Researchers in a Congressional hearing yesterday called for a ban on Western transplant-related technologies to China.
The reason? They could be helping Beijing’s forced organ harvesting.
The killing of prisoners of conscience for their organs in China first came to light in 2006.
Rep. Zachary Nunn (R-Iowa) speaks a hearing about the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) forced organ harvesting before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China in Washington on March 20, 2024.Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), called it “an atrocity unmatched in its wickedness,” and several other lawmakers agreed.
Congress “must use every tool to find evidence of organ harvesting and prevent it from happening,” said Rep. Michelle Steel (R-Calif.). “So many political prisoners, including Uighur and Falun Gong practitioners, are suffering at the hands of CCP and other communist countries.”
And Western technologies and pharmaceuticals in this area can only make it worse, the researchers say.
Maya Mitalipova, director of the human stem cell lab at MIT’s Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, named U.S. medical equipment maker Thermo Fisher Scientific as being associated with Beijing.
The DNA sequence kits from the company are helping Beijing build the world’s “largest DNA database” for matching organs with patients, she said.
Besides an export ban, Matthew Robertson, a China studies research fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, also suggested the Treasury Department issue a sanction list on Chinese hospitals implicated.
Texas State Representative Tom Oliverson, whose state passed the first law banning insurers from funding China-linked organ transplant surgeries, is looking into research funding and biomedical companies’ involvement.
—Eva Fu
IMPEACHMENT HEARING YIELDS FIERY TESTIMONY
Hunter Biden made good on his promise not to attend March 20’s impeachment hearing on Capitol Hill.
Despite calling for a public hearing on the Capitol steps in December, the president’s son was nowhere in sight when the proceedings kicked off. But two of his former business associates proved more than enough to keep investigators busy.
Tony Bobulinski (L), former business partner of Hunter Biden, and Lev Parnas (R), former associate of Rudy Giuliani, are sworn in during a hearing before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee at Capitol on March 20, 2024. Alex Wong/Getty Images
“It is clear to me that [President] Joe Biden was the brand being sold by the Biden family,” businessman Tony Bobulinski testified in his opening remarks.
“His family’s foreign influence peddling operation, from China to Ukraine and elsewhere, sold out to foreign actors who were seeking to gain influence and access to Joe Biden and the U.S. government.”
Bobulinski’s accusations did not sit well with Democrats, who sparred with him throughout the hearing and challenged his credibility.
“Mr. Bobulinski ... I have a quick question, simple. Is it your testimony today that you personally witnessed President Joe Biden commit a crime?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) probed.
When he answered affirmatively, she asked him to name a specific crime. He replied by suggesting that the president violated anti-corruption and conspiracy laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
“RICO is not a crime. It is a category,” Ocasio-Cortez insisted, prompting a back-and-forth argument. She then denounced the GOP-led impeachment as a “Republican majority lost in the desert.”
Meanwhile, Jason Galanis, another former Biden family associate, said the only value Hunter Biden brought to their business relationship was his father’s influence, or “the Biden lift.”
“The entire value out of adding Hunter Biden to our business was his family name and his access to his father, Vice President Joe Biden,” Galanis testified remotely from prison.
Businessman Lev Parnas, invited by Democrats, occasionally fielded questions about his claimed efforts to spark a probe into Joe Biden’s alleged corruption in Ukraine. He claimed to have found “zero evidence” of wrongdoing.
Republicans dismissed Parnas’s testimony as that of a man who spent time in prison for fraud and making false statements.
—Samantha Flom, Jacob Burg, and Savannah Hulsey Pointer
TEXAS’ IMMIGRATION LAW
The Justice Department attempted to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on March 20 to continue blocking Texas’ controversial law making crossing the border illegally a state crime.
Less than 48 hours had passed since the Supreme Court issued multiple orders, including one allowing the law to take effect. A three-judge panel is set to review the substance of a district court injunction on the law during oral argument on April 3.
Illegal immigrants pass through coils of razor wire while crossing the U.S.–Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, on March 13, 2024. John Moore/Getty Images
Weeks of back-and-forth between the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit preceded the March 20 argument, which focused on whether to stay the injunction pending appeal. The case will likely make it back to the Supreme Court at some point.
At the height of the ongoing border crisis, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the law, known as Senate Bill 4, which allowed police officers to arrest illegal immigrants. Conflict over the law has added to mounting tension surrounding President Joe Biden’s policies on immigration and border enforcement.
Federal versus state authority is a prominent dispute within immigration law. During oral argument, the Justice Department referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States, which held that the state’s immigration law was preempted by federal law.
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman seemed skeptical of Texas’ law, telling the solicitor general that “this is the first time, it seems to me, that a state has claimed that they have the right to remove illegal aliens.” An appointee of former President George W. Bush, Judge Richman blocked the law on March 19.
Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dissented from that decision and seemed critical of the Justice Department during oral argument. “Is there anything a state can just do because it thinks it’s a good matter for the people of the state of Texas, outside of what Congress has allowed them to do explicitly in those two statutes you referenced?” he asked.
Judge Irma Carillo Ramirez, who was appointed by President Biden, remained silent during the hearing but joined Judge Richman in halting the law on March 19.
Huge implications could follow a Supreme Court decision on the case as it raises questions about prior precedent and how border states can respond when they feel the federal government isn’t doing enough.
Texas’ has a right to self-defense, Gov. Greg Abbott argued in January. In a statement, he accused President Biden of violating his oath and refusing to enforce federal laws protecting states.
—Sam Dorman
BOOKMARKS
A terrorist linked to the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah was caught illegally crossing the southern border, and confessed that he was hoping “to make a bomb.” The Epoch Times’ Alice Giordano reported on the incident, which comes amid rising concerns of a terror attack stemming from the minimally protected southern border.
The EPA has issued its strongest vehicle emissions standards, The Epoch Times’ Jackson Richman reported. If enacted, the standards could require as many as 56 percent of vehicles to be all-electric by 2032—even as only eight percent of Americans have adopted the vehicle type.
A Fulton County judge will allow former President Donald Trump to appeal an earlier ruling allowing embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the Georgia election interference case, The Epoch Times’ Tom Ozimek reported. The ruling, which could end in Willis’s removal from the case, comes after revelations about her misuse of state funds during an affair with a former lead prosecutor.
Trump has unveiled his plan for abortion, which would involve a nationwide 15-week ban, The Epoch Times’ Naveen Athrappully reported. The plan is less strict than many Republicans would hope for, as several GOP-led states have laws in effect that ban abortion at around six weeks—or ban it altogether. Still, Trump defended the plan, saying that it was the best way to moderate on a tough issue and avoid the political toll of more stringent bans.
Senate Republicans have no intentions of overturning the filibuster if Trump reclaims the White House, The Epoch Times’ Joseph Lord reports. The filibuster’s downfall has been called for by presidents in both parties, but senators have until now rebuffed each of these efforts.
Outgoing Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) has been ousted from the powerful House Freedom Caucus, The Epoch Times’ Jackson Richman reported. Buck has increasingly veered against his party on issues like impeachment efforts against Biden and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. His removal from the conservative caucus comes just days before he was set to resign from Congress over his growing disagreements with his party.
