Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) is correct. Under this bill, exports of items other than persecution facilitating products are prohibited from being exported only to the responsible entities themselves, such as prisons or slave labor camps, as the case may be, and not to the country generally. Furthermore, under this act, ``responsible entities'' are to be defined as narrowly as possible.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I thank the gentleman very, very much.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, that is absolutely correct. Under this act, there is no blanket prohibition on exports but only exports to the responsible entities engaged in persecution. Furthermore, I would point out to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) that if a farmer or exporter exports grain to a country deemed to contain responsible entities engaged in religious persecution but sends the grain to a party other than a responsible entity, the gulag, that farmer or exporter has not violated this act even if the grain eventually reaches the responsible entity itself.

Mr. WOLF. That is correct. There is no requirement that the exporter know or be responsible for the ultimate end user of his product, but only that the exporter does not export to those found by the director to be responsible entities engaged in religious persecution.

Mr. WOLF. Yes. Under the definition of ``United States assistance'' in this act, any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is barred. However, this definition of ``United States assistance'' explicitly carves out an exemption for ``assistance which involves the provision of food, including the monetization of food.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a moment talking about the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, H.R. 2431, which will be on the floor for debate at the end of this week. The bill is bipartisan, it has over 131 cosponsors, and it was reported out of the Committee on International Relations by a vote of 31 for, only 5 against. Why is this legislation needed? In the past decade, the Government of Sudan has killed or allowed to starve over 1 million of its own people. Starvation is that government's weapon of choice, liberally spiced with high-altitude bombing and mass murder, and even selling Sudanese boys and girls as slaves. In China, as we all know, Catholic priests and bishops are imprisoned, some for decades, simply for practicing their faith. Protestant pastors are thrown in jail just for holding house church services. Muslims suffer persecution, as do Buddhist monks and nuns. My office adopted Bishop Zeng Jingmu. Sunday's Washington Post reported that the Bishop was released 6 months early by the Chinese Government in anticipation of President Clinton's June visit. Bishop Zeng is currently out of prison, yet remains not completely free, but under house arrest, and is allowed to see no one but his close relatives. Still, the fact that he is out of prison is a good development, and a sign that pressure on repressive governments works. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is supported by a large number of broad-based groups in the Nation. It is supported by the National Association of Evangelicals, by the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, by the Family Research Council, by the Anti-Defamation League, by the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, by the International Campaign for Tibet, by the National Jewish Coalition, by the Christian Coalition, by the Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism, by Empower America, by Prison Fellowship Ministries, by the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America, by Concerned Women of America, by Campus Crusade for Christ, by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, by the Christian Legal Society, by the Catholic Alliance, by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, by the National Religious Broadcasters, by B'nai B'rith, by the American Family Association, by the Salvation Army. So we can see this has broad-based support. On Thursday the House will take up the bill, and this bill will set up a system to monitor religious persecution around the world; and when egregious acts are found, limited sanctions will be imposed unless waived by the President. Again, under this legislation, the President has total, complete ability to waive everything and anything in the bill. In closing, Mr. Speaker, when this bill becomes law, America will reaffirm again, as it has so many times in the past, for all the world that we still honor those ringing words in the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson, where he said, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, endowed by their creators with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When this bill passes, in small villages in southern Sudan, people with their little crystal radio sets, people in villages in China with their crystal sets, when they hear that the United States Congress, the people's House, the House of Representatives, has voted for this legislation, it will send a message to the people who are being persecuted around the world that this Congress and this country stands with them.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by talking for a moment about two groups that aren't widely discussed here on the House floor. The first is Mother Jones and the second is USA*Engage. Then I want to focus a little bit on how things get done in this town and suggest that we, as stewards of government, must take care that we represent the American people and not narrowly focused special interests. Mother Jones or ``MoJo'' is a national magazine of investigative journalism focusing on political reporting. It is named after and in the spirit of the legendary Mary Harris (Mother) Jones who was one of the most effective organizers of her time. Before passing on at the ripe old age of 100, this spirited mother of four effectively led fights against child labor, and on behalf of coal miners and other labor groups during the early years of this century. Ken Silverstein wrote an article in the June 1998 issue of Mother Jones detailing the creation of USA*Engage. This group hired Washington lobbyist Anne Wexler to try and make sure nothing gets in the way of promoting international trade with countries around the world whose governments are renown for brutal, fear-based, repression of their own people. The human rights records of these countries are made more dismal by widespread torture, terror, imprisonment, persecution and killing of all who do not walk the line. According to MoJo, some of America's largest businesses have given their proxy to USA*Engage to deal with these countries having a History of repressing their own people. The list of these firms reads like a Who's Who of big business. I know these companies are run by good and decent people who are probably not aware of the range of activities in which the Wexler Group is intensely involved on behalf of USA*Engage. I am sure that the stockholders and customers are not aware of them and would be shocked and angered if they were. Anne Wexler has assembled a daunting army for her assault on Washington that includes a former U.S. Trade Representative, former Members of Congress, a former close staffer of the President, the former law firm of the State Department official who heads up the committee charged with reviewing proposed sanctions, and others. And look at what they have accomplished: Instant access to Congress and the ear of State Department officials charged with assessing human rights violations. ``Pro-trade'' studies from pricey and prestigious think tanks. The matching-up and contact of religious groups and leaders interested in human rights around the