencies? 

Mr. POSNER. They are. The Country Reports on Human Rights 

and the Religious Freedom Report are probably the most comprehensive reports produced by anybody in the world. The U.N., I 

19

met today with nine European governments. They use them all the 

time. 

Mr. COSTA. What is number three? 

Mr. POSNER. The third issue, the third part of our operation is really a grantmaking program site. We have about $80 million that 

is available for small grants to promote human rights and democracy. So we are able to get in and provide direct support. 

Mr. COSTA. To deal with the countries directly that you are involved with in helping democratic institutions? 

Mr. POSNER. We generally make grants to groups like National 

Democratic Institute or Freedom House or the International Republican Institute, and they make grants in conjunction——

Mr. COSTA. Other organizations, like the National Conference of 

State Legislatures, where emerging democracies are taking place? 

I know we participated in that in the past. 

Mr. POSNER. Correct. 

Mr. COSTA. So then the second tool that you have, you issue 

these reports. Then the next report that will be coming out on the 

Middle East of countries that are allies and countries that are foes, 

countries like Jordan and Egypt, as you noted, and Iraq, that obviously we have been heavily involved in. We will have a report on 

the level of not only human rights issues and potential violations, 

but religious freedoms. 

Do you give criteria of grades? I have been familiar with the religious minorities, for example, that existed in Iraq and some of the 

troubles they are having and some of the assassinations that have 

taken place. You are going to rate those? 

Mr. POSNER. Actually the two reports that you reference are a bit 

different. One of the things we are trying to do is reconcile everything. 

The Report on Religious Freedom that just came out last month 

is a predicate for the Secretary, for the State Department making 

designations of countries of particular concern, and that is done on 

a——

Mr. COSTA. Whether they be friend or foe alike? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. So there are seven or eight countries that fall 

into that category, including in this region Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

And that process is ongoing right now, and there are likely to be 

decisions made in the next few months on that. 

Mr. COSTA. So you are going to establish some new milestones 

that this subcommittee and others will be aware of as to when the 

new published reports will come out? 

Mr. POSNER. The report is already out. Those designations will 

happen in the next few months. The broader Human Rights Report 

is just a factual summary. 

Mr. COSTA. My final question before my time runs out is many 

of us have been concerned as it relates to religious freedoms and 

human rights the sort of curriculum we see taking place, whether 

it is out of Hamas in Palestine or whether it is in schools in Saudi 

Arabia. There have been commitments by governments, those that 

are friends of ours, that they are going to make changes in those 

curriculums that preach jihad, that preach religious hatred in essence. And what we find, or what I have found, to be the case is 

that oftentimes whatever comments or edicts have been issued by 

20

the leadership of those governments have fallen short from what 

has taken place or changed in the actual schools themselves; i.e., 

the curriculum. 

Are you going to be involved in this? Are you going to do something about this? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. In fact, this subcommittee and Members of 

Congress have for several years raised and we have taken on board 

an ongoing review process in particular of the Saudi textbooks. My 

predecessors, and I give them much credit for this, have entered 

into an ongoing dialogue with the Saudis about this particular subject, and some progress has been made. 

But I am very mindful of this, and I think we need to be constantly vigilant both in terms of the content and dissemination of 

these materials. It is clearly an important issue. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, as the chairman is fond of his home in New 

York and the great city that provides Broadway, I am very fond of 

that great musical from South Pacific, the song that talks about 

you have to teach to hate. And I think the teaching of hatred starts 

in the early years with these children, and I think that is a quick 

way to maybe begin to try to turn the table. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Costa. 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, we, I think, are all in agreement that we want to 

export from our country the principles of political and religious 

freedom. What do you think is the best means of doing that? How 

do we most effectively export the principles of political and religious freedom? 

Mr. POSNER. You know, I guess what I would say is, going back 

to the chairman’s opening comments, I think the way in which we 

do this is as important as the content, and one of the things that 

we have going for us is that we are not talking just about exporting 

a kind of American approach. We are talking about what really are 

universal legal standards, legal norms that have been developed 

over the last 60 years, to which a great majority of countries in the 

world at least profess on paper to believe are right. 

So, we are not coming in to simply say, here is the American 

model; do it. We are saying, hey, look at the world. This is the new 

paradigm. Post-World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights and a range of treaties have set forth some basic premises. 

It is a floor, not a ceiling. Every government ought to be doing it. 

You ought to be doing it just like your neighbor is doing it or just 

like the country down the street. 

I think when we talk about principled engagement, that is what 

we are talking about. We ought to be one voice, a loud voice, but 

a loud voice that is part of a chorus that is basically saying if you 

want to be recognized in the world, if you want to trade, if you 

want to compete, if you want to live in harmony, this is what the 

world is now expecting. 

