Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the President has spoken of the need for consistent and dedicated leadership in world affairs as the keystones to abiding and lasting peace in the world. I would observe that there certainly has been a consistency in the leadership from this administration in African affairs--a consistent lack of a viable policy to improve the lives of the persecuted peoples on the African continent. I rise today to express my profound disappointment with the Clinton Administration's policies toward Sierra Leone, in particular, and Africa in general. To be sure, there are many good people who have tried to implement worthy and thoughtful policies regarding Africa during the tenure of this Administration. But the problem with this Administration's Africa policy is that more often than not, the voices that should have been heard, have not carried the day. ```African Renaissance' Hailed by Clinton Now a Distant Memory'' is the title of a recent article in the Los Angeles Times by Robin Wright. Ms. Wright says that just two years ago, President Clinton hailed what he called an ``African renaissance.'' Now, despite several years of rhetoric on Africa by the Clinton administration, this article states that a recent national intelligence estimate says that ``Africa faces a bleaker future than at any time in the past century.'' President Clinton has traveled more than almost any other President. He has had first hand experiences throughout Africa, more experience and actual time in Africa than any other President. But all of his time there only amounted to photo opportunities and handshakes, amounting to substance-free public relations. Because of his time in Africa, he should have and could have done so much more. The death, suffering, and destruction that has occurred over the past eight years needed more than a touch down by Air Force One. This Administration lost an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of millions of Africans. As a result of its inaction and lack of vision, millions of people have died in Africa during the Clinton Administration's watch. The past eight years could have been different if energy, attention, and rectitude had been applied. This Administration floundered, delayed, and refused to take timely action in the face of the genocide that occurred in Rwanda. Perhaps close to a million people died during the slaughter of Tutsis and this Administration did nothing as reports flowed into the U.S. about the potential for and outbreak of this genocide. This Administration did nothing during the violence. More recently, in Sierra Leone, thousands of people have been killed, maimed, and tortured and hundreds of thousands of people became refugees at the hands of brutal rebel forces. I have been to Sierra Leone and I have seen first-hand results of the Sierra Leonian rebels atrocities. In December of last year, Congressman Hall and I went to an amputee camp, a camp set up for the survivors of the rebels' machetes. At the amputee camp, we met thousands of people who are lucky to be alive. The people we met were the survivors--those who did not bleed to death as they struggled to flee the rebels who had just cut off their arms, legs, or ears. No one was spared the brutal, grotesque, and evil actions of the rebels. infant babies had their arms and legs cut off. Young men in the prime of their life suddenly had half of a leg. Women were raped by rebels and then had their limbs amputated--only to give birth several months later as a result of the rape they suffered. What motivated these rebels of Sierra Leone? What gave the rebels incentive to launch their horrible rampage? The answer is diamonds. They want to profit and control and trade in Sierra Leone's vast diamond wealth. And the rebels in Sierra Leone received weapons and support in exchange for their diamonds from Liberian President Charles Taylor. I have repeatedly asked this Administration to name all those involved in the atrocities, Sierra Leonians and Liberians, as war criminals, and I have repeatedly asked the Administration to seriously address the issue of conflict diamonds. The control and trafficking of conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone and several other African countries has fueled and funded rebel movements that otherwise had little to no sources of income. On March 16 in a letter to Secretary of State Albright I wrote: Congressman Hall has introduced legislation, H.R. 3188, to certify the country of origin of all diamonds. Thus a diamond buyer will know where a diamond has been mined and a purchaser can avoid buying conflict diamonds. Passage of Congressman Hall's bill will be a huge stride in ending this practice. Your support for this important legislation would be very helpful. Promised U.S. action if the rebels do not comply with the conditions for disarmament should be: they and their families will not be allowed entry into the U.S., Britain or any other country--no visas should be issued to rebels or their family members; if the rebels have bank accounts in the U.S. and in Europe, they should be frozen and they should be denied access to these accounts and to future commerce with the U.S., bank accounts of rebel family members should be included in this prohibition too; the rebel leaders should be declared war criminals by the U.S. and other Western countries and direct its intelligence and police agencies to actively pursue apprehending rebels who have not disarmed. These same conditions should also be applied to Liberian Charles Taylor and all Liberians who have assisted the rebels in Sierra Leone. It has come to my attention that Taylor escaped from a Massachusetts prison and fled to Liberia. Taylor and many Liberians have blood on their hands from their support of these rebels. By being the primary conduit for trading the conflict diamonds mined by the rebels, and by reportedly supplying the rebels with military assistance, Taylor and others have fueled the atrocities committed by the rebels upon the people of Sierra Leone. The U.S. should enact similar measures and conditions against Taylor and other Liberians as those I proposed for the rebels in Sierra Leone. If the rebels are not disarmed and if Taylor and other Liberians continue to traffic in conflict diamonds and to provide the rebels with military assistance, Taylor and others should be named as war criminals and they should not be allowed to travel outside of their country. You should fix a date that you think is reasonable and helpful. In a letter dated July 12 I wrote to President Clinton, Secretary Albright, and National Security Advisor Samuel Berger asking for the Administration's support for an amendment submitted by Representative Tony Hall and myself that was included in the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government appropriations subcommittee that would have Yesterday the House Treasury, Postal Service and General Government appropriations subcommittee voted to include language submitted by Rep. Tony Hall and me in the FY 2001 Treasury spending bill that addresses the massive problems of conflict diamonds in Africa. I have heard reports that for some reason, your Administration opposes this provision. The problem of conflict diamonds is one of the major reasons for the instability, death, and gross human rights abuses that are occurring throughout Africa. Your Administration to date has not addressed the issue of conflict diamonds. The language approved by the subcommittee yesterday will help to prevent the types of atrocities against millions of people, like the young girl and the young men in the enclosed pictures, who have had their limbs cut off by rebels intent on controlling and trafficking in conflict diamonds. This is an opportunity for your Administration to take bold action to help the suffering people of Africa. Please support this effort. It is the right thing to do. This language was never supported by the Administration. In fact, the Administration circulated a memo staying that they opposed the amendment, and this amendment was taken out of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations on the floor of the House, in part because of the Administration's opposition. In a subsequent meeting with a staff member of the National Security Council, she declared to my staff and to Congressman Tony Hall that the Administration would work with us to draft and move legislation addressing conflict diamonds. Several months later, to my knowledge, this Administration has offered no legislative proposals to us, nor have they attended any subsequent legislative meetings or drafting sessions. In a May 1, 2000 letter to President Clinton, I urged him to act quickly to prevent the continuing bloodshed and trafficking of conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone, saying: An op-ed by Michael Kelly, from the July 19, 2000, Washington Post comments on an article published in the New Republic that describes how the verbosity of the Administration does not match their actions. Kelly observed how the Administration pushed the Government of Sierra Leone into accepting the Lome Peace Accords, an agreement that placed rebel leader Foday Sankoh as head of the diamond commission and that allowed the prosperous diamond regions to remain under rebel control: [U.S. Department of State spokesman Phillip Reeker said] `The United States did not pressure anybody to sign this agreement . . . We neither brokered the Lome peace agreement nor leaned on President Kabbah to open talks with the insurgents . . . It was not an agreement of ours' This is, in a sense, true. The United States was not a signatory to the Lome agreement; so it is not an agreement of `of ours' But in a large sense, the surrender of Sierra Leone to the murdering mob was very much our handiwork . . . And what did the U.S.