world by business representatives thought to have special sway or influence. ``Spin control.'' MoJo says USA*Engage boasts that of 242 newspaper editorials, 180 were favorable, 36 neutral and only 26 were hostile. MoJo quotes human rights advocate Simon Billenness, talking about the important role economic sanctions played in ending South Africa's apartheid regime, ``If USA*Engage had succeeded with these tactics during the apartheid years, Nelson Mandela might still be in prison.'' I recognize that these companies can hire whomever they choose, but there are consequences. Look at what they are doing. Look at the real issue. We are talking about countries which are committing the very worst atrocities on their own people for simply believing in God. In Sudan, starvation is the weapon of choice, spiced with high altitude bombing, mass murder and selling their own people into slavery. In Sudan, over the past decade, about 1.1 million people have been killed or allowed to starve. In China, Catholic bishops and priests, Protestant lay-ministers, Buddhist monks and nuns as well as many Muslims are jailed--for years and years. And their jails are not patterned after those in this country. Starvation, torture, filth and darkness are the steady diet. The fate of the prisoner is up to the whim of the guard. Brutal working conditions and brutal hours are the norm. Sometimes death is the only friend they can hope for. Tibet is in danger of losing its religion, its culture, its language and even its identity. It has already lost thousands of Buddhist monasteries and too many monks and nuns. In Iraq, the Kurds have been used for target practice and guinea pigs for toxic killing. MoJo talks about the track record of Burma and Nigeria. The victims of these outrages and more are Anne Wexler's targets. When she and her other well connected friends are successful in changing a legislative clause here and writing a Dear Colleague there, when they urge another Member to sign on to a ``gutting amendment,'' do they think about the Catholic bishop starting his third decade in a brutal Chinese prison? Or the young boys on the slave block in southern Sudan? I know these are harsh thoughts. But we are dealing with harsh dictators and regimes. What we do here matters. What we say and the content of legislation we pass have real consequences. In this case, innocent people, clear on the other side of the world, pay an enormous price. Please think about this. Did these companies mean to give Anne Wexler this much power? If you are a government official working on these matters, do you think about what your actions mean to those who have no one looking out for them? And if you are a Member of Congress, do you remember when Anne Wexler and company stops by, that no one is speaking for those on the other end--those in Sudan, in Iraq and in China? Just because Anne Wexler is the only voice, she shouldn't be the loudest voice. Perhaps the worse thing they have done with their access is to deliberately misstate the moderate nature of the Wolf-Specter Freedom from Religious Persecution bill. At its root it calls for withdrawal of non-humanitarian taxpayer subsidies to hardcore persecuting countries and gives the president total discretion to maintain the subsidies. In the end, however, Members will read the bill and understand its moderate character and people in the pews will hear that this bipartisan effort gives the persecuted people of the world a needed voice.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. Probably none of my colleagues here send their kids to the District of Columbia schools. None of my colleagues here have probably ever taught in the District of Columbia schools. My daughter, for 5 years, worked at 14th and Belmont, in the community of Hope, up there where most of the kids are not getting a decent education. She then taught in the District of Columbia schools for a year. We are talking about real people's lives. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for what he said. I know of a young boy who left the District of Columbia schools where he was failing and then went out to the Fairfax County schools and is now getting Bs. My colleagues say, stay with the schools. None of my colleagues would allow their children to go to the District of Columbia schools. My colleagues would take two jobs, three jobs, they would do anything they could to get their kids into another school, and now they want to deny the opportunity for parents to have that opportunity. If I lived in the District of Columbia, I would be a revolutionary because of the way these schools are. The Armey proposal for scholarships is good. It is going to help real people to make a real difference, and I urge all the Members, all the Members to vote for this bill. Because, when it passes, and, hopefully, it will be signed, it will save lives because it will give a young man and a young woman the opportunity to go on and do things that all of us, everybody in this body, wants for their own children.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by talking and taking a moment to talk about two groups that are not widely discussed on the floor. The first is Mother Jones, and the second is USA Engage. Mother Jones, or ``MoJo,'' is a national magazine of investigative journalism focusing on political reporting. Ken Silverstein wrote an article in the June 1998 issue of Mother Jones detailing the creation of USA Engage. This group hired Washington lobbyist Anne Wexler to try to make sure nothing gets in the way of promoting international trade with countries around the world whose governments are renown for brutal fear-biased repression of their own people. The human rights records of those countries are made more dismal by widespread torture, terror, imprisonment, persecution and killing of those that do not walk the line. According to MoJo, some of America's largest businesses have given their proxy to USA Engage to deal with these countries having a history of repressing their own people. I know these companies are run by good and decent people who are probably not aware of the range of activities in which the Wexler Group is intensely involved on behalf of USA Engage. I am sure that their stockholders and customers are not aware of them and would be shocked and angered if they were. According to the magazine, Anne Wexler has assembled a daunting army for her assault on Washington that includes a former U.S. Trade Representative, former Members of Congress, a former close staffer of the President, the former law firm of the State Department official who heads up the committee charged with reviewing proposed sanctions, and others. And look at what they have accomplished: Instant access to Congress and the ear of the State Department officials charged with assessing human rights violations; pro-trade studies from pricey and prestigious think tanks; the matching-up and contact of religious groups and leaders interested in human rights around the world by business reps thought to have special influence or sway. MoJo quotes human rights advocate Simon Billenness, talking about the important role economic sanctions played in ending South Africa's apartheid regime. ``If USA Engage had succeeded with these tactics during these apartheid years, Nelson Mandela might still be in prison.'' I recognize these companies can hire whomever they choose, but there are consequences. Look at what they are doing. Look at the real issue. We are talking about companies that are committing the very worst atrocities on their own people simply by believing in God. In Sudan, starvation is the weapon of choice, spiced with high-altitude bombing, mass murder, and selling their own people into slavery. In Sudan, over the past decade, about 1.1 million people have been killed or allowed to starve, and I have been in the south