U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

99–471PDF 2016

UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY PRESERVATION ACT; AND EXPRESSING CONCERN REGARDING PERSISTENT AND CREDIBLE REPORTS OF SYSTEMATIC, STATE–

SANCTIONED ORGAN HARVESTING FROM NON–CONSENTING

PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF

CHINA, INCLUDING FROM LARGE NUMBERS OF FALUN GONG

PRACTITIONERS AND MEMBERS OF OTHER RELIGIOUS AND

ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4678 and H. Res. 343

MARCH 16, 2016

Serial No. 114–151

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP ON 

H.R. 4678, To prohibit modification, abrogation, abandonment, or other related actions with respect to United States jurisdiction and control over 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without congressional action .......................................................................................................... 2

H. Res. 343, Expressing concern regarding persistent and credible reports 

of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic of China, including from large 

numbers of Falun Gong practitioners and members of other religious and 

ethnic minority groups ......................................................................................... 21

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 343 offered by the 

Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ....................................................................... 27

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 38

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 39

Markup summary .................................................................................................... 41

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Material submitted for the record ............................................... 42

(1)

UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY PRESERVATION ACT; AND EXPRESSING CONCERN REGARDING 

PERSISTENT AND CREDIBLE REPORTS OF SYSTEMATIC, 

STATE–SANCTIONED ORGAN HARVESTING FROM NON–CONSENTING PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE IN THE PEOPLE’S 

REPUBLIC OF CHINA, INCLUDING FROM LARGE NUMBERS 

OF FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS AND MEMBERS OF 

OTHER RELIGIOUS AND ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. The committee will come to order. Pursuant to 

notice, we meet today to mark up two measures, and without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements or extraneous materials on either measure. 

We are going to begin with H.R. 4678, the United States Naval 

Station Guantanamo Bay Preservation Act. 

[The information referred to follows:]

2


99471b-1.eps
3


99471b-2.eps
4


99471b-3.eps
5


99471b-4.eps
6


99471b-5.eps
7


99471b-6.eps
8


99471b-7.eps
9

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, it is considered read and it 

is open for amendment at any point. And after recognizing myself 

and the ranking member, I will be pleased to recognize any member seeking recognition to speak. 

I am pleased to recognize myself on this measure, and to be 

clear: This measure is not a Guantanamo detention facility bill. 

This bill, the United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Preservation Act, is about asserting Congress’ longstanding constitutional and legal authority to determine the future of this U.S. military base. Senior military officers continue to view this as ‘‘indispensable.’’ This base is important to all elements of our national security, including humanitarian operations. Frequently we run operations out of here and Haiti and throughout the Caribbean. It 

saves lives on a regular basis. 

This bill states that no action may be taken to impair U.S. ‘‘jurisdiction and control’’ over the base without affirmative congressional 

action—that would be either a new statute or a treaty concluded 

with Senate consent. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay is not a typical basing situation and U.S. control is not premised on a treaty 

here. Its history is wholly unique and it has its roots in acts of the 

Congress. 

In reviewing that history, it is worth recalling several of the express powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. All right, so 

Congress’ powers are the power to provide for the common defense 

of the United States, the power to provide and maintain a Navy, 

the power to declare war, and the power to dispose of and make 

rules regarding territory and other property belonging to the 

United States. 


99471b-8.eps
10

Cuba became an American protectorate after the U.S. prevailed 

in the Spanish-American War, which Congress had declared in 

1898. In 1901, Congress rightly granted the President conditional 

authority to return control and governance of the island to the people of Cuba subject to the express requirement of securing U.S. 

naval basing rights there. 

When the President signed the 1903 Guantanamo Lease—the 

agreements under which the U.S. continues to exercise complete 

‘‘jurisdiction and control’’ over the base—the President specifically 

cited that 1901 Act of Congress as providing the President’s authority to do so. 

The last Treaty of Relations between the U.S. and Cuba did not 

nullify, replace, or change the 1903 lease agreements, but noted 

that they ‘‘shall continue in effect’’ until the U.S. and Cuba agree 

to modify them. 

This means that any executive attempt to impair the United 

States’ ‘‘jurisdiction and control’’ over Naval Station Guantanamo 

Bay without congressional authority would illegally nullify the 

1901 A6ct of Congress and that would infringe on Congress’ exercise of its express constitutional powers. 

Some say giving up Guantanamo isn’t in the cards. Why should 

we worry? The Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs 

has recently written, stating that ‘‘the United States has no plans 

to alter any of the arrangements regarding the base.’’

But saying that you ‘‘have no plans’’ to do something is not the 

same as saying that you will not do something. As we have seen 

in any number of prior situations—whether it be unfulfilled 

pledges of consultation with Congress prior to any Cuba policy 

change, for example, or the 11th hour lifting of missile restrictions 

as part of the Iran nuclear deal—plans can change very quickly. 

Plans can change for the worse with no prior warning to Congress. 

And we should be concerned about the next administration’s 

plans. This bill is about protecting congressional prerogative during 

this administration and the next and the next. 

Congress needs to make clear its role in any decision to relinquish U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, which remains indispensable to our nation’s defense and our support for regional stability. So this bill, H.R. 4678, does this. It deserves our support. 