I think it is a long process. I don’t promise that overnight that 

is going to work. But our approach is very much to say let us try 

to build some momentum by getting multiple voices and being part 

21

of that process to really pushing for these things based on universal standards. 

Mr. INGLIS. Sometimes it involves support of organizations in 

countries that are doing those things or subscribe to those views. 

How do we support those effectively without tainting them with the 

American influence that causes them to be suspect in that country? 

Mr. POSNER. That is a good question, and I think there is sort 

of a delicate balance between, as you say, being supportive without 

tainting people. But I think there are at least three things we can 

do. 

One is we can be very vigilant when the defenders of freedom or 

religious community get in trouble. We can be a lifeline of protection. It also always is valuable for us to speak out. The examples 

that come across my desk all the time are there of individuals on 

whose behalf we have registered our concerns, and governments 

take notice of that. So that is point one. 

The second thing is that I think we can help amplify their voices. 

I said earlier that I believe strongly that change occurs from within 

societies. It is very hard to force it from outside. But there is now 

a very active debate about human rights and a deep desire within 

every society in the world to begin to take greater responsibility for 

promoting a more open and democratic way of doing things. 

We ought to be identifying those people and helping them to amplify their voices. We have a new set of communication tools with 

the Internet. We ought to be doing everything in our power to 

make sure that those messages get heard. 

And then the third thing, and, again, this is on a country or caseby-case basis, there are moments where we can provide direct financial and material technical support. And where people desire it, 

we ought to be thinking creatively about how do we push the edge 

of what is possible to promote free media, to promote civil society, 

human rights and other organizations, and actually give them support to do the work? 

Mr. INGLIS. Some of us have been concerned that the administration may be backing away from those folks in Iran who would be 

promoting the values that we are discussing here. Do you have any 

comment on that? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. Again, I don’t accept that. In the last week, the 

amount of energy that the U.S. Government has devoted to getting 

a favorable result on a very strong resolution at the U.N. General 

Assembly that is going to be voted on today or tomorrow on Iran 

is a testament to the fact that people are really paying attention 

to this. It is really important that we be out there publicly. It is 

important to the people of Iran that they know that we are out 

there publicly. 

This resolution at the General Assembly, which I am cautiously 

optimistic is going to pass, sends a very strong signal, and we are 

very much in the lead in trying to make sure that resolution gets 

a favorable outcome. 

We have to keep pushing on these things. We have concerns 

about nuclear programs and whatever else, but these issues are absolutely essential, especially in the aftermath of the violent attacks 

on civil society after the elections. We have to redouble our efforts. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

22

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about a minority that is very often overlooked in the Middle East, and I am talking specifically about Palestinian Christians, a group that has been 

under a lot of pressure for a long period of time, very oft ignored 

by the rest of the world, even the human rights and freedom of religion advocates from all over, including our own country. 

It seems if you look at the statistics and the numbers, the Palestinian Christian community is being diminished in the land of 

Christianity, in the birthplace of Christianity, almost like no other 

group, and no other group of numbers have been ravaged in a long 

period of time. 

I know that as the holiday season approaches and Christmas 

nears, it becomes a great place for Christians to visit, as well as 

others, but a very difficult place for Christians to live. It would be 

almost sinful, if I can use that word in a political context, for the 

birthplace of Christianity to be devoid of Christians, which is basically what is happening. 

Almost every Palestinian Christian that I know, if they could, 

would get a passport, or is trying to get a passport, if not for themselves, for their children and their families, to be able to get out. 

And that is evidenced all over the world, anywhere they could go 

to in the free world. And very few people will have them to begin 

with. 

What do we do about that, besides using them as a great photo 

opportunity on December 25th? 

Mr. POSNER. It is, as you say, a problem, and a growing problem. 

The numbers have diminished. I have met with representatives. 

Again, in my previous NGO life, I visited Nazareth, and I visited 

Bethlehem, and I talked with leaders of those communities, and 

they are shrinking communities. As you say, there is no doubt 

about that. 

I think this is part of a broader discussion about what we can 

and should be doing with the Government of Israel as a friend, but 

as a friend that is willing to talk directly about issues that really 

are essentially confidence-building measures. 

These are issues that haven’t gotten the attention, I agree with 

you——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are you saying it is an Israeli problem and not 

a Muslim problem? 

Mr. POSNER. Well, I think it is both. There are elements of it 

that are certainly——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I have spoken to any number, and when they 

speak to you with a great deal of confidence, any of them who could 

have an opportunity to live in Israel within the 1948 borders or the 

1967 borders or any other borders would seize the opportunity. And 

certainly the income level and opportunity level of Palestinian 

Christians within Israel is so much higher not just in dollars, but 

by multiples and factors than they are in anyplace that they are 

living right now within the cities and towns that you have just 

cited, as well as within the entire rest of the Arab world. 