and I have seen it. In China, Catholic bishops and priests and Protestant lay ministers and Buddhist monks and nuns as well as many Muslims are jailed for years and years. And their jails are not patterned after those in this country. Starvation, torture, filth, and darkness are the steady diet. The fate of the prisoner is up to the whim of the guard. Brutal working conditions and brutal hours are the norm. Sometimes death is the only friend they can hope for. Tibet is in danger of losing its religion, its culture, its language, even its identity. It has already lost thousands of Buddhist monasteries and too many monks and nuns. And I have been to Tibet and have seen this. In Iraq, the Kurds have been used for target practice and guinea pigs for toxic killing. And MoJo talks about the track record of Burma and Nigeria. The victims of these outrages and more are Anne Wexler's targets. When they and her other well-connected friends are successful in changing a legislative clause here and writing the Dear Colleague letter, do they think about the Catholic bishop starting his third decade in a brutal Chinese prison? Do they think of the young boys on the slave block in southern Sudan? I know these are harsh thoughts, but we are dealing with harsh dictators and regimes. What we do here matters. And the content of legislation has real impact around the world. Please think about this. Did these companies mean to give Anne Wexler this much power? If one is a government official working on these matters, does he think what his actions mean to those who have no one looking out for them? And if one is a Member of Congress, does he remember when Anne Wexler and company stops by that no one is speaking for those on the other end, those in Sudan, those in prison, those in slavery, those in Iraq, those Catholic bishops in prison, those evangelical pastors in prison in China, and the monks and Buddhist nuns in prison in Tibet? Mother Jones or ``MoJo'' is a national magazine of investigative journalism focusing on political reporting. It is named after and in the spirit of the legendary Mary Harris (Mother) Jones who was one of the most effective organizers of her time. Before passing on at the ripe old age of 100, this spirited mother of four effectively led fights against child labor, and on behalf of coal miners and other labor groups during the early years of this century. Perhaps the worst thing they have done with their access is to deliberately misstate the moderate nature of the Freedom from Religious Persecution bill. At its root it calls for withdrawal of non- humanitarian taxpayer subsidies to hardcore persecuting countries and gives the president total discretion to maintain the subsidies. In the end, however, Members will read bill and understand its moderate character and people in the pews will hear that this bipartisan effort gives the persecuted people of the world a voice. Anne Wexler is the only voice. But she should not be the loudest voice. Perhaps the worst thing they have done with their access is to deliberately misstate the moderate nature of the Freedom from Religious Persecution bill. At its root, it calls for the withdrawal of all nonhumanitarian taxpayer subsidies to hard core persecuting countries and gives the President total discretion to maintain these subsidies.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the United States provided one of the most stunning rationalizations in history about the need for appeasement in the face of persecution. I submit today's front page article from the New York Times and encourage my colleagues to read it. What is so bad about the ``Freedom From Religious Persecution Act'' according to President Clinton? That it will force the administration to ``fudge,'' and that is the President's term, reporting on violations so they would not have to carry out the sanctions imposed by this act. There apparently was no mention by the President that the bill, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, provides a very generous waiver, a total waiver for the President. He can waive the sanctions for national security reasons or if doing so would advance the objectives of the act. As we consider this act, Madam Speaker, we should know that Catholic priests are in jail in China, Catholic bishops are in jail in China, even evangelical pastors are being persecuted in China. The Chinese government has plundered Tibet. I have been to Tibet. I have visited and gone outside the prisons to hear how they are persecuting Buddhist monks and Buddhist nuns. They are persecuting the Muslims in China, and yet the President says this legislation is a ridiculous act. What the President and State Department fear most about this bill is the fact that it requires them to look at facts and take action. This administration wants to appease these governments when they are perpetrating evil, the same type of evil that when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, he talked about the evil empire when he gave that very profound speech in Orlando back in the early 1980s. President Clinton made his remarks when he stopped by a meeting with prominent evangelical leaders. He went on to describe President Jiang Zemin as a person who ``knows a lot about Christianity in China.'' That is what the President said. ``He knows a lot about Christianity in China.'' He said he ``understands the issue.'' Yes, Jiang Zemin understands the issue. He understands that he puts priests in jail. He understands that he puts bishops in jail. He understands that he puts evangelical leaders and lay pastors in jail. He understands that he persecutes the evangelical church and the Catholic church. He understands that he plunders Tibet and he brutalizes the Buddhist monks and nuns. He understands that he breaks the backs of the Muslims in China. He understands. What does the President mean, that President Jiang Zemin understands? Does he mean he is sympathetic? Then let him open up the jails and allow these people to come out. And for the President of the United States to say this is wrong. Madam Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that President Jiang Zemin is president of a country which systematically imprisons Catholic bishops and priests, imprisons protestant pastors and lay people, tortures Buddhist monks and nuns. Has our President ever been to Tibet? No. Has anybody from the administration been to Tibet? No. I have been there and talked to the monks, and seen the plunder that is taking place. I say this is a shame. Yes, President Jiang Zemin knows about Christianity. He knows how to persecute it. But, Madam Speaker, Christianity will rise in China. Christianity will be there when President Jiang Zemin is gone. And the Catholic church will prosper and the evangelical church will prosper, and the church will rise up and be there long after President Jiang Zemin is gone from there. But what a disgrace for this President to say and infer that President Jiang Zemin is sympathetic to the church in China. One other thing I want to raise, Madam Speaker. I want to submit an article which was in Mother Jones magazine showing how USA*Engage, a lobbying group downtown run by Anne Wexler, is attempting to manipulate prominent religious leaders in the United States. One USA*Engage memo obtained by Mother Jones described how Company X is assigned to talk to one of the country's most well-known religious leaders and Company Y is assigned to talk to another prominent leader. It goes on. I am saddened that USA*Engage and the Wexler group would attempt to manipulate leaders in this country of different denominations, while priests are being persecuted and slavery is taking place in Sudan. 