I will now go to the ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel of New 

York, for his opening statement. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

all your courtesies, as usual, but I must respectfully oppose this 

measure today, the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Preservation Act, and the reason is in my view the legislation simply isn’t 

necessary. The Guantanamo detention facility is always a political 

hot button, but I don’t think anyone disputes that our naval station 

at Guantanamo Bay serves a number of worthy national security 

purposes. 

For example, after the devastating earthquake in Haiti in 2010, 

the base was a critical logistical hub for our response. So I asked 

if the President, if the administration, had any plans to return the 

naval station to the Cuban Government. I received a response this 

week from the State Department that reads, and I quote, ‘‘The Administration has no plans to alter the existing lease treaty, payVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Apr 19, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\031616M\99471 SHIRL
11

ments, and other arrangements with Cuba related to the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.’’

And the chairman did point out that we got this letter from Julia 

Frifield, who is the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs of the 

United States Department of State. So I would ask unanimous consent that her letter appear in the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The letter goes on to explain that the base will continue to serve an important role for the 

United States, even after the detention facility closes, including 

support of ‘‘U.S. Coast Guard and other agency counter-drug and 

migrant interdiction activities.’’

So let me say that this bill won’t become law, obviously the 

President is opposed to it. But, I do think that again we should 

continue to work together on this issue at Guantanamo because it 

does serve a number of key national security purposes and will continue to do so in the years ahead. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding back, and 

Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to offer my full support for your bill, H.R. 4678, of which I am 

proud to be an original cosponsor. This bill would ensure that the 

Obama administration cannot close or abandon the Naval Station 

of Guantanamo Bay without congressional action. 

Since the President’s misguided decision to normalize relations 

with Cuba in 2014, I have feared that President Obama would try 

to relinquish control of Gitmo. Just as it has done with authoritarian regimes around the world, the Obama administration has already made concession after concession to the Castro dictatorship 

without anything positive to show in return. And given the fact 

that the President is willing to concede to any of Castro’s demands, 

I would not be surprised if next on his checklist will be the handing 

over of Gitmo to an avowed enemy of the United States. 

The strategic location of the naval station is of extreme importance and it plays a pivotal role for our military capabilities in the 

region. We must not allow any President to circumvent Congress 

and manipulate the law in order to give up control of Gitmo. 

And I thank you, Chairman Royce, for bringing up this measure. 

I think it is a very important statement. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. If I could, I am going to recognize myself briefly so I can explain my thinking on this. One of the reasons that 

this bill is important is because unfortunately the administration 

has previously made dramatic shifts in U.S. policy toward Cuba 

without consulting Congress beforehand. 

And so if we look at the arguments made by Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken, he was in the process of being confirmed at the Deputy Secretary slot at the State Department in November 2014, he was asked whether any unilateral policy changes 

were under consideration with respect to Cuba. He assured Congress that anything that in the future might be done on Cuba 

would be done in full consultation. Now to emphasize that commitment he went on to say, with the real meaning of the word consultation. 

12

That is the thing that when I look back at this concerns me most 

about the lack of consultation with Congress. I am trying to protect 

the prerogatives here of Congress, the responsibility of Congress in 

this, because less than a month after that statement, without any 

consultation with me or any other Member that I know of, the administration announced the reestablishment of diplomatic relations 

and the release of convicted Cuban spies which apparently resulted 

from more than a year of secret negotiations with the regime, with 

the Castro regime. 

So the first point is we are not talking about that issue, we are 

now talking about Guantanamo Bay, but there are very real concerns. Enough concerns that this Congress also took the step in 

previously enacted legislation to prevent the return of the Guantanamo base to Cuba. Now that is going to expire this September. We 

adopted a full amendment offered by Representative Jolly to the 

military construction appropriations bill that prohibited funds from 

being used to close or to abandon Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. 

No member rose in opposition to that amendment and it was included in the final omnibus prohibiting any funds appropriated in 

2016 from being used to close this strategically important U.S. 

base. 

So most Members have voted in favor of the concept, and I just 

wanted to lay out my thoughts on this. Other members seeking recognition? Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I actually share a lot of the sentiments you have 

just expressed. I would not support any President unilaterally determining the fate of the Guantanamo Base without full debate and 

consultation with Congress and indeed with the approval of Congress. 

And so I am very sympathetic with the underlying concern expressed in this resolution, and I have joined my friend, Ileana RosLehtinen, and my friend, Albio Sires, in being critical of the administration’s rather abrupt change in policy and getting very little in 

return for it. The Washington Post has been critical of the policy 

along those lines, and I associate myself with that critique. 

I just would respectfully suggest that the resolution in front of 

us today, however, is designed to embarrass this President on the 

eve of a state visit to Cuba. We have one President and I, for one, 

am very tired of the gratuitous assaults on him, on his integrity, 

and on his policy. 

We could have reasonable disagreements, but for this committee 

to deliberately pass a resolution designed to embarrass him in his 

execution of foreign policy on behalf of the United States, I think 

is a mistake. I think it is misguided, I think it is partisan, and it 

is not really worthy of this committee. 