Mr. POSNER. All of what you just said is right, and there are obviously huge tensions, interreligious tensions within the Palestinian community. That is a piece of it we have to be attentive to. 

And there is also a piece of it that I think the Government of Israel 

23

bears responsibility for. And on both sides, I think as part of a 

broader——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are you talking about the general economy in 

the region? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, and provisions that discriminate on the basis 

of prior military service and the like. I mean, there are the income 

levels——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am not sure what you are talking about. Israel 

has universal military service for all of its citizens. Any Palestinian, Christian or Muslim living within Israel who is an Israeli 

citizen——

Mr. POSNER. Palestinians don’t routinely serve in the military. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. They do not. 

Mr. POSNER. No. So I guess the point for me——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Not traditionally. Traditionally they don’t. 

Mr. POSNER. Not traditionally. So I view this as an opportunity. 

There are so many places. It is so easy to——

Mr. ACKERMAN. But I don’t think the problem of the Christian 

community is that they thirst to serve in the Israeli military and 

they are not able to. That is not what I am talking about. If you 

think that is the benefit that I am talking about, then we are talking different languages. 

Mr. POSNER. No. What I am saying is there are certain social 

services and social benefits that are tied to military service. If you 

look at the——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am talking about the huge populations within 

the Christian Palestinian community, and as I understand it, we 

are not talking about Israeli communities and territories. We are 

talking about Palestinian-controlled territories, although under 

Israeli administration. This is not in Israel proper. 

Mr. POSNER. We are having two different discussions here. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. We sure are. 

Mr. POSNER. One, we have to talk about the situation of Palestinians that are living within the green line, within Israel. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am talking about Christians. 

Mr. POSNER. That is right. Palestinian Christians living within 

Israel is one subject, and then a second subject——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Which communities are you talking about? 

Mr. POSNER. I am talking about the first. And with respect to the 

Palestinians——

Mr. ACKERMAN. No, which neighborhoods? 

Mr. POSNER. With respect to Palestinians, let me start where you 

are focused. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are you talking about Bethlehem? Is that in 

Israel? 

Mr. POSNER. No, Bethlehem is in the West Bank. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. That is what I am talking about. People living 

in Bethlehem don’t serve in the Israeli Army. Their problems are 

with the exercise of their religious freedom. Those, for the most 

part, are within the communities, Bethlehem, Nazareth. Those are 

the bulk of them. Those are where the populations have been depleted. 

Mr. POSNER. We agree that there needs to be more attention to 

this, and——

24

Mr. ACKERMAN. Look, I am all for solving the Israeli, Palestinian, 

Arab, Jewish, whatever you want problem, but I am talking about 

the specific problems, religious problems, that the Christians are 

facing. 

Mr. POSNER. And we are in the middle of a discussion, a range 

of discussions, with the Palestinian Authority, and the Palestinian 

Authority ought to be pushed as hard as possible to do what they 

can, given their authority over the population there. I totally agree 

with that. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Okay. I think that is part of the problem, why 

this problem hasn’t been addressed. It is being looked at as part 

of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And what I am talking about is 

the free exercise of the Christian religion within Christian towns 

and villages. I am not talking about the overall construct, but I am 

talking about who is putting down what pressure on their lives as 

a specific community. And we could argue Israel’s role in the West 

Bank or anyplace else, but I am talking about Christian holy sites. 

Most of that is not a conflict with Israel at all. 

Mr. POSNER. I agree with you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The Christian community is not living under 

Israel’s rules; they are living under Palestinian Authority’s rules 

and regulations and the ability to exercise control over their own 

religious sites. Most don’t control their own religious sites. That is 

not Israel, that is the Palestinian Authority. 

Mr. POSNER. And we should be raising that. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And we should, before that community disappears. 

Mr. Secretary, you have been very kind, and I appreciate the fact 

that you and we had to wait while another subcommittee was 

using the room, getting us off to a late start. But you have answered all of our questions and concerns and have been a great 

help to the deliberations of this subcommittee. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(25)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

26


53674n.eps
27


53674m.eps
28


53674e-1.eps
29


53674e-2.eps
30


53674e-3.eps
31


53674e-4.eps
32


53674e-5.eps
33


53674e-6.eps
34


53674e-7.eps
35


53674d-1.eps
36


53674d-2.eps
37


53674d-3.eps
38


53674f-1.eps
39


53674f-2.eps
40

Æ


53674f-3.eps