1.1 million Christians have been persecuted in Sudan because of their faith. Because they love Christ and they want to stand for Christ, they are persecuted for Christ. And Anne Wexler and USA*Engage join up, join up to defeat legislation which will send a message to these people that we care, that we remember the words of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal and given rights by their creator God, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And for USA*Engage to attempt to manipulate this progress is very, very sad. Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the United States provided one of the most stunning rationalizations in history about the need for appeasement in the face of persecution. I submit for the record today's front page New York Times article and encourage my colleagues to read it. What is so bad about the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act according to President Clinton? That it will force the administration to ``fudge'', and that's the President's term, reporting on violations so they would not have to carry out the sanctions imposed by the act. There apparently was no mention by the President that the bill provides for very generous waiver authority: he can waive the sanctions for national security reasons or if doing so would advance the objectives of the act. What the President and the State Department fear the most about this bill is the fact that it requires them to look at the facts and take action. He wants to continue appeasing governments even when they are perpetrating evil. President Clinton made his remarks when he stopped by a meeting with prominent evangelical leaders. He went on to describe President Jiang Zemin as a person who ``knows a lot about Christianity in China'' He ``understands the issue,'' the President said. Let me remind you that President Jiang Zemin is the President of a country which systematically imprisons Catholic bishops and priests, imprisons Protestant pastors and laypeople, tortures Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns and sends its security forces to break up underground worship services. President Jiang Zemin rules a country that uses brave dissidents as pawns in ego-politics--releasing prominent dissidents in exchange for favors by the United States. I am pleased that Wang Dan and Wei Jingsheng have been released. But it does not reflect progress. The Chinese government has not released Pastor Peter Xu, one of China's most prominent house church leaders; Bishop Zeng Jingmu, a 77-year-old Roman Catholic bishop; or the Panchen Lama chosen by the Dalai Lama, a 5 year-old boy who has not been seen or heard from for over two years. All of these individuals were on the list of thirty prisoners raised by the recent, and highly-touted, religious leader's delegation to China. Not one of the thirty religious prisoners have been released since the delegation's visit. Sure Jiang Zemin knows about Christianity--he knows how to repress it. There is a growing movement in the United States demanding that the U.S. government take action against governments that persecute religious believers. That is what President Clinton fears the most-- having to take action. To avoid action, he says the administration will be forced to ``fudge'' the facts. What an abomination. But there is another issue that I wanted to bring to my colleagues attention. The efforts being waged by USA*Engage and some top-dollar Washington lobbyists to defeat the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act by trying to manipulate prominent American religious leaders. I urge all my colleagues to read the recent article in Mother Jones magazine that I am submitting for the record. Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened by this action. It is so disappointing to see what has been taking place and to what lengths some will go to defeat a bill which seeks only to help people being persecuted for their faith. Catholic bishops and priests are in jail in China. Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns are being tortured in Tibet. Bahai's are being persecuted in Iran. Muslims and Christians are being persecuted in Sudan. Yet, the lobbying beat goes on. What a sad commentary. I believe it is entirely inappropriate to manipulate American religious leaders. Yet, according to the article, that appears to be what is happening. One USA*Engage memo obtained by Mother Jones describes how company X is assigned to talk to one of this country's most well known religious leaders and company Y is assigned to talk to another prominent leader. It goes on. How disappointing. Suffering Catholics, Protestants and Muslims in China do not have top-dollar Washington lobbyists. Christian slaves in Sudan cannot hire K Street law firms. Tibetan Buddhists have no funds to launch slick PR campaigns. The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act is about them. Who speaks for them? I have been to many of those countries. I have spoken to many persecuted people. Almost everywhere I go I hear over and over--please speak out for us. We cannot speak for ourselves. We are voiceless, powerless minorities who are being victimized by powerful governments. If the American government does not speak for us, who will? H.R. 2431 is not about trade--its about taking away taxpayer subsidies (including taxpayer subsidized trade) from governments that persecute people of faith. H.R. 2431 does not cut off non-humanitarian aid to countries until they are engaged in ``widespread, ongoing'' and particularly severe kinds of persecution. In the face of killing, rape, torture, imprisonment, enslavement and other violent action, how can the President tell the American people that the United States government will continue trying to ``understand'' their point of view? Passage of this bill is important to help those who suffer for their faith. Madam Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record: [From the New York Times, Apr. 27, 1998] Clinton Argues for ``Flexibility'' Over Sanctions--U.S. Tempted to ``Fudge'' on Repressive Nations (By Elaine Sciolino) Washington, April 27.--President Clinton criticized laws today that automatically impose sanctions on countries for behavior that Americans find unacceptable. He said such legislation put pressure on the executive branch to ``fudge,'' or overlook, violations so that it would not have to carry out the sanctions. Mr. Clinton made his unusually frank remarks during an appearance before a group of about 60 evangelical Christian leaders at the White House. They were meeting with Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser, in the Roosevelt Room. Specifically, Mr. Clinton asked the group to withdraw its support for pending legislation that aims to reduce religious persecution overseas by imposing trade and aid sanctions on repressive regimes. Last week the House International Relations Committee approved, by 31 to 5, a bill that would impose export and aid sanctions on countries that endorse or permit violent attacks on religious believers. Among other provisions, the sanctions would ban imports from such countries, prohibit loans by multilateral institutions and make it easier for victims of religious persecution overseas to qualify for asylum or refugee status. Mr. Clinton made clear to the visitors just how difficult it is for his Administration to produce honest analyses about a country's behavior when Congress passes laws that require sanctions the moment a country violates what Congress defines as good behavior. legislators weigh in on issues including human rights, drug cooperation and efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The President singled out punitive legislation against Russia, Iran and Cuba as examples of Congressional initiatives that boxed him in. ``What always happens if you have automatic sanctions legislation,'' he said, ``is it puts enormous pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is going on. And that's not what you want. What