So although I am very sympathetic to the arguments and I certainly don’t doubt the sincerity of the chairman, I think the timing 

is not designed, frankly, to promote more dialogue and more 

thought with respect to our bilateral relationships with Cuba, and 

I will reluctantly have to join the ranking member in opposing this 

resolution. 

Chairman ROYCE. I will recognize myself for a moment here and 

I will just point out there are no ad hominems in this bill in terms 

13

of the way the bill is crafted, in terms of the wording—specifically, 

it quotes, senior administration officials. And in terms of the intent, this is indeed not just about this administration. It is about 

future administrations too, as I explained in my opening argument, 

and it is in my view necessary given the role Congress has played 

in this. 

But to recognize other members, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And frankly, 

I want to thank you for authoring this important legislation, H.R. 

4678, particularly on the eve of the President’s trip. Many of us 

have been deeply concerned about the President’s trip and my good 

friend, Mr. Connolly, just mentioned the Washington Post which 

has done several, not one, but several editorials, very, very strong 

editorials including one that had the headline, ‘‘Obama Gives the 

Castro Regime in Cuba an Undeserved Bailout.’’ And they have repeatedly pointed out that it is not just that little has been gained, 

nothing has been gained. It has actually gotten worse on the 

human rights side. 

In 2014, there were approximately 5,000 to 6,000 arrests of dissidents. In 2015 that jumped to 8,000. And in the first 2 months 

of this year, 2016, approximately 2,500 people have been arrested. 

So the trend line has been in the opposite direction of what perhaps the President had intended, and that calls for a serious recalibration if not a reversal of this policy of all give and absolutely 

no take. And what do we hope to get in return? Respect for fundamental human rights. 

I would point out to my colleagues that in addition to the concerns that Mr. Royce expresses in his bill, which I am very happy 

and thankful that I have been put on as a cosponsor, I have a hearing next week on Wednesday about getting it right on trafficking. 

Last year, and I have raised this repeatedly that the administration has been upgrading countries like China, like India, like Oman 

and like Cuba, when the TIP Office, the Trafficking in Persons Office, the Foreign Service Officers whose job it is to make the tough 

decisions about is this a Tier 3 country and egregious violator of 

sex and labor trafficking and then to assign that grade and to be 

honest about it, while Reuters did an investigation and found out 

that 13 countries got artificially inflated grades and Cuba was one 

of them. 

If you read the TIP narrative in the Trafficking in Persons Report, it is absolutely clear on labor and sex trafficking that this is 

a Tier 3 country and yet they got an upgrade so that no sanctions 

will follow. I thought that was outrageous. Next Wednesday we will 

have a hearing talking about these inflated grades including and 

especially in Cuba. 

Let me also point out that we have called for the return of fugitives. JoAnne Chesimard killed a New Jersey policeman. Albio 

Sires speaks about it all the time very eloquently and passionately 

as do I, as do many in the State of New Jersey. Bob Menendez does 

it as well. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen laid out the concerns repeatedly 

about human rights, and Mr. Chairman you did it so very well as 

well. 

This legislation as you pointed out does not have ad hominems. 

It just makes it clear that this is an Article IV Section 3 issue 

14

about the Constitution granting to the Congress, not the President, 

the authority to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the 

United States, and the Guantanamo lease agreements were instituted and concluded pursuant to an Act of Congress. 

Again, we want to send a clear message. This policy has been 

grotesquely misguided. We have enabled a dictatorship. And this is 

a dictatorship. I have tried for years to get a visa to go to Cuba 

because I want to go to the prisons. I went into Chinese prisons, 

Indonesian prisons, and even Perm Camp 35, the infamous prison 

in the Ural Mountains in the 1980s during the Communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union, and I can’t even get into Cuba. 

So I hope—again, this is a very, very precautionary statement 

coming from our distinguished chairman and I am so grateful that 

he has offered it. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Any further members seeking recognition? Oh, 

Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was 

built in 1898 during the Spanish-American War and specifically 

during the U.S. military occupation of the entire island of Cuba. 

The agreement that was set gives the United States 45 square 

miles of land in exchange for, first, $2,000 and later $4,000 a year 

in lease payments. Obviously, these days quite a bargain if one 

may say so. 

It is also true, I think it is fair to say, that the people of Cuba, 

leaving aside the Government of Cuba, the people of Cuba overwhelmingly want to see an end to the U.S. military occupation of 

the eastern side of the island. This is in my mind something that 

could possibly be well characterized as colonialism. It is true that 

it is buried in the depths of our history. It happened more than 100 

years ago. 

But the fact remains that we are militarily occupying part of another country’s land without the permission of those people. We 

don’t do that anywhere else in the world. We don’t say to a country 

we are going to take part of your land, we will occupy it. We will 

put a naval base or a military base there and to hell with all of 

you. We just don’t do that anymore. 

Now I understand that people are very uncomfortable and understandably so with both the political and the human rights situation 

in Cuba. But I want to point out that in the same year that we 

signed a lease for this property, we also signed an agreement regarding the Panama Canal Zone. And we gave back the Panama 

Canal Zone in 1979 to an egregious military dictator who had oppressed his country for decades. 