-pushed agreement entail? Only that . . . ``the democratic president of Sierra Leone . . . hand over much of his government and most of his country's wealth to one of the greatest monsters of the late 20th century.'' Sankoh was made vice president and given control of Sierra Leon's diamond mines; the RUF [Revolutionary United Front] was granted amnesty. The bottom line is, like the rest of its Africa policy, this Administration is all talk and no action--they have had a touchdown policy where handshakes and smiles are exchanged, but where facts on the ground no unchanged and unaddressed.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct privilege to rise today and to join fellow members of the Virginia delegation in paying tribute to two retiring colleagues and to honor the memory of our late colleague, Congressman Herb Bateman. Tom Bliley came to Congress with me in 1981. It has been an honor to serve side by side with him for the last 20 years. Tom has been a fitting match for Virginia's seventh district, which includes the city of Richmond, as it is a district replete with a tradition of true statesmen. Tom will leave the Congress having served as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, a responsibility he has taken very seriously and has performed with incredible legislative skills and expertise. He has shown an amazing ability to deal with such complex issues as the electric utility grid, Medicare formulas to home medical services, and discounts for veterans, as well as telecommunication legislation. Tom's has been a diverse political experience before even making his way to Capitol Hill. He was first elected to the Richmond council as a conservative Democrat in 1968, then as Mayor of Richmond from 1970 to 1972, and eventually to the House of Representatives, this time as a Republican. His unique background has enabled him to work to achieve bipartisan results, while never losing sight of the issues which are important to his districts. Owen Pickett has been a Member of this body for 14 years, having been first elected to Congress in 1986. Owen has deep ties to the Commonwealth. He is a graduate of Virginia Tech and the University of Richmond Law School. He was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1971, where he earned a reputation as a fiscal conservative and he served as State Democratic Chairman in 1981. Congressman Pickett, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, has consistently placed the best interests of his constituency and of the country ahead of partisan differences. He has been a faithful watchdog on behalf our Nation's military, and a consistent advocate of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, even when such notions were less than fashionable. Finally, our dear friend, Herb Bateman, faithfully served the people of Virginia's First Congressional District, and beamed with pride in calling his District ``America's first district.'' Herb worked tirelessly for the first district for 18 years. He had deep ties to his district, having practiced law in Newport News and attended the College of William and Mary. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness of the Committee on Armed Services, he was a steady champion for our men and women in uniform, not only in the Tidewater region, but throughout the Nation and around the world. He recognized that peace was best maintained through strength. As a loyal defender of those who defend us, he worked for the best interests of those currently in uniform, as well as for those who have retired from the service of their country. It is with mixed emotion that I offer tribute to these three true Virginia gentlemen. I am thankful to have had the honor to serve with them in this distinguished body, but am saddened at the prospect of their departure. We shall all truly miss their wise counsel and unwavering commitment to high ideals. Each of these gentlemen epitomize the highest ideals of public service. I wish Tom and Owen godspeed in their retirement and thank them for their years of service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to the Nation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger). (Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present today the conference report on the Department of Transportation and related agencies. In total, the bill provides $17.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for critical operations of the Department of Transportation, an increase of $3.5 billion over fiscal year 2000. Much of the increase over last year's level is attributed to mandated increases in the Federal Aviation Administration as a result of the enactment of AIR21. In addition, the increase over last year is a result of additional operational requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard. Allow me to mention a couple of highlights: $4.5 billion for the Coast Guard, of which $565 million is for drug interdiction; $12 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, a 25 percent increase over last year, consistent with the requirements of AIR21, of which $3.2 billion is for airport improvement programs; $30 billion for the federal-aid highways program, an increase of almost $2 billion over last year and consistent with TEA21; $720 million for the emergency relief highway program to fund the backlog of overdue bills to restore highways damaged in previous natural disasters; $6.3 billion for transit program spending, an increase of $486 million; $279 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, more than double last year, to improve truck safety on our Nation's roads; $404 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an increase of nearly 10 percent, again safety; $725 million for the Federal Railroad Administration, of which $521 million is for Amtrak; $47 million for pipeline safety, which is an increase of over 25 percent. In addition, the conference agreement contains several items that have been of deep interest to a lot of Members. The agreement before the body contains the following resolutions on rollover, hours-of- service, and .08. First, on rollover, the agreement permits the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to move forward with its rollover testing proposal while the National Academy of Sciences studies static versus dynamic testing. Once the study is completed, the administration must propose any appropriate revisions to their testing procedures. Second, the agreement permits the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to collect and analyze public comments and data on its proposed hours-of-service rule-making during fiscal year 2001. The administration may also issue a supplemental notice of proposed rule- making once this analysis is complete. However, the agreement prohibits the Federal Motor Carrier Administration from taking any final action on the proposed rule during the year 2001. However, a lot of Members in this body and on the committee will be watching to see the Motor Carrier move ahead, because over 5,000 people a year are killed with regard to trucks every year and a number because of tired truck drivers. Third, the agreement modifies the Senate provision on .08 but still adopts a national standard for drunk driving. This new provision requires all States to adopt a blood alcohol level of .08 by fiscal year 2004. If States do not adopt this standard, they will lose a portion of their highway funds each year, 2 percent in the year 2004, 4 percent in 2005, 6 percent in 2006, and 8 percent in 2007. However, the highway funding would be restored if a State moves to the lower standard by the end of the year 2007. This is basically in honor and in memory of the moms and dads who have lost loved ones on the road because by doing this, we will save four to 500 lives every year. It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation and the White House supports all three of these compromises. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement also includes a provision relating to the Central Artery project. This provision is the culmination of 6 years of review and scrutiny by this committee and the Department of Transportation's Inspector General on the project. The Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, first estimated to cost $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1985, is now estimated to top $13.1 billion. This provision contained in the conference agreement codifies a recent agreement with Massachusetts officials and the Federal Highway Administration which limits Federal financial participation in the project to $8.5 billion, and sets forward other terms and conditions, including the requirement that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts undertake a balanced statewide construction program of $400 million a year. Mr. Speaker, this provision is not meant to impugn the administration of, or the recent actions by, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. In fact, over the last recent months, the new administration has been forthcoming with details of the cost overruns and the cost to complete the project, something that previous MTA officials withheld from Federal officials. This provision is not to prejudice the current administration of the MTA but rather to ensure that the Federal Highway Administration and the Secretary of Transportation fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the American taxpayer. This conference agreement is a good bill, it is balanced, and it is a bill which will clearly, whether it be on the rollover, whether it be on the .08, whether it be on the trucks and the others and the Coast Guard will save lives. Seldom do we get an opportunity to vote for something that we clearly know will save so many lives. It deserves, hopefully, the body's support. It is my understanding the administration has no serious objections to the bill and will sign it. Before I close, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, and the other members of the subcommittee for the bipartisan spirit which they have shown in helping us to reach an agreement on these issues. This has never been a partisan bill, and I am pleased that this tradition continues. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have been most gracious and willing to reach compromises needed to move this bill forward to the President. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our full committee chairman who has done such an outstanding job, has always ensured that this subcommittee's allocation is ample to accommodate the needs of this subcommittee. With that spirit, I think we have a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also take a moment to express my deepest appreciation for the fine work done by the professional staff on the transportation appropriations subcommittee, including John Blazey, Stephanie Gupta, Rich Efford, Linda Muir, Cheryl Smith and the detailee from the Department of Transportation, Chris Porter. These professionals have been instrumental in bringing together this important bill. They epitomize, and I speak really for staff people on all the committees, the countless committee staffers who work long hours on Capitol Hill with little or many times no recognition. Now, thanks to their efforts, we are sending a bill to the President that will improve the lives of all Americans by helping to ensure that they not only can go where they want to go but can get there safely. Stephanie Gupta worked tirelessly to include the .08 standard which will make certain that our sons and daughters and moms and dads can return home safely at night. Her perseverance on this issue, in the face of incredible odds, was crucial in the inclusion of .08. Again, 500 lives. Additionally, Rich Efford diligently worked to guarantee that the FAA was giving adequate attention to the problem of runway incursions and other safety issues that are so important to Members on both sides of this issue. Rich sacrificed time with his own family for the purpose of making sure that air travel is safer for all of our families. And Linda Muir is the glue that holds it all together in the subcommittee office. Her organizational skills and good humor have made all of our jobs a lot easier. Cheryl Smith, from the minority side, is a true professional whose knowledge and experience were valuable assets to the committee's work. I also want to thank Geoff Gleason from my staff for the committee who for 2 decades, first working with Mr. Solomon and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and now in my office has been invaluable in our work with our colleagues in bringing this legislation up. Finally, I would like to thank the staff director, John Blazey, who oversaw the hundreds, and I would say thousands of projects in this bill and is one of the finest professionals on Capitol Hill. I was a staffer on Capitol Hill for a number of years before I had the opportunity to serve and watching John, I can tell you, he is a tribute to the staff that does such a good job on both sides of the aisle. Through his guidance and leadership, we have brought forth an excellent bill which tackles many of the concerns at the heart of transportation in America. John Blazey knows more about these issues perhaps than anyone else certainly in the Congress, and maybe in the country. I know he will be an asset to the new Bush Administration when they take over in January of next year. As this will be my last year as chairman of this transportation appropriations bill, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to the staff, to the Members on both sides, to the leadership and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for helping. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just comment a little bit on the situation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). Nobody has been a stronger advocate in my times on the committee for mass transit in Houston than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). He had the subcommittee go down there years ago to look at it, and I understand what he is trying to do. The same thing has happened in other parts of the country. People want to immediately move to rail. In my area, we eventually would like to have rail going out to Dulles Airport. I support that. But our intermediate step is the rapid bus transit which will be for one-tenth of the cost. In some respects, that is really modeled after what has been taking place in Houston. So what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is saying is one moves to that and then afterward. So I think he has been a very strong advocate for the entire time. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I echo the comments of the regional delegation who worked together. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge, it is the whole north-south corridor which, if it ever collapsed or prohibited the use of trucks, it would just devastate the economy of the Northeast. The Coast Guard, as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) said, the necessary increase, particularly for the men and women who serve and are risking their lives; the increase for drug interdiction, the increase for the FAA; the .08 which will save so many lives. So in closing, I urge passage. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). I could not have had a better working relationship. God bless. Thank you. I urge the passage of the bill.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 612, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4475, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has a miserable record on what is taking place in Sierra Leone. Moctar Jollah is a 27- year-old. He is from Sierra Leone. This past year, Moctar had his right hand and his ear cut off by rebel thugs in Sierra Leone. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and I met Moctar at an amputee camp this past December. At the amputee camp, Moctar introduced us to thousands of people who were lucky to be alive. The people we met were the survivors, those who did not bleed to death as they struggled to flee the rebels who had cut off their arms, their legs, and their ears. No one was spared the brutal, grotesque, and evil actions of the rebels. Infant babies had their arms and legs cut off. Young men in the prime of their life suddenly had half a leg. Women were raped by rebels and then had their limbs amputated, only to give birth several months later as a result of the rape they suffered. Why did the rebels of Sierra Leone do it? They did it because of diamonds. Diamonds to profit and control and trade in Sierra Leone. The trade in conflict for blood diamonds must stop. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has a bill, the CARAT Act, H.R. 5147. Pass the bill, stop the flow of blood from conflict diamonds.