you want is to leave the President some flexibility, including the ability to impose sanctions, some flexibility with a range of appropriate reactions.'' Later he repeated the point, saying that automatic sanctioning ``creates an enormous amount of pressure in the bowels of the bureaucracy to fudge the finding.'' Mr. Clinton did not say whether the Administration had ever ``fudged'' the facts to avoid imposing sanctions. But the Clinton Administration, like its predecessors, has been criticized for ignoring or excusing obvious violations of United States sanction laws to justify continuing to do business with certain countries. Earlier this year, for example, the Administration certified that Mexico, America's second-largest trading partner, was fully cooperating in antidrug efforts despite evidence to the contrary that could have required economic sanctions. Some lawmakers and arms-control experts have criticized the Administration for not imposing sanctions on China for its sale of germ warfare equipment to Iran and its continued nuclear cooperation with Iran and Pakistan. In addition, American lawmakers have threatened to improve economic sanctions on Russian enterprises that aid Iran's missile program if Russia does not fulfill its pledges to block the assistance. The Administration has strongly opposed the move. It has also been cautions in declaring that some foreign companies are trafficking in formerly American-held property in Cuba. Such a declaration would automatically hamper the companies' operations in the United States and their executives' ability to enter the country. As for Iran, the Administration has avoided deciding whether to impose sanctions against countries or companies that invest heavily in its oil sector, despite legislation requiring the United States to do so. Mr. Clinton's remarks provided a rare opportunity to observe him in a private setting in which he did not expect reporters to be present. The meeting was not listed on his public schedule, and he was told only later that a reporter had been invited to attend. During the meeting, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Don Argue, told Mr. Clinton, ``These are praying people,'' and asked how the group's members should pray for him. The President asked that they never say a prayer for him that they didn't say for his family as well. The he added, ``I'll tell you what the prayer I say every night is: `To be made an instrument of God's peace, to have the words in my mouth and the meditations in my heart and to be on God's side.' That's about as good as I can do here.'' Mr. Clinton also shared a story about his daughter, Chelsea, freshman at Stanford University. He said she often logged on to the Internet in the evening and called him to ask him about something she had read in the early edition of the next day's newspaper. ``She knows I work late,'' Mr. Clinton said. ``So some night at a quarter to one or something, the phone rings. It's Chelsea.'' In his remarks, Mr. Clinton also unabashedly boasted that American religious freedom should be the model for countries that persecute their people over religious beliefs. ``The only answer for any of these countries is to basically have a system that America has,'' Mr. Clinton said. ``I've always tried to be a little bit careful about telling anybody that we know best about everything.'' But, he added, in this case, ``we know best.'' Still, he waxed philosophical about the need to understand other countries' ``historical nightmares'' before judging them too harshly. ``It's also important when you deal with a country to know what its historic bad dreams are,'' he said. America's bad dream goes back to the Civil War, he said. Russia's goes back to invasions by Napoleon and Hitler, and China's goes back to internal disintegration. In trying to persuade Russia that the eastward expansion of NATO was not a threat, for example, Mr. Clinton explained: ``You know that NATO would never invade Russia, and it's not rational from our point of view. But then, America was never invaded by Hitler or Napoleon.'' Mr. Clinton also described President Jiang Zemin of China as a leader who understands the concerns of the United States and ``knows a lot about Christianity'' in China. ``I think he understands this issue and I think that if we just keep pushing along, I think that he will be more likely than not to advance it,'' Mr. Clinton said. He added that he had spent ``a lot of time'' coaching Mr. Jiang during his trip to Washington last year on how to handle their joint news conference. Mr. Clinton said he had told Mr. Jiang, ``You've got to learn how to smile when they hit you right between the eyes.'' ``I said, `That's the way we do it over here.' ''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, April 25, will be a special day in Fauquier County in the 10th District of Virginia. A very special volunteer recognition luncheon will be held at Fauquier High School in Warrenton sponsored by the Board of Supervisors of Fauquier County. That event will conclude the county's National Volunteer Week activities in two special ways. First, and most importantly, it will honor more than 30 very dedicated senior citizens who have given selfishly of their time and energy for many years to help make their community a better place in which to live. Second, it will be the first county-wide recognition event to be cosponsored by the community-at- large and the newly established County Volunteer and Information Assistance Center. Mr. Speaker, what is so wonderful about this recognition is that the citizen volunteers who will be honored are 80 years of age or older, and many are still very active volunteers. They support the Hospital Auxiliary, the Red Cross, and the Senior Center. Their services have ranged from helping to provide food and clothing, to supporting blood donation drives, to tutoring and mentoring, to visiting and helping the sick and shut-ins. They are people who have contributed in so many ways to creating the wholesome, caring, and sharing community the citizens of Fauquier County enjoy. I know our colleagues would join in saluting these extraordinary people and thanking them for their spirit of volunteerism. They have shown us that helping neighbors by volunteer efforts knows no age barrier. They are folks who continue to be an inspiration and example for all to follow. We join in honoring the following senior volunteers: Virginia T. Allison, Ethel Bailey, Hazel Bell, Ruth H. Brittle, Florence Mabel Cooper, Mary E. Culver, Everett Danley, Addie V. Desantis, F. Byrd Greene, Isabelle H. Hilleary, DeNiece O. Johnson, Viola F. Latham, Alice M. Mann, Grace Miller, Ann C. Nelson, Blanche C. O'Connell, Mary H. O'Shaughnessy, Andrew C. Parrish, Lewis A. Payne, Luther R. Payne, Alice Pullen, Mattie F. Rector, Annie R. Rogers, Alyce G. Russell, Dorothy V. Rust, Refa M. Ryan, Anne Brooke Smith, Lawrence W. Sudduth, Nina P. Thorpe, Helen Warren, Barbara E. Waterman, Elsie C. Woodzell, and John Zirnheld.