So I suggest that we rethink our policy here. We understand that 

it is inappropriate for a great Nation like ours to seize land in another country and keep it and use it for any purposes, military or 

otherwise. And I think that with 3 minutes left here I would like 

to yield my time to someone else here on this panel who is willing 

to try to explain why this isn’t a simple case of colonialism so that 

we can try to get that dialogue started. Is there anyone else who 

wants to address that issue? 

No, okay. Then I yield the remainder of my time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my friend yield for a question? 

15

I mean, our friends on the other side of the aisle have a resolution that is generated out of the concern that the President would, 

in fact, follow your advice unilaterally and end the U.S. control 

over Guantanamo. 

Putting aside the arguments of whether that is colonialism or 

whether that is a legacy we need to repudiate, surely my friend 

from Florida is not suggesting that on the eve of his visit to Cuba 

the President is secretly contemplating the handing over unilaterally of Guantanamo to the Government of Cuba. I would ask. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I am suggesting what I am suggesting which is 

that this is a policy that needs to be deeply rethought. That if the 

United States is guilty of an egregious sin called colonialism, this 

is something that we need to try to put behind us, not extend. It 

is not a question of process, my friend, it is a question of substance. 

Anyone else? All right, I yield the remainder of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. You wish to——

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes, I was just going to make one response, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Oh. Well, then I will reclaim my time. Go ahead. 

I yield. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you. We can view things as colonialism if 

that is the particular lens we would prefer to look it at. I would 

suggest that we might ask the folks in Port-au-Prince when our 

Navy was so close by, about 173 nautical miles, after a major 

earthquake hit there. And the lifesaving medical treatment, rescue 

treatment, and the compassionate expression of the American people through the close proximity to a horrible earthquake in the region was facilitated by the fact that the American Navy forces as 

well as their medical personnel were readily available to assist the 

region without having to wait days to get there. And I yield back. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I will reclaim my time. I just want to point out 

that there is a real danger in confusing compassion with guns. 

There is a danger with confusing aid with missiles. Too often we 

feel that we are, if I may say this, picking up the White man’s burden in the same way that Rudyard Kipling talked about 100 years 

ago, and maybe it is time to put that part of our history behind 

us. I yield. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to Mr. Rohrabacher and then Mr. 

Sires. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And I would like to 

identify myself with remarks of Mr. Smith, and Mr. Smith has detailed for us that the oppression goes on in Cuba. And interestingly 

enough, I would also like to identify myself with the remarks of 

Mr. Grayson. 

Let me just note, however, to Mr. Grayson, what he said was 

true about American colonialism, neocolonialism, however in making changes to government policy to make things, to right former 

wrongs timing is very important. Timing, timing, timing. This is 

not the time for us to move forward with what absolutely will be 

viewed as a retreat from our position that we took after the Castro 

brothers decided that they would, not decided but took control of 

Cuba and turned it into a Communist dictatorship. 

Yes, after—and Mr. Smith’s remarks are taken into consideration—and let us say that Mr. Castro passes on to hell where he 

16

belongs, the fact is that then is the time that we can talk about 

changing the basic relationship. Just so people will know, Fidel 

Castro in the 1960s lobbied Nikita Khrushchev to launch nuclear 

missiles into the United States. Fidel Castro would have murdered 

100 million Americans. We should not just ignore that. 

And since then, Cuba has been a bastion of tyranny, a home for 

terrorists and drug dealers. When Castro dies and his brother is 

thrown out of power, then we should move, and again maybe that 

would be a good time for us to close Guantanamo. Maybe that 

would be a good time for us. 

But right now there are no opposition political parties there. 

There are no rallies being held against Castro or anything else in 

that regime. The fact is that it is a hard core dictatorship, and our 

President I don’t even think should be visiting that country because it is going to be viewed as, again, America retreating before 

this dictatorship and before our own standards, retreating from 

them. 

And I would also suggest closing Guantanamo would be seen and 

is seen throughout the world as a retreat before terrorists throughout the world. If we close Guantanamo now, the fact is every terrorist in the world will look at it as a victory for them over the 

United States. This will not encourage, will not create a better 

world, create a worse world. 

And although I agree with Mr. Grayson’s fundamental analysis 

of the morality of the colonialism that started Guantanamo, this is 

not the time for us to be sending a message to terrorists or to dictatorships like the Castro brothers have in Cuba. So I thank the 

chairman, Mr. Royce, for bringing this up today to reaffirm Congress’ commitment to that to democracy and to defeating terrorism. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Will my friend yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend. To my surprise, I agree with 

most of what he said. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. A miracle has happened. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is right. However, my objection and let us 

be—oh, well. It is my humble, respectful view that the timing of 

this resolution is designed to embarrass Obama. There is no evidence that Obama plans to do anything with respect to Guantanamo. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you are picking up on my timing, timing, 

timing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, I am. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that is my objection. But I think some of us 

anyhow will find common ground in a future date. I wish we 

weren’t doing this now because it is frankly designed to embarrass 

President Obama, and there is no evidence he intends to do anything with respect to Guantanamo. We are manufacturing an issue 

where none exists. I respectfully yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am reclaiming my time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. My time. And that is if it means sending a 

message to the President, and you are cataloguing that as embarrassing the President, I wouldn’t catalog it as that. But if we are 

17

going to send a message to the President this is the time to do it. 