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I express my profound disappointment with the Clinton Administration's policies toward Sudan. To be sure, there are many good people who have tried to implement worthy and thoughtful policies regarding Sudan during the tenure of this Administration. The problem with this Administration's Sudan policy, is that more often than not, the voices that should have been heard, have not carried the day. I have been to Sudan three times since 1989 and have seen the conditions on the ground first-hand. Since 1983, the government of Sudan has been waging a brutal war against factions in the south who are fighting for self-determination and religious freedom. Most people have died in Sudan than in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda combined with the civil war resulting in over 2 million deaths. Most of the dead are civilians--women and children--who died from starvation and disease that has resulted from the dislocation caused by war. The government of Sudan routinely attacks civilian targets--such as hospitals, churches and feeding centers--and uses aerial bombings to intimidate and kill the southern population. In the past few months, several hospitals and schools in the south have been bombed by the government, killing numerous innocent men, women, and children. I wrote Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Samuel Berger on March 22, 2000, about the Government of Sudan's intentional bombings of a hospital in the south, enclosing an op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal by Franklin Graham. Franklin Graham is the head of a non-governmental organization called Samaritan's Purse that operates a hospital in Southern Sudan that has been repeatedly bombed by the Government of Sudan. Mr. Graham wrote: ``The governments of the world could help the southern Sudanese through international trade sanctions, military action, and public condemnation. Despite empty, halfhearted rebukes, the international community has taken no meaningful action to condemn the Sudanese government. . . .'' But that wasn't the first time I've written this Administration about Sudan. Because of the millions of deaths and because of the atrocities that have been committed by the government of Sudan, soon after this Administration took office in 1993, I wrote to President Clinton asking him to appoint a special envoy to Sudan, explaining that: ``The appointment of a special envoy is especially timely since the State Department has recently declassified powerful new information detailing widespread human rights atrocities being committed by the military of Sudan. Most appalling among these abuses is the Sudanese government's practice of kidnapping and slavery of women and children from southern Sudan.'' The Administration did appoint a special envoy in May 1994, but Melissa Wells held the position for only a short time. After some time had elapsed without a special envoy for Sudan, I wrote the Administration at least seven more times about the importance of filling To date, though, their efforts have not led to a peace. To bring about peace, the situation in Sudan needs the attention of and investment of time from the President, comparable to the efforts President Clinton has made in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East. While President Clinton has remained silent, hundreds of thousands of people have died. This Administration knows that slavery, the selling of its own people, is in the government of Sudan's portfolio. The Sudanese government has done nothing to stop the slavery. Slave traders from the north sweep down into southern villages recently destabilized by fighting, and kidnap women and children who are then sold for use as domestic servants, concubines or other purposes. This is real-life chattel slavery. It exists today--at the threshold of the 21st century. A de-classified U.S. State Department cable describes this administration's knowledge of this slavery since at least 1993. This cable, dated April 1993, which I include for the Record, states: ``Credible sources say GOS [Government of Sudan] forces, especially in the PDF, routinely steal women and children in the Bahr El Ghazal. Some women and girls are kept as wives; the others are shipped north where they perform forced labor on Kordofan farms or are exported, notably to Libya. Many Dinka are reported to be performing forced labor in the areas of Meiram and Abyei. Others are said to be on farms throughout Kordofan. ``There are also credible reports of kidnappings in Kordofan. In March 1993 hundreds of Nuer displaced reached northern Kordofan, saying that Arab militias between Abyei and Muglad had taken children by force, killing the adults who resisted. The town of Hamarat el Sheikh, northwest of Sodiri in north Kordofan, is reported to be a transit point for Dinka and Nuba children who are then trucked to Libya.'' I wrote President Clinton about slavery in Sudan on September 9, 1997, saying, ``Mr. President, women and children are being sold into slavery--real life slavery in Sudan . . . And the United States response? Talk tough but take no action.'' On December 3, 1997, I again wrote President Clinton about this atrocity, saying that America has to stand up to the government in Khartoum. The government of Sudan has been on the U.S. State Department's list of countries that sponsor terrorism since 1993. One can fly into Khartoum and find terrorist groups fully functioning there. The government of Sudan was implicated in the assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. On September 9, 1997, after hearing that the Administration was considering re-staffing the U.S. Embassy in Sudan, I wrote to President Clinton, reminding him that, ``there has been absolutely no progress on terrorism, human rights or religious persecution . . . The government [of Sudan] is harboring terrorists and has done nothing to deal with this issue. You say you are tough on terrorism. What kind of signal does this send. . . . Actions like these further erode my confidence in the administration's true willingness to stand up for human rights and against terrorism. It's time to do more than talk.'' It has been widely reported from numerous sources that the war is estimated to cost the government of Sudan $1 million a day. This Administration's failure to prevent the On September 30, 1999, I wrote Arthur Levitt, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, that: ``Oil revenue will . . . allow the government of Sudan to buy still more weapons. The government of Sudan has announced publicly that it will use the oil revenue to increase the momentum and lethality of the war . . . Allowing the CNPC to raise capital in the U.S. would exacerbate the already tragic situation in Sudan. It would also make it easier for Americans to invest, perhaps unknowingly, in a company that is propping up a regime engaged in slavery, genocide and terrorism . . . .'' On November 4, 1999, I voiced similar concern about the proposed listing of CNPC/PetroChina to Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright urging her to do what she could to prevent the listing of CNPC/PetroChina on the NYSE. This Administration, though refused to prevent PetroChina's listing on the NYSE. Just recently, the government of Sudan's repeated bombings of international relief agencies operating under the umbrella of the United Nations forced the shut down of most food aid delivery in Southern Sudan. These bombings have been reported in numerous press accounts. On this Administration's watch, particularly President Clinton's silence and refusal to speak out and to take the initiative in promoting a just peace in the Sudan, there have been more killings and more deaths in southern Sudan. This Administration's record on preventing the importation of gum arabic from Sudan has been spotty. I wrote twelve letters to the Administration in which I asked the Administration to maintain the gum arabic sanctions against Sudan. While an embargo on gum arabic has been in effect by Executive Order since November 1997, just this year the Administration allowed an exemption of a shipment of gum arabic from Sudan. Now, the Administration seems to be giving Lukewarm opposition to lifting this embargo in response to a technical corrections trade bill that included a section that would lift the embargo on gum arabic from Sudan. This language was buried in H.R. 4868 (the ``Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act 2000'') and very few Members of Congress were aware of its presence in the bill. I think the verdict is still out on whether this Administration will uphold the embargo on gum arabic from Sudan, but I received a response to my August 4, 2000 letter from Ambassador Holbrooke, in which Ambassador Holbrooke wrote: ``The Administration agrees with you that the sanctions on the government of Sudan has not made progress in rectifying the human rights abuses for which those sanctions were imposed, and we should not consider permanently lifting sanctions until satisfactory progress has been made.'' Recently I have seen a glimmer of hope in what appears to be an effort by the Administration to prevent Sudan from becoming a member of the Security Council at the United Nations. Only time will tell if the Administration will be vigorous on this issue and ultimately successful in keeping Sudan off of the U.N. Security Council. Now there are troubling reports of a Chinese military presence bolstering the government of Sudan's grip on the oil fields, yet the Clinton Administration has done nothing to slow or prevent China's large role in the country of Sudan. An article from United Press International dated August 30 describes the varied reports on Chinese troop levels in Sudan and outlines the likely Chinese military presence in Sudan: ``. . . [a State Department] official conceded that China has a substantial economic interest and a large military sales program in Sudan and that Chinese troops have been deployed in the north African country . . . an intelligence