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to our colleagues' attention one of northern Virginia's outstanding citizens, Robert J. Fox. On April 11, Robert will reach a milestone in his public service career, marking 50 years of federal service in the U.S. Army and the Postal Service. Robert J. Fox was born on January 16, 1927, in Philadelphia, PA, where he grew up and attended Catholic schools. He entered the Army in March 1945 and served in the Infantry Airborne, reaching the rank of first sergeant by 1949. He served in Germany in the 102d Division and when the 102d Division went home, he stayed on with the 1st Infantry Division. He continued to reenlist and went to the front lines in Korea with the 7th Infantry Division in 1952. He served 16 months in Korea. Robert was awarded the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Good Conduct Medal with five loops, the WWII American Campaign and Victory Medal, the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater Medal, the Occupation of Germany Medal, Korean Service Medal and the National Defense Medal. During his military career, he attended 16 different Army schools, worked in Intelligence learning several different languages, and served several more tours in Europe. He was discharged from active duty at Arlington Hall after 20 years of service, but also served two more years in the Army Reserve. He served as assistant to the Master of the Grange in Washington, D.C., for two years. He met and married his wife Jacquelyn Ann in Sperryville, Virginia, where he still lives today. Robert joined the Post Office Department on April 13, 1968, as a letter carrier. He has served his entire postal career at the Warrenton Post Office in Fauquier County, where he developed a reputation as a dedicated, hardworking employee. He has always shown concern for his customers and the community, making several lifelong friendships. Robert has been active in the Postal Service's Carrier Alert Program, in which carriers watch out for senior citizens on their route, alerting friends and relatives when something appears wrong. He personally saved the life of an elderly woman on his route when he discovered that she had fallen on the steps inside her home and no one else was around to help her. Without Robert's intervention, she could have laid there for days. Most notably in his career, Robert has never had an accident as a postal employee. He is a member of the Million Mile Club, which recognizes postal employees who have driven 1,000,000 miles or more without a vehicle accident. He has gone years at a time without using any sick leave and is still one of the most dependable employees in the Warrenton Post Office. A respected and active member of the community, Robert once spent four years providing free volunteer labor to rebuild the Sperryville Baptist Church. He has two sons, Rev. Joseph Robert Fox, who served as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Marine Corps and is now a minister in the Virginia Beach area, and James Patrick Fox, who resides in California. Mr. Speaker, Robert Fox is a remarkable man whose contributions to his community and his country as a leader and volunteer have made a difference in people's lives. I know our colleagues join me in honoring his outstanding achievements through his half century of public service.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, some Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] special agents are accorded Merit System Protection Board [MSPB] appeal rights and others are not. This discriminatory policy offends traditional notions of fairness and should change. It is not fair that some agents receive MSPB appeal rights while others do not. Because of my concern about this policy, today I will introduce legislation, the FBI Fairness to Appeal Improvement Act, a copy of which appears at the end of my statement. This simple legislation would amend 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(8) by striking ``the Federal Bureau of Investigation,'' thereby extending certain procedural and appeal rights with respect to certain adverse personnel actions to all employees of the FBI. This legislation corrects the current disparate treatment of nonveteran special agents regarding their ability to appeal adverse personnel actions and ensures the due process rights of all employees of the FBI. Last Congress I introduced a bill, H.R. 2683, the Due Process for FBI Agents Act, with the same language as the measure I am introducing today. This legislation in the 104th Congress was attached to H.R. 3841, the Omnibus Civil Service Reform Act of 1996 which passed the House on September 27, 1996, but did not become law. Special agents of the FBI are loyal civil servants dedicated to protecting Americans from the worst kinds of crime. Their jobs are difficult, demanding, and often dangerous. They are often transferred to posts far from home which demands considerable sacrifice by FBI families. FBI agents are on the front line of the fight against crime. The FBI motto--fidelity, bravery, and integrity--accurately characterizes the manner in which agents approach their important work. These duties are performed by all agents, veteran and nonveteran alike. However, these two categories of agents receive disparate treatment when charged with misconduct. Military veterans are permitted full due process rights including the ability to appeal adverse personnel actions to the MSPB. In other words, veteran agents, who are in the excepted service, receive the same due process rights that employees in the competitive service receive. Nonveteran agents, also members of the excepted service, do not. This means that a veteran agent will receive an outside, independent, objective review of his/her case while a nonveteran agent will not. Is this fair? I maintain that it is not. Furthermore, female special agents are particularly hit hard by this policy because few have served in the military; thus they are not eligible to receive the MSPB appeal rights that veteran agents, who are predominantly men, do. Also, FBI agents should have the same MSPB appeal rights as federal law enforcement agents who work for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs Service, and Border Patrol. As this legislation was considered in the House in the 104th Congress the FBI raised only one objection. The Bureau was concerned about MSPB decisions, in five cases, that a federal agency could not sanction an employee for making false statements to the agency regarding his or her alleged employment-related misconduct. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the MSPB policy. But on December 2, 1997, in the case LaChance v. Erickson, the Supreme Court overturned the ``bad law'' established by the Court of Appeals. The high court held that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Civil Service Reform Act do not preclude a federal agency from sanctioning an employee for making false statements to the agency regarding his or her alleged employment-related misconduct. As a result, the one objection previously voiced by the FBI is no longer applicable. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to maintain the distinction between preference eligible veteran and nonveteran agents. All agents, whether veterans or not, should be treated in a fair and equitable manner. The FBI has considerable experience with the MSPB process available to veteran agents. I am not aware that there has been any particular abuse of the MSPB process by preference eligible agents. Likewise, I do not anticipate that expansion of MSPB rights to all agents would be burdensome on the FBI. There is no room in the modern FBI for discriminatory personnel policies; therefore, nonveteran agents should receive all the rights and enjoy all the privileges accorded to their preference eligible veteran counterparts. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation. I also urge Congressman Mica, chairman of the House Civil Service Subcommittee, to move this legislation as expeditiously as possible. Finally, I include a copy of this bill and a letter from former Congressman Ed Bethune who represents the FBI Agents' Association in support of this legislation in the record immediately following my statement. Ed Bethune & Associates, Washington, DC, March 31, 1998. Hon. Frank Wolf, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman: The FBI Agents Association, a non- governmental professional association, represents over 8000 active duty FBI Special Agents. The association strongly supports your effort to extend Merit System Protection Board appeal rights to all agents. As General Counsel for the association I can tell you that the support for this reform is virtually unanimous among rank and file agents. The association will be working to help you pass this much needed reform in this session of Congress. Again, thanks for your tireless efforts on behalf of the men and women who are on the front line in the battle against crime. Sincerely, Ed Bethune.