Thank you, I yield. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield, yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. The administration has admitted that this demand from the Government of Cuba is going to be front and center 

in this negotiation. It has raised that issue. And from my standpoint what we are doing, if anything, is strengthening the administration’s hand. What we are doing is simply stating again that this 

has to be with the consultation of the United States House of Representatives. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There you go. 

Chairman ROYCE. It certainly strengthens our hand, I will tell 

you that. Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t going to speak on 

this issue, but listening to some of the arguments—I think this legislation is narrow, I think it is focused, and I think it is the right 

way to go with the Congress. I am supporting it. 

But this whole idea of colonialism and everything else, we might 

as well review our history and give the west part of this country 

back to Mexico. I mean, we are going to go back and back and 

back. Look, the reality is now, and all this legislation is doing is 

basically saying that the Congress should be taken into consideration when we make a decision whether to return Guantanamo or 

not. And that is how I see it, so I will be supporting this legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go now to Judge Ted Poe. 

Mr. POE. I thank the chairman. When this lease was signed for 

the naval station, President Teddy Roosevelt specifically cited an 

Act of Congress that required the sale or lease by Cuba to the U.S. 

of lands necessary for naval stations, the President cited law for 

the authority to sign the lease. The law requires Congress to approve a change. 

Teddy Roosevelt, who was he? Well, he was one of those folks 

that liberated Cuba with the Rough Riders, military experience. He 

was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. And he thought as well as 

Congress that it would be a good idea for us to have a naval station 

out there in the Caribbean. If you get a map out, you don’t have 

to be a military expert to figure out, hey, this is a great place for 

a naval station of the United States. Set aside the issue of Cuba 

being bad guys or good guys or whoever they are, it is good for the 

United States. 

Now my friend from Florida said, well, we gave away the Panama Canal when Jimmy Carter was President. Well, we did, but 

it took an Act of Congress. The United States Senate approved the 

giveaway of the Panama Canal. And all this legislation, this resolution is saying, Mr. President, we are kind of concerned about some 

of the things you have done in the past unilaterally without an Act 

of Congress supporting your actions. To make it sure that you don’t 

give away the naval base, it takes an Act of Congress. This specific 

issue of the Guantanamo Naval Base takes an Act of Congress. 

And as the chairman has pointed out, the President is going to 

Cuba, he is going to talk to the Castros, and we want to make sure 

Congress is involved in any change if there is a change. And there 

18

may be a change. We may need a vote, may have a vote. The Senate may vote on it, something that sometimes the Senate doesn’t 

vote. 

But right now this legislation, this resolution is excellent to let 

not just the President, but Americans and the world, know this is 

a naval base for the United States, it is going to stay that way 

until Congress says otherwise. That is all it does. It is very narrowly drawn, and I think it is an excellent resolution. It has nothing to do with embarrassing anybody. It has nothing to do with colonialism. It has to do with a naval base of the United States that 

takes an Act of Congress to give it away. And I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So first, with all due respect to one of my colleagues, I do not believe this a debate about 

colonialism. And I want to say for the record I do not admire or 

respect Fidel Castro. I wouldn’t give him anything. But I want to 

associate myself with Mr. Engel’s remarks. I agree with the sentiment of this resolution, but I believe it is unnecessary and I feel 

like it is a poke at the President. And it is sort of like saying, well, 

when did you stop beating your husband or your wife? Well, I was 

never beating my husband or my wife. 

So a President, our President, has no intention of modifying, abrogating, abandoning U.S. control over the U.S. naval station at 

Guantanamo, and I don’t think we need this resolution. And I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you bringing 

up this very important legislation, H.R. 4678, and I am pleased we 

are able to work together to shine a light on this important issue 

and the vital piece of our national security infrastructure. 

I have been working on preventing a unilateral action by this 

President to transfer Guantanamo Naval Base to the Castro regime 

for some time now, actually we started in December and we have 

over 70 cosponsors. And I am pleased we were able to come together and move forward with this legislation that will do just 

that. 

I am sure many people know it is currently illegal for the President to transfer detainees from the base to the United States, we 

are all in agreement with that. But the actual base itself can be 

transferred, as has been illustrated here, back to the Castro government without the consent of the U.S. Congress. As the only permanent U.S. military base in Latin America and the Caribbean, 

the naval station at Guantanamo base has been proven indispensable and useful time and time again. 

Past Secretaries of the Department of Defense have stated repeatedly through different administrations, Republicans and Democrats, that the Guantanamo Naval Base is vital to U.S. national security, therefore it is imperative that the United States Congress 

asserts its authority as defined in the Constitution over any transference of property from Guantanamo that may occur to appease 

the Castro brothers. And look at what the Castro brothers said. 

The Castro regime has stated they will not allow normalization of 

relationships with the U.S. unless we transfer the Guantanamo 

base back. 

19

Ranking Member Engel and my colleague, Mr. Connolly, both 

say the President does not intend to give this back, and if that is 

the case and if you thoroughly believe that let us go ahead and 

make this and codify this in law so future Presidents can’t without 

Congress’ consent. I just need to remind you when we were negotiating, when President Obama decided to normalize relationships 

with Cuba without Congress’ consent they weren’t going to negotiate with the Cuban spies, but then they released them. The 

Cuban Government confiscated all that property from American 

citizens, over $7.2 billion that they haven’t been paid back on that. 

And the timing is critical. This is not to embarrass the President, 

this is about national security. This bill has been worked on for a 

period of time and this is to protect national security. 

And just a thought on colonialism, it was the United States of 

America that liberated the Cuban people from Spain. And so this 

is not an act of colonialism; that was an act of liberation. And I 

would like to correct that in the record and I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Would you yield for a question? 

Mr. YOHO. Sure. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you think of Guantanamo Bay as some kind of 

tip? 

Mr. YOHO. Some kind of what? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Tip. Like a tip for liberating Cuba. We liberated 

Cuba, therefore we get Guantanamo Bay as a tip. 

Mr. YOHO. No, I think it was something that was negotiated for 

national security with our President back then that put national 

security first, as is enumerated in the Constitution. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, let me ask you a question about that. If, in 

fact, it is true as you and Judge Poe suggest that under existing 

law under the Constitution the President doesn’t have the authority to change the status of Guantanamo Bay, why are we here? 

Why are we doing this? Isn’t that admitting that this bill is superfluous? 

Mr. YOHO. No, because in the agreement it says he can through 

Executive action or if we vacate the property it goes automatically 

back to the Castro regime. 

Mr. GRAYSON. So it is true then. You are conceding that the 

President does have the authority to go ahead and do this unilaterally unless he signs a bill to change that. 

Mr. YOHO. If you look at the lease agreement it is vague in there, 

and we are just trying to clarify it so that there is no confusion not 

just with this administration but future administrations. 

And if the gentleman would consider if this does go back to 

Cuba, a naval base of the first, probably one of the most sophisticated ones in the Caribbean, who do you might think would occupy 

that? Would it be China, Russia, Iran? Maybe all three of them off 

the coast of Florida, a State you represent. Do you want to represent that to the people of your State, my State? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I imagine that we would do—to answer the 

gentleman’s question, we would do exactly what we did in Subic 

Bay and our other base in the Philippines which is that we would 

basically take it away with us and make it unusable for any other 

military force. 

20

But let me ask you this question. Is there anywhere else in the 

world where we have a military base against the will of the local 

populace? Anywhere else in the world? 

Mr. YOHO. This was an agreement—I can’t answer that. What I 

want to do is I am focusing on the Western Hemisphere, 90 miles 

off the coast of the United States of America, and I think this is 

a good bill that everybody should support. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I will answer my question, which is no. Thank 

you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Are there any other members seeking recognition to speak on the bill? Hearing no further requests, the Chair 

now moves—oh, are there any amendments to the bill? Hearing 

none, we will go to the vote. This is on H.R. 4678. 

All in favor say aye. 

All opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the measure is 

agreed to. Without objection, H.R. 4678 is ordered favorably reported and the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and the Chair is authorized to seek consideration 

under suspension of the rules. 

We now move on to our second measure. The Chair calls up 

House Resolution 343, expressing concern regarding persistent and 

credible reports of systematic state-sanctioned organ harvesting 

from nonconsenting prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic 

of China. 

Without objection, Ros-Lehtinen Amendment 34 in the nature of 

a substitute, which incorporates bipartisan amendments made at 

the Asia Subcommittee markup on January 12th is considered base 

text, is considered read and is open for amendment at any point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

21


99471a-1.eps
22


99471a-2.eps
23


99471a-3.eps
24


99471a-4.eps
25


99471a-5.eps
26


99471a-6.eps
27


99471c-1.eps
28


99471c-2.eps
29


99471c-3.eps
30


99471c-4.eps
31

Chairman ROYCE. And after recognizing myself and the ranking 

member, I will be pleased to recognize any member seeking recognition to speak. 

As we consider House Resolution 343, I want to thank Chairman 

Emeritus Ros-Lehtinen for authoring this important measure. 

Since 1999, Falun Gong practitioners have been one of the most 

persecuted social groups in China. The practice of organ transplants in China is of deep concern to members of this committee 

especially in light of recent reports of the severe and brutal crackdown on religious freedom more broadly. 

This resolution condemns the practice of forced organ harvesting, 

it encourages U.S. medical professionals to educate their patients 

about the dangers of transplant tourism, and it calls on the State 

Department to include a more thorough analysis on organ harvesting in its current human rights reporting. 

The amendment text we consider today largely reflects the 

changes made by the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, and so I 

want to thank subcommittee Chairman Salmon as well as Representatives Connolly and Sherman for their contributions. And I 

should also note that Congressmen Trott and Deutch are leading 

a bipartisan committee effort to fight unethical organ transplants 

globally, legislation that we will take up soon. 

I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Engel, for his opening 

remarks. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to support 

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen’s measure expressing our concern over truly unsettling reports of state-sanctioned organ harvesting in the People’s 

Republic of China. It is especially troubling that this practice allegedly targets prisoners of conscience including practitioners of Falun 

Gong and other religious and ethnic minorities. 

Organ transplants are one of the wonders of modern medicine. 

These procedures save lives every single day. But nonconsensual 

organ harvesting represents a gross violation of human rights. And 

if this horrible abuse weren’t enough, we hear of victims targeted 

because of their religious beliefs, and of Chinese prison camps 

reaping a profit by trafficking these organs. This is something out 

of a horror story. We need more data and more evidence on these 

reported practices. 

This resolution calls on the Chinese Government to allow an investigation into this issue and urges the State Department to include an analysis of state-sanctioned nonconsensual organ harvesting in the annual human rights report. This is a good measure. 


99471c-5.eps
32

I commend Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for bringing this to the forefront, and 

I urge all of us to support it. And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the 

author. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Ranking Member Engel. And I am proud to have introduced 

H. Res. 343 with my dear friend, Gerry Connolly, who has been a 

good partner throughout my years here. 

And it is a resolution as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member, which condemns China’s ongoing, gruesome 

practice of harvesting organs from the followers of Falun Gong. The 

Communist regime in China systematically represses and persecutes these peaceful individuals. They are forcing them into illegal detention facilities and labor camps so that they are silenced 

and their organs can be harvested for sale on the black market. 

The Chinese regime’s brutal repression and human rights violations are well known, but this especially horrific treatment of the 

Falun Gong does not receive the attention that it merits. Freedom 

House reports that last year, Falun Gong adherents made up China’s largest number of prisoners of conscience and were at particular risk of being killed while in custody. 

I was extremely disappointed to see that our State Department’s 

latest human rights report on China quoted a Chinese official’s unsubstantiated and dubious claim that any harvesting of organs 

from prisoners would now be voluntary. It does the Falun Gong 

and prisoners of conscience the world over a disservice if our State 

Department continues to whitewash China’s human rights violations because it is not a problem that is going away simply by ignoring it. 

China’s ghoulish organ harvesting has not stopped, and when official Chinese transplant statistics do not match up to the facts on 

the ground, including witnesses’ accounts and the dramatic increases in the hiring of transplant teams, we must see the regime’s 

claims for the lies and the propaganda that they indeed are. 

By passing this resolution we can send a message to the Chinese 

regime, the U.S. medical community, and our State Department 

that we condemn China’s organ harvesting. We know that it is still 

going on and we must do more to end this practice immediately. 

We cannot allow these crimes to continue. I urge my colleagues to 

support this measure. 

And thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Engel, for your support, and Mr. Connolly as well. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. 

Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I echo all of the sentiments of my friend, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and thank her for her leadership on this issue. This is an abhorrent practice. It cannot be tolerated in civilized society and it is perfectly proper for this committee to call it out. I thank my friend for her leadership. And Mr. 

Chairman and Mr. Engel, I thank you both for your leadership in 

bringing this up. 

Chairman ROYCE. Are there any further members? Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman, thank you. First of all, I want to thank 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for this very important resolution, and Mr. 

33

Connolly as well. I strongly believe that this resolution is an important step in bringing a measure of accountability and transparency 

to what may be one of the great crimes of the 21st century, the 17-

year-old effort to eradicate Falun Gong from China. 

I strongly believe that the campaign to eradicate Falun Gong will 

be seen as a great shame of this Chinese Communist Party which 

has done terrible misdeeds in torture and killings since Mao 

Zedong. The Chinese Government continues to insist that credible 

accounts of torture, sexual crimes, and arbitrary detention of Falun 

Gong practitioners are mere rumors. The evidence, however, tells 

a far different story and an inhumane story. 

The resolution gives voice to those who cannot speak, to those 

who have suffered unspeakable torture and survived, and to the 

families who have lost loved ones. I would point out to my colleagues that researchers David Kilgour, David Matas, and Ethan 

Gutmann conducted detailed investigations and estimated that between 45,000 and 65,000 Falun Gong practitioners were killed for 

their organs which were then sold for profit. I have read those accounts and they are chilling. Those estimates may now be much 

higher according to the forthcoming report by those three researchers. 

The Department of State and international medical community 

must do a detailed analysis immediately and studies need to be 

done on those claims and there needs to be a protest lodged by our 

Government at the very minimal to protest these horrific abuses. 

Chinese officials and its medical community must understand that 

there are consequences for the arbitrary detention, torture, and 

psychiatric experimentation and organ harvesting imposed on 

Falun Gong practitioners. These practices should be condemned by 

the world community. This is an important resolution in that regard. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Any other members seeking recognition? Mr. 

Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the 

authors of the bill as well for bringing up this issue. And I have 

been very engaged in this issue for a number of years. And we have 

had numerous testimony given at numerous hearings and testimony provided us, so unless we are intentionally turning our heads 

away it is clear that this massive violation of human rights is taking place in China and we have unfortunately as a people turned 

our heads away in order not to see this evil. And this resolution 

will make sure that we put everybody on notice that this is not 

going to be ignored anymore and that the American people are 

going to be informed that in fact we have developed a trading relationship with the world’s worst human rights abuser. 

And let me put that very clearly. More people, their human 

rights are violated in China than anywhere else in the world, and 

nowhere is that more symbolic than we have the Falun Gong, 

which is a group of people who are joined together and united by 

a philosophy that is based on peace and justice and truth. And they 

believe in yoga and meditation, they are a threat to no one, and 

yet they are being slaughtered in the secret jail cells throughout 

China. And what comes out of it, out of those jail cells, organs that 

are sent to various places in the world. 

34

And let me note this. We need to be committed not only to stopping this practice, but we need to make sure that people who are 

on the receiving end of these organs that we deal with that as well, 

because I believe that these organs are being sold in the United 

States. And that is wrong for us to close our eyes to that permitting, our doctors to buy a kidney from some prisoner in China who 

happens to be a Falun Gong. It is wrong for us to permit a doctor 

here to transplant that organ because that is us participating in a 

crime, and a horrific crime that shouldn’t be excused. 

So let us note that in China, as in Cuba as we just mentioned, 

there are no newspapers to expose this. There are no rallies that 

people are permitted to have and no opposition parties that can 

bring up this issue and say this isn’t the policy we should have. 

The only hope for a change in China is if we, here, make tough 

stands on these moral issues. And in that there are people, our 

best allies in trying to bring change are the people of China themselves. 

And by passing resolutions like this, we are proclaiming to the 

good people of China that we are on their side and that we too 

would condemn this type of horrific activity that does not reflect 

the moral standards of the people of China or the people of the 

United States or decent people anywhere in the world. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this up. 

Thank you to the authors of the bill. Of course, I will be supporting 

it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Does the gentleman yield to——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, I am done. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. Then we are going to go to Mr. Brad 

Sherman of Los Angeles. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It is time for this Congress to pass a strong and 

credible resolution condemning China for its oppression of various 

religions, but especially Falun Gong, to condemn China for wrongful executions, and to condemn China for harvesting organs without the permission of the executed prisoner. Not that that prisoner 

would be in that free of position to decide for themselves. 

Of those, the organ harvesting is by far the most inflammatory, 

but frankly, I think, less significant than the other two. When you 

arrest thousands of people for their religious beliefs, when you execute people wrongfully, to me that is perhaps a less gruesome but 

a greater crime. 

This is where I want to thank the chairman, our prior chairman 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Matt Salmon who serves as chair of the Asia 

Subcommittee, for working with me to, I think, improve this resolution to keep it very strong and to make sure that it is the strongest 

and most credible resolution that we could pass. 

There are those who say not only does China engage in wrongful 

executions and organ harvesting, but that nearly 100,000 people 

have been wrongfully executed. I believe the figure that has been 

used is 70,000. And that particular figure has not been established 

convincingly to the human rights organizations that I have the 

greatest respect for both nationally and internationally. 

And so if we were to cite that particular number without having 

substantial evidence behind it, I think it would weaken the resoluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Apr 19, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\031616M\99471 SHIRL
35

tion. That is why in subcommittee Matt Salmon and I worked to 

improve this resolution to make sure it is strong, to make sure it 

cannot be attacked because it has one number in it that cannot be 

proven. 

Now the fact that it cannot be proven to be true or even established by a very high level of credibility to be true, does not mean 

that it is not true. It simply means that China is a closed society, 

as Mr. Rohrabacher points out, and that the evidence is simply not 

available to us. 

So a resolution that focuses on the wrongful executions, on the 

oppression of those who are people of faith, and the fact that in addition to wrongful executions there can be wrongful organ harvesting, I think is the most credible and strongest resolution we 

could pass, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Steve Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be very 

brief. I want to, first of all, apologize for being a little late for this. 

We had a markup in Judiciary going on at the same time. And I 

want to apologize in advance for leaving right after I get done 

speaking here because I have to chair the Small Business Committee at exactly 11 o’clock. 

So on H.R. 4678, having been to Guantanamo Bay on three separate occasions myself, I am strongly in support of this for reasons 

I am sure many of my colleagues have already voiced so I won’t repeat them. 

And on H. Res. 343, I agree totally with my colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher from California, on the importance of passing this, the barbaric outrage that the PRC has committed against its own people. 

I think all of us have probably had Falun Gong members in our 

office, and they literally have literature and books showing the torture and the horrific treatment that they have gotten at the hands 

of the Chinese Government is outrageous. 

So I very much support both pieces of legislation. I commend the 

chair for his leadership on these issues, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Hearing no further requests for recognition, 

are there any additional amendments? Hearing none, the Chair 

now moves that the committee agree to House Resolution 343 as 

amended. 

All in favor say aye. 

All opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the measure is 

agreed to. And without objection, the measure is ordered favorably 

reported in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today, and the 

staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. 

And also without objection, the Chair is authorized to seek House 

consideration of House Resolution 343 under suspension of the 

rules. 

And that concludes our business for today. I want to thank our 

ranking member, Mr. Engel, and all of our committee members for 

their contributions and assistance with today’s markup. The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

38

f


99471n.eps
39


99471m-1.eps
40

f


99471m-2.eps
41

f


99471s.eps
42

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Æ


99471d.eps