official following the issue said classified reports gathered from spies indicate China may indeed be planning to deploy large numbers of troops to Sudan . . .'' I wrote President Clinton on February 15, 2000, about how I think history will judge his record particularly on Sudan, unless he shows significantly more interest in his remaining months in office, saying, ``Many people have contacted you over the years as President about the long ongoing tragedy in Sudan. You have done little or nothing in response to the killing and slavery that has ended or devastated millions of lives, women and children included . . . I implore you to use some of your remaining time and energy on the critical plight of the people of Sudan and especially those in the south who are daily subject to bombing, starvation, sickness, relocation, slavery, and death. History will not judge you well on this because you have not even personally shown any interest in this.'' The legacy of this Administration will not be that it took decisive and bold action to stop atrocities in Africa and in other parts of the world. When history is written about this Administration, I think historians will say that they failed to act when action would have made a difference and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Even for something as benign and universal as promoting religious freedom, this Administration did little, to nothing, to outright opposition to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. President Clinton has traveled more than almost any other President. He has had first hand experiences throughout Africa, more experience and actual time in Africa than any other President. But all of his time only amounted to photo opportunities and handshakes, amounting to substance-free public relations. Because of his time in Africa, he should have and could have done so much more. The death, suffering, and destruction that has occurred over the past eight years needed more than a touch down by Air Force One.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, in reference to President Clinton's foreign policy towards China, last Wednesday's front page of the Washington Post Business section had the headline: ``Score One for the Legacy'' because of passage in the Senate of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. While it lies in the future to determine the success or failure of PNTR upon improving China's horrible human rights record or in bringing about effective change in China's communist regime, we do know certain facts that have to be calculated into the picture that will be President Clinton's legacy on China. We know that on this Administration's watch, more people are in prison because of their faith than at any time in recent memory. There are thousands of Muslim Uighurs in prison because of their faith. The Chinese government is pillaging Tibet, while the Clinton Administration remains silent and obsequious. Thousands of Tibetan Buddhist monks, nuns, and believers are in Chinese prisons because of their faith. The Chinese government has repressed, oppressed, and persecuted the Tibetans with impunity. There is no doubt, things have gotten worse in Tibet during the Clinton years. With certainty, President Clinton's actions and lack of action have to be figured into a formulation of his legacy on China. The 1999 State Department Human Rights Report on China states numerous aspects of how the situation in China has deteriorated during President Clinton's tenure and ought to be included in determining his legacy on China: Government interference in daily personal and family life continues to decline for the average person; The Government increased monitoring of the Internet during the year, and placed restrictions on information available on the Internet; The Government continued to implement comprehensive and often intrusive family planning policies; The [Communist] Party and Government continue to control many--and, on occasion, all--print and broadcast media tightly and use them to propagate the current ideological line; and The Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. By years end, almost all of the key leaders of the China Democracy Party were serving long prison terms or were in custody without formal charges, and only a handful of dissidents nationwide dared to remain active publicly. We know that the State Department's 2000 Report on International Religious Freedom says that the Chinese ``. . . Government's respect for religious freedom deteriorated markedly . . .'' We know from this report that ``. . . unregistered groups, including Protestant and Catholic groups, continued to experience varying degrees of official interference, harassment, and repression.'' We know from this report that ``The Government's efforts to maintain a strong degree of control over religion, and its crackdown on groups that it perceived to pose a threat, continued.'' We know that the Chinese regime continues to persecute, arrest, and imprison 80 year-old Roman Catholic bishops and priests. According to an article in the September 18, 2000 New York Times, while the Senate was preparing to vote on passage of PNTR, the Chinese government was busy sending back to prison 81 year-old Roman Catholic Bishop Zeng Jingmu. Bishop Zeng had already spent close to 30 years in Chinese prisons and prison labor camps, just because of his faith. There are some 13 Roman Catholic Bishops suffering in Chinese prisons and prison through labor camps because of their faith. Their languishing in prison is part of President Clinton's China legacy. That President Clinton was silent, that he bent over backwards to placate a regime that persecutes old and frail people of faith--this has to be factored into compiling President Clinton's China legacy. That there are hundreds of Protestant House Church leaders in prison or prison through labor camps because of their faith has to be included in assessing President Clinton's legacy. President Clinton used tough words about China to help get himself elected in 1992, criticizing President Bush's policy of engagement with China. It is too bad that President Clinton did not live up to his campaign rhetoric and campaign promises about China. Now with the passing of PNTR, with all of this talk about Clinton's China legacy being shaped by the passage of PNTR, it is imperative to focus on the truth and history. History will show, that Clinton's China legacy is that the U.S. government kowtowed to a Chinese regime that worsened in its persecution and oppression of its own people. Clinton's China legacy will be that more people of faith and lovers of freedom in China languish in forced labor camps and bear the scars of torture and imprisonment because of their beliefs.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound disappointment with the Clinton administration's policies towards Sudan, and Africa in general. To be sure, there are many good people who have tried to implement worthwhile and thoughtful policies for Africa during the tenure of this administration. The problem with this administration is, more often than not, the voices that should be heard have not carried the day. My complete statement will provide more details, but let me briefly outline what I have been talking about. I have been to Sudan three times and followed the horrible situation there very closely. The Clinton administration has much to answer for. Over 2 million people have died in Sudan; yet President Clinton never expended the energy on Sudan to bring about a lasting peace as he has in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. The administration knew about the existence of slavery in Sudan since at least 1993. Yet, the administration was slow to act and slow to take tough action with Sudan. The administration failed to prevent the listing of PetroChina, a subsidiary of the Chinese National Petroleum Company, on the New York Stock Exchange. The administration's record on preventing one of Sudan's primary exports, gum arabic, has been spotty. An embargo on gum arabic has been in effect by an Executive Order since November of 1997, but just this year the administration allowed an exemption of a shipment of gum arabic from Sudan. This Congress may be passing something that the administration has not spoken out against with regard to gum arabic. In the past few months, the government of Sudan has repeatedly bombed the United Nations relief operations and other civilian targets. The administration has issued statements. But at this point, after all of the Sudanese Government's atrocities, words are not enough to address the problem in Khartoum. Two years ago, President Clinton hailed what he called an African renaissance. But a recent article in the Los Angeles Times states that a recent national intelligence estimate says that ``Africa faces a bleaker future than at any time in the past century.'' Today's Roll Call shows pictures of some of the children who had their arms and legs and ears cut off by rebels in Sierra Leone. This administration has made a mess of the situation in Sierra Leone and has done nothing but spin its wheels there. Yet again, it is an African policy that is long on rhetoric and short on action. President Clinton has traveled more than almost any other President. He has had first-hand experience throughout Africa, more experience and actual time in Africa than any other President. But all this time there only amounted to photo opportunities and handshakes, amounting to substance-free public relations. Because of his time in Africa, he should have done much more. It is not too late for this administration to do more for Africa. The death, the suffering, the destruction that has occurred over the past 8 years in Sudan and Sierra Leone and Rwanda and Burundi and other places need more than a touch-down by Air Force One.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today after reading today's editorial from the Washington Post titled ``Catholic `Criminals' in China,'' that describes how the Chinese Government has rearrested an 81-year-old Roman Catholic bishop, Bishop Zeng. Here is a picture of Bishop Zeng in prison garb. And the Senate today is ready to grant MFN to China. The bishop has spent most of his life in a Chinese prison, imprisoned through labor camps. He was imprisoned in 1958, was let out of jail for 1 month, then rearrested and imprisoned until 1991. In 1996, in his late 70s, he was rearrested again and put in a forced labor camp. Imagine being in a forced labor camp at 70 and 80 years of age. A Chinese leader affiliated with the Chinese Government's recent public relations blitz said, ``American voters should get to know us.'' Indeed, American people, this Congress, the Clinton administration and the next administration must know the true character of the Chinese Government is one that throws 80-year-old Catholic bishops into forced labor camps. Does anyone in the Clinton administration care? Does the Congress care? Does anyone care? [From the Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2000] Catholic `Criminals' in China The Communist regime in China has identified and rooted out another enemy of the state: 81-year-old Catholic Bishop Zeng Jingmu. The Cardinal Kung Foundation, a U.S.-based advocate for the Roman Catholic Church and its estimated 10 million followers in China, reports that Bishop Zeng was nabbed last Thursday. An embassy spokesman here said he couldn't comment. This wouldn't be a first for this apparently dangerous cleric. He was imprisoned for a quarter-century beginning in 1958. In 1983, the Communists let him out--for one month. Then they jailed him for another eight years, until 1991. In 1996--at the age of 76--he was sentenced to three years of forced labor and reeducation. When he was released with six months still to run on that sentence, in 1998, the Clinton administration trumpeted the news as ``further evidence that the president's policy of engagement works.'' The fatuousness of that statement must be especially clear to the bishop from his current jail cell. Bishop Zeng has been guilty of a single crime all along: He is a Catholic believer. He refuses to submit to Communist atheism or to the control of the Catholic Patriotic Association, an alternative ``church'' created by the regime that does not recognize the primacy of the pope. China's government is willing to tolerate some religious expression as long as it is dictated by the government. Anyone who will not submit--whether spiritual movements such as Falun Gong, evangelical Protestant churches, Tibetan monasteries or the real Catholic Church--is subject to ``repression and abuse,'' the State Department said in its recent report on international religious freedom. The admirably straightforward report noted that respect for religious freedom ``deteriorated markedly'' in China during the past year. ``Some places of worship were destroyed,'' it said. ``Leaders of unauthorized groups are often the targets of harassment, interrogations, detention and physical abuse.'' Bishop Zeng is a man of uncommon courage, but his fate in China is sadly common. Three days before his arrest, Father Ye Gong Feng, 82, was arrested and ``tortured to unconsciousness,'' the Cardinal Kung Foundation reports. It took 70 policemen to perform that operation. Father Lin Rengui of Fujian province ``was beaten so savagely that he vomited blood.'' Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested during the past year; the State Department cites ``credible reports'' that at least 24 have died while in police custody. Last month the Chinese government launched a public relations mission to the United States, dispatching exhibits, performers and lecturers--on the subject of religious freedom, among others--on a three-week charm offensive. ``American voters should get to know us,'' said the Chinese functionary in charge. The U.S. ambassador to China, Joseph Prueher, appeared at a joint new conference announcing the mission, and a number of U.S. business executives--from Boeing, Time Warner and elsewhere--happily sponsored it. We have nothing against goodwill cultural exchanges, but Chinese and American officials should not delude themselves that U.S. suspicions are caused chiefly by prejudice or lack of understanding. On the contrary, Americans understand just fine what kind of government throws 81-year-old clerics into jail.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I accept the instruction and pledge to work with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and our staff with his staff to get this number to the highest possible that we can. So, publicly, I think it is a good instruction. Let us just not do an instruction and walk away and nothing ever happen. Let us get the number up. So I will work with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and I completely agree and we accept. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I join the fellow members of the Virginia delegation in remembering Herb Bateman, a true gentleman and a dedicated public servant. I had been planning to come to the floor later this month to pay tribute to Herb, to talk about his long and distinguished record of service to Virginia and the Nation, and to wish him Godspeed as he retired from the Congress at the end of the session. His untimely passing yesterday reminds us all of our own mortality and how important it is to live our lives with honor and integrity and to make the most of every opportunity we have to serve our fellow men. Herb Bateman lived his life that way. It was a privilege to serve with him the entire 18 years he was in Congress. While we grieve today that Herb is no longer with us, we can find comfort in knowing that at the end of his days, he could hear the voice of God saying, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' Herb loved being a Member of Congress. He was a decent, hard-working, and likeable man who reached across the aisle to work together for the best interests of America. He loved representing the people of Virginia's First Congressional District, and beamed with pride in calling his district ``America's First District.'' He worked tirelessly for his district. As Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, he was a diligent champion for the defense interests, not only of the Tidewater area of Virginia, which he represented, but for a strong defense for our Nation. He was a protector of our national defense, and he initiated the practice of listening to the field commanders of our Armed Forces, the captains, the colonels, the majors, and not solely relying on the Pentagon brass to get the real picture of the Nation's defense. He worked to protect the welfare of the men and women in uniform and their families, and those who have retired from the service and their country. Herb was deeply concerned about the deterioration of our military readiness; and if we can do anything to honor his memory, it would be to heed the warnings he gave about the need to invest in improving and maintaining our nation's defense readiness. Herb worked for the commuters in the First District. Through a seat on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, he focused on improving highways and bridges in Tidewater and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay. This Congress, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and this Nation have lost a faithful servant and wonderful man, but our lives are forever enriched for having had Herb Bateman as our friend and colleague. In closing, our deepest sympathies are extended to Congressman Bateman's family: his wife, Laura Yacobi Bateman; his daughter, Laura Margaret Bateman; his son, Herbert H. ``Bert'' Bateman, Jr., and his wife, Mary, and their three children, Emmy, Hank, and Sam; and also to his Congressional family, his staff here on Capitol Hill and in his district offices. We all share in your loss.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled and outraged that language was included in a recent bill that unanimously passed the House that will lift the embargo on gum arabic from Sudan. Language was included in H.R. 4868, the Miscellaneous Trade and Corrections Act of 2000, which does not even mention the word or country of Sudan or gum arabic. Yet the passing of this language is a significant foreign policy issue for the U.S. The language was known about by very few Members of the House. This is very cryptic language that was used to describe a major foreign policy issue for the U.S., whether to lift significant sanctions against one of the worst regimes in the world. The regime in Khartoum harbors gobs of terrorists. Abu Nidal, Hamas, and all of the terrorists who are doing so much to disrupt the Middle East have training camps in Sudan. Virtually every major terrorist group in the world passes through Khartoum, many under the tutelage and sponsorship of the government of Sudan. The government of Sudan was implicated and behind the assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The government of Sudan condones slavery. Slavery exists in the 21st century. Yet the Congress voted to help a country that has slavery. Over 2 million people have died because of the war conducted and generated by the northern-led government. The government of Sudan indiscriminately and repeatedly bombs and kills innocent civilians. They are killing hundreds of Catholics in Bishop Max Gassis' diocese in the Nuba Mountains. Just over the past few weeks, the Sudanese regime has shut down a U.N. humanitarian relief Operation Lifeline Sudan that feeds millions of people in southern Sudan, by repeatedly bombing and attacking and killing workers and planes. Chinese troops are now supposedly present in Sudan, most likely guarding the precious oil fields that are now generating hard cash for the government. Now, Mr. Speaker, every Member should know that we have just learned that Osama bin Laden, a terrorist who killed American citizens and bombed two of our embassies, one of the most wanted international terrorists, is reportedly a major investor in Gum Arabic Company Limited. This company is a Khartoum-based firm that has a virtual monopoly over this issue. The new book out called The New Jackals by Simon Reeve says the following: Perhaps most crucially, bin Laden cannily invested in Gum Arabic Company Limited, a Khartoum-based firm which has a virtual monopoly over most of Sudan's exports of gum arabic, which in turn comprises about 80 percent of the world's supply. Gum arabic comes from the sap of the Sudanese acacia tree, a colorless, tasteless gum that makes newspaper ink stick to printing presses, keeps ingredients in drinks from settling at the bottom of a can, and forms a film around sweets and medical pills, keeping them fresh. It is a crucial ingredient in dozens of western products. Then he goes on to say that bin Laden is believed to have secured an effective monopoly over the entire Sudanese output that this Congress has voted to help. Even now the State Department in Washington and analysts at the CIA remain unsure whether bin Laden is still profiting from his investment. Thirty percent of the shares in Gum Arabic Company Limited are held by the Sudanese government, who tried to assassinate Mubarak who did not support American troops in Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Then he goes on to say and end that it is still possible that every time someone buys an American soft drink, they are helping fill Osama bin Laden's coffers, his coffers whereby he can go out and kill American men and women and children. I have a description of Osama bin Laden as described by the Anti-Defamation League which I will include for the Record. Gum arabic is an important Sudanese primary export. The administration has prohibited and put it on a list of sanctions, a comprehensive list of sanctions against the government of Sudan. The executive order was issued as a direct consequence of the Sudanese regime's sponsorship of international terrorism, its effort to destabilize neighboring countries, and its abysmal human rights record, including the denial of religious freedom. Mr. Speaker, why would the Congress, why would the House pass a bill without telling anyone what was in the bill and every Member that voted for that bill did this and did not know to lift the sanctions on Sudan also in the gum arabic area that is controlled perhaps by Osama bin Laden, who has bombed two American embassies, who we have watches out for with regard to the Canadian border over New Year's Eve and many other times? Why would the Congress do that? I am concerned that this money will help Osama bin Laden continue his terrorism. I call on the Congress to strike this provision and do as the administration requested, whereby they can have the opportunity to deal with this issue. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material on Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden Osama Bin Laden is a 41 year-old ``businessman'' and son of one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest families, who has been linked to a number of Islamic extremist groups and individuals with vehement anti-American and anti-Israel ideologies. He is a mysterious figure whose exact involvement with terrorists and terrorist incidents remains elusive. Yet his name has surrounded many of the world's most deadly terrorist operations and he is named by the United States State Department as having financial and operational connections with terrorism. Most recently Bin Laden formed the ``International Islamic Front for Jihad against America and Israel.'' In 1994 when Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia after having spent the two previous years in Khartoum, Sudan allegedly financing such militant Islamic causes as terrorist training camps, he was stripped of his citizenship by Saudi authorities who cited his opposition to the Saudi King and leadership (who enjoy warm relations with the U.S. and the western world). In 1996 it was reported that Bin Laden had relocated to Afghanistan, where he had financed and organized training camps for young Muslim extremists during the Afghan War of the 1980's. Bin Laden has been thought to finance, inspire or directly organize various terrorist attacks. In one way or another his name has been linked to the killings of Western tourists by militant Islamic groups in Egypt, bombings in France by Islamic extremist Algerians, the maintenance of a safe-house in Pakistan for Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and sheltering Sheikh Omar Abd Al-Rahman (the Blind Sheikh), who was also convicted in the World Trade Center bombing. He has also been linked to the 1992 bombings of a hotel in Yemen, which killed two Australians, but was supposedly targeted against American soldiers stationed there; the 1995 detonation of a car bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the 1995 truck bomb in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen; and the 1995 assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Osama Bin Laden has made no secret of his anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israel sentiments. In fact, he has been outspoken on these topics, issuing theological rulings calling for Muslims to attack Americans and threatening terrorism against related targets: Osama Bin Laden's Threats of Terrorism August 1998--The ``International Islamic Front for Jihad against America and Israel,'' a group sponsored by Bin Laden, issues a warning in the London-based newspaper al-Hayat that, ``strikes will continue from everywhere'' against the United States. (CNN Interactive, 8/20/98) May 1998--Bin Laden announces the formation of an ``International Islamic Front for Jihad against America and Israel,'' according to The News, an Islamabad, Pakistan daily. (The International Policy Institute for Counter- Terrorism web site, www.ict.org.il) March 1998--Bin Laden faxes messages to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad and U.S. consulates in Peshawar, Lahore, and Karachi threatening to attack U.S. facilities and citizens. (The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism web site, www.ict.org.il) February 1998--Bin Laden uses a fatwa, religious decree, to call for the liberation of Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as the death of Americans and their allies. The decree says, ``These crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger and Muslims.'' (The Washington Post, 2/25/98) May 1997--During an interview with CNN, Bin Laden reaffirms his call for a holy war against Americans. ``We have focused our declaration of jihad on the U.S. soldiers inside Arabia . . . The U.S. government has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal through its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.'' (Reuters, 5/11/97) February 1997--Bin Laden threatens holy war against the U.S. in an interview on the British documentary program, Dispatches. ``This war will not only be between the people of the two sacred mosques and the Americans, but it will be between the Islamic world and the Americans and their allies because this war is a new crusade led by America against the Islamic nations.'' (Reuters, 2/20/97) November 1996--Bin Laden issues an ultimatum to the U.S. and Western countries with troops stationed in Arab countries and declares a holy war against the ``enemy.'' Had we wanted to carry out small operations after our threat statement, we would have been able to . . . We thought that the two bombings in Riyadh and Dhahran would be enough (sic.) a signal to the wise U.S. decision-makers to avoid the real confrontation with the Islamic nation, but it seems they did not understand it.'' (The Washington Times, 11/28/96) November 1996--Bin Laden warns U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia to expect more ``effective, qualitative'' attacks and advises Western forces to speed their ``departure'' from the Middle East. (UPI, 11/27/96) August 1996--Bin Laden says to the London-based al-Quds al- Arabi newspaper that the Saudis have a ``legitimate right'' to attack the 5,000 American military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia. ``The presence of the American crusader armed forces in the countries of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger and the biggest harm that threatens the world's largest oil reserves . . . The infidels must be thrown out of the Arabian Peninsula.'' (The Washington Post, 8/31/96) August 1996--In an interview with The Independent, a London daily, Bin Laden calls the June 1995 truck bomb in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia ``the beginning of war between Muslims and the United States.'' (New York Daily News, 8/11/96) July 1996--Bin Laden warns that the terrorist who bombed American soldiers in Saudi Arabia will also attack British and French military personnel. He said ``[the bomb in Dhahran] was the result of American behavior against Muslims, its support of Jews in Palestine, and the massacre of Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon.'' (New York Times, 7/11/96) The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden and the Future of Terrorism a portrayal of the life and crimes of Ramzi Yousef Ahmed, the terrorist who bombed the New York World Trade Center in 1998 (By Simon Reeve) On 26 February 1993 a massive bomb devastated New York's World Trade Center, creating more hospital casualties than any event in American history since the Civil War. Ramzi Yousef, the young British-educated terrorist who masterminded the attack, had been seeking to topple the twin towers and cause tens of thousands of fatalities. An intensive FBI investigation into the crime quickly developed into a man-hunt that took top FBI agents across the globe. But even with the FBI on his trail, Yousef continued with his campaign of terror. He bombed an aeroplane and an Iranian shrine. He tried to kill Benazir Bhutto, the former Pakistani Prime Minister, and planned to assassinate the Pope, President Clinton and simultaneously destroy 11 airliners over the Pacific Ocean using tiny undetectable bombs. He also plotted an attack on the CIA headquarters with a plan loaded with chemical weapons. His pursuers dubbed Yousef ``an evil genius''. During their huge investigation FBI agents discovered that Yousef was funded and sent on some of his attacks by Osama bin Laden, a mysterious Saudi millionaire. By the mid-1990's they realized bin Laden had become the most influential sponsor of terrorism in the world, and agents now conclude that since the early 1990s a small group of terrorists supported by bin Laden have dominated international terrorism. These ``Afghan Arabs'' helped defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan before killing thousands of people in campaigns against governments in the West, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. When bin Laden's followers attacked American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on 7 August 1998, killing 224 people, the U.S. finally launched cruise missile strikes in an attempt to destroy his secret organization. Drawing on unpublished reports, interrogation files, interviews with senior FBI agents who hunted Yousef, intelligence sources and government figures including Benazir Bhutto, Simon Reeve gives a harrowing account of Yousef's bombings, offers a revealing insight into his background, and details the FBI's man-hunt to catch him. Reeve explains how Yousef was one of bin Laden's first operatives and documents bin Laden's life and emergence as the leader of a potent terrorist organisation, giving fascinating insights into the man President Clinton has called ``the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today''. Highly detailed and yet immensely readable, The New Jackals sheds new light on two of the world's most notorious terrorists. Reeve warns that Yousef and bin Laden are just the first of a new breed of terrorist, men with no restrictions on mass killing. He also offers evidence that bin Laden's organization may already have chemical and nuclear weapons and explains why the world could soon face attacks by terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Simon Reeve is a journalist and writer. He worked for The Sunday Times for five years before leaving to finish co- writing The Millennium Bomb, published in 1996. He has since contributed to books on corruption, organized crime and terrorism, and has written investigative feature articles for publications ranging from Time magazine to Esquire. He lives in London. During research for The New Jackals Reeve has eaten ice cream sorbet with Benazir Bhutto, spent hours sitting in a stairwell on a London housing estate waiting for a former Lebanese smuggler, met American intelligence officials in a suburban burger bar and a Chinese restaurant, and been followed by agents from two different countries during meetings with a renegade spy. Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden and the ``Afghan Arabs'' have ``dominated international terrorism as it relates to the United States and Europe [in the 1990s]. At the international level the only terrorist apparatus that the United States has had to deal with over the past several years has been Osama bin Laden and before that Ramzi Yousef.'' Oliver ``Buck'' Revell, former Deputy Director of the FBI. ``Ramzi Yousef is an evil genius.'' Senior Pakistani intelligence officer. ``Yousef was a pretty unique person. He liked the bar scene, he liked women, he liked moving around. Yousef was very good. He was well trained, very clever. He'll certainly be ranked right up there with the all-timers. Even to this day, he is a very shadowy figure that we really don't know that much about, even after all that's been done and all that's been investigated on him.'' Neil Herman, the FBI Supervisory Special Agent who led the New York Joint Terrorist Task Force during the hunt for Yousef. ``Yes, I am a terrorist, and I'm proud of it.'' Ramzi Yousef. ``In the past, we were fighting terrorists with an organisational structure and some attainable goal like land or the release of political prisoners. But Ramzi Yousef is the new breed, who are more difficult and hazardous. They want nothing less than the overthrow of the West, and since that's not going to happen, they just want to punish--the more casualties the better.'' Oliver ``Buck'' Revell, former Deputy Director of the FBI. ``He's a cold-blooded terrorist. He doesn't care who he kills. He may be the most dangerous man in the world.'' Superintendent Samuel Pagdilao of the Philippines National Defense Police describing Yousef. ``One man said to me `remember there will only be those who believe and those who will die. There will only be the dead and the believers'.'' Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan. ``If Russia can be destroyed, the United States can also be beheaded.'' Osama bin Laden. ``In my personal view [Osama bin Laden' is very much interested in obtaining weapons of mass destruction and he has the money to pay for them. It's certainly a credible threat.'' Peter Probst, Pentagon terrorism expert. ``We don't consider it a crime if we tried to have nuclear, chemical, biological weapons. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so.'' Osama bin Laden. ``Terrorism is changing. We expect biological attacks in the future.'' Marvin Cetron, author of the Pentagon's secret Terror 2000 investigation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, the State Department's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom was released yesterday. Among the countries that continue to stand out because of their horrible record on religious freedom are China and Sudan. The report says of China: ``Government respect for religious freedom in China deteriorated, as the persecution of several religious minorities increased.'' Such groups as Tibetan Buddhists, Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners, and unofficial Protestants and Roman Catholics were subject to harassment, extortion, prolonged detention, physical abuse, and incarceration in prison or reeducation camps through labor, while the State Department says that there are credible reports that the Chinese Government beat and tortured these people of faith. Also, in Sudan, it says the Muslim-dominated regime continued to persecute members of different religious minorities, Christian and Muslim. The report says that much of the world's population lives in countries in which the right to religious freedom is restricted or prohibited. The Congress, the Clinton administration, and the next administration must do more to stand up for those who are persecuted or suffer because of their religious faith.