We have no such accountability whatsoever with UNFPA. They take our money, and then slam the door in our face.

all,' repeat, 'all UNFPA programming incorporates and defers to Chinese law and regulation.'

We have asked them repeatedly, 'Leave China.'

I am glad you brought that up, because I am the one who asked Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Cisco here to testify, and introduced legislation to hold them to account, because they had no transparency either in their enabling of censorship in the People's Republic of China.

They can't operate outside of the regulations of the government.

My hope would be that any U.N. personnel, any member agency, voluntary agency--UNFPA, for example--if there is a country that is practicing torture, for example, the U.N. police, peacekeepers, should in no way be complicit in that.

It is absolutely consistent to condition funding for----

the Department will terminate any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement if the grantee or subgrantee engages in any severe form of human trafficking.

Who we donate to does matter. If the organization has a program that supports coercive population control, refuses any kind of transparency, I think we have a reason to say, 'We will put the money somewhere else.'

For all of these reasons, this bill, which conditions and strengthens our anti-trafficking activities in a fiscally-responsible manner, is vitally important.

This is one of those examples I think where we can have very strong bipartisan cooperation to combat modern-day slavery in all of its forms, whether it be sex trafficking or labor trafficking.