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there is no greater job than to raise a child, and I believe that's true. Children are our country's greatest resource. Their stability is America's stability, because they are our future. That's why it's so important that as we think and talk about children and families, balancing work and family time, and the decisions families face about how to best care for their children, we need to have all the facts. We need to know what will work for our family. Every family is different. Parents today are facing very tough choices. It seems like there is never enough time to spend with their children, yet they are hard- pressed to work and earn the money they need to make ends meet. American families need more options, more choices and more opportunities as they decide how to balance their work and home responsibilities. There are a lot of reasons for these increased pressures. The American family is under great stress today. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Domestic violence is on the rise. Drug use and suicide among teens is on the rise. And now, we're seeing one of the most heartbreaking tragedies of all--kids killing other kids at our nation's schools. These are tough times for the family. There is an added pressure, and that is that it's so expensive to raise a family these days. The latest issue of U.S. News and World Report's cover story, ``The Real Cost of Raising Kids,'' says that one government report showed that the cost of raising a child to age 18 has risen by 20 percent since 1960. The magazine conducted its own study to see how much it costs a typical, middle-income family today to raise a child from birth to college graduation. The answer: $1.45 million per child. But this figure did not take into account another reason why many families are so hard-pressed for time and money: They are weighed down with an incredible tax burden. The average American family of four used to pay about 5 percent of its income in federal taxes. According to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, federal taxes have gone up faster than wages every year for the last five years, leaving the tax burden on families higher now than at any time since the end of World War II. While families used to pay 5 percent of the family budget in federal taxes, now that figure has ballooned to 23 percent. That doesn't even count state, local and indirect taxes. If you added those on, the tax burden on today's family would be 37 percent. We in Congress need to help moms and dads who are struggling to make ends meet. To do nothing to help lift this incredible tax burden from off of their backs is neither fair nor right. But neither is it fair nor right to merely direct new spending to day care centers or to just expand federal programs. Let's give back to families their own hard- earned. Let them decide how to use it to meet their family's needs. Over the past few months, I've been working with various child and family experts, child psychologists, researchers and groups and have listened to what they had to say. In February, Senator Dan Coats held a congressional symposium on child care and parenting. Other Members of Congress and I heard from 17 different experts, most of whom said the same thing: What parents want and need most is time with their kids, and what kids need and want most is time with their parents. What can we do to help parents and kids receive what they really want and need? Today I am introducing the ``Family Friendly Tax Relief Act of 1998.'' The $500-per-child tax credit for families with children under the age of 17 enacted last year was a great first-step in helping our nation's families. My bill does not take anything away from these families. But what it does do is to recognize the special economic needs of families with preschool children--children ages 0 to 4--by giving these families an additional $500 per child to help them in their care options. If you pay income taxes, you have a child under the age of 5, and you are not currently receiving the Dependent Care Tax Credit, you would be eligible to receive this tax credit. You could receive one or the other--either the DCTC, or my tax credit--but not both. People who do not pay taxes would not be eligible to receive this tax credit because they are already receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit. Last year's child tax credit had a technical problem regarding the Alternative Minimum Tax. There are a lot of people who are not able to receive last year's $500-per-child tax credit, because the Alternative Minimum Tax took precedence. This is a technicality which will grow more and more pronounced over the next few years as more and more people will have to file taxes under the AMT--not just wealthy people looking for tax shelters, but more and more middle-income people who qualify for tax credits. This was a glitch that needed adjusting. My bill will correct this problem so that more families with children will be able to receive a tax credit. Back in January, President Clinton announced his child care proposal, much of which merely expands current government programs. It is my understanding that his proposal would cost the American taxpayer $21 billion over five years. The cost of my legislation would be roughly the same, with one important difference--my bill gives families choices. Now I think we need to do everything we can to help our country's moms and dads who are struggling to raise their families. But I think we could help them more if we would give them back their own money, and let them decide how to best use it to meet their family needs. My proposal will help everyone--parents who work outside the home, parents who work inside the home, parents who use commercial day care, parents who take care of their kids themselves or have relatives or friends care for their children--everyone. I don't believe in a Washington-mandated, ``one-size-fits-all'' solution when it comes to child care. Let's do what is right and fair and equitable for all. Let parents decide how to best care for their children, not Washington. We shouldn't tell parents what to do. Parents want control over their own lives and their own families so they can make their own decisions and choices to be able to spend more time with their children. Let's give parents freedom and flexibility. The Family Friendly Tax Relief Act of 1998 will allow moms and dads who are both working outside the home to take this money and use it to help pay for day care, if they use paid day care. Or, for other families who either have one parent staying home to care for their kids or have relatives, friends or neighbors helping them with child care, they could use this tax credit to help with other family budget needs. But it would be fair, giving back parents' hard-earned money, whether they worked outside or inside the home. I think it's important that whatever we do to help families, it should be fair and equitable for all. Everyone should be treated the same. Parents know that when their kids are small, before they start going to school, they have special needs. They are the most vulnerable during the ages of 0 to 4. Parents know that these are the formative years. As child psychologist Stanley Greenspan and other researchers have observed, intimate, ongoing interactions between children and their parents are essential for the healthy growth and development of the brain and mind, particularly during this critical period of life. This kind of time and care is needed if our children are going to grow up to be reflective citizens and, ultimately, if we are going to have a cohesive, functioning society. Dr. Greenspan and other researchers have found that it is also the crucial period when a child: develops a sense of empathy, compassion, trust and relating, develops the capacity to learn, develops the ability to form language and logical communication, creativity, early types of thinking and social skills, and develops awareness, attention, self-control, and a sense of self. It is because of the incredible importance of these early, preschool years that I am introducing this legislation. Our nation's preschool- aged children have special needs. Their parents are under tremendous pressures. We need to recognize this and help them every way we can. And there is one more thing that I think we need to think about as policymakers. Over and over again, American parents are saying that they need more time with their kids. Moms and dads need more options, more choices and more flexibility in the workplace. Over the years I have focused my work in Congress developing what I call ``family friendly'' policies that give moms and dads those choices. I have sponsored legislation and have long advocated these kinds of policies for the federal government. Some of these now in effect as public law are: 1) Telecommuting. Allowing employees to work at home or at a central telecommuting center nearby equipped with a computer, phone, fax, and other office tools. That allows parents to do their jobs at home or near home and gives them more time to be with their families. The first federal telecommuting center opened several years ago in Winchester in my congressional district, and more are springing up as the idea takes hold. 2) Job Sharing. Splitting job duties to allow employees who want to work part-time the opportunity to be in the workforce and bring home a paycheck, but also to have time to spend with their families, or get an advanced degree, or take care of an aging parent, or fulfill other needs. 3) Leave Sharing. Allowing employees to donate annual leave to help a fellow employee who needs extra time off for their own health needs or to care for family members. It kindles the spirit of community by allowing employees to help out their fellow worker, and its costs the employer nothing. 4) Child Care. Providing on-site or near-site child care centers in federal buildings. It was my legislation several years back that allowed child care centers to be housed in federal buildings to help federal employees and others with child care needs. I have also worked in Congress with others to implement for federal workers the policy of flextime--the staggering of work hours to allow one working parent to come in early while the other gets the kids off to school and comes in later. The earlybird gets off in time to be at home at the end of the school day so that the problem of ``latch-key children'' does not arise. Just as we have implemented these policies in the federal workplace, I think we in Congress need to talk about and to look at what we might be able to do to encourage employers in the private sector to give these kinds of choices and options to their employees as well. Maybe we ought to provide incentives or find ways to reward companies which provide more flexibility in the workplace for their employees. But here in Congress, let's not just expand more government programs. Let's give American families what they really want and need--their own money. Their own choices. Flexibility. Options. The time has come to give all taxpaying families with children broad-based tax reductions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Representative Linda Smith to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 1432). The amendment would require the President to consider, when deciding whether a country is eligible to participate in the trade benefits provided in the bill, whether that country is cooperating with the United States to eliminate slavery in Africa. Real life chattel slavery is not a thing of the past, Mr. Chairman. It exists today in the Sudan--a country I have visited three times. Today, any member here could board a plane, fly to Kenya and get on a transport plane in Lokichokio air base in Northern Kenya. Several hours later, you would land at a remote air strip in Southern Sudan. You would walk several hours through tough, dry and desolate terrain, where you could then visit a slave market where women and children are sold for money. Some for as little as $15 a piece. Slavery in Sudan has been well documented. The State Department has known about it since 1993. I submit for the record a State Department cable which I had declassified in 1993, which states ``credible sources say Government of Sudan forces, especially in the PDF [People's Defense Forces], 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 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.'' In 1996, two Baltimore Sun reporters visited Sudan, bought back children who had been enslaved and returned them to their families. They interviewed former slaves and published a provocative series of articles about their experience. There is no doubt. Slavery is taking place in the Sudan. We must encourage governments to end it. The amendment offered by Representative Smith sends an important message. No trade benefits with the United States until you eliminate this brutal human rights abuse. I urge my colleagues to support it. U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank R. Wolf, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Wolf: Thank you for your letter of May 5, regarding human rights abuses in Sudan. The Embassy in Khartoum provided the information you requested, which is enclosed. Assistant Secretary Moose provided much of this information in his testimony on May 4 to the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa. Sincerely, Robert A. Bradtke, Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. Sudanese Government personnel appear to be perpetrating widespread human rights abuses in parts of the Bahr El Ghazal and the Nuba Mountains. There are recent, credible reports of massacres, kidnapping and forced labor, conscription of children, forced displacement and Arabization, and other abuses in these regions. There is evidence that some abuses, notably kidnapping, may be carried out by poorly-controlled militias without the approval and perhaps against the wishes of the authorities. Other abuses, however, are occurring with a frequency and on a scale that make it difficult to think that they are happening without the knowledge of the authorities. Reliable information on the western ``transition zone''-- south Kordofan, including the Nuba Mountains, and Bahr El Ghazal--is hard to obtain. Access to the area is restricted. Recently, however, there has been evidence from credible, well-informed sources of widespread GOS abuses in this zone. According to several sources, forces of the Government of Sudan regard the entire Bahr El Ghazal south of Babanusa, outside of government-held towns, as an ``operational area.'' Anyone found there is considered a SPLA member or supporter and killed or captured. For example: In late 1992 and in February-March 1993 two military trains, each with about 3,000 troops aboard, proceeded from Babanusa to Wau. Some of the troops were from the army, but most were members of former Arab tribal militias, which the Government of Sudan/National Islamic Front (GOS/NIF) has incorporated into the Popular Defense Forces (PDF). The first train advanced preceded by foot soldiers who killed or captured the civilians on their path. They burned houses, fields, and granaries, and stole thousands of cattle. Hundreds are estimated to have died. The March 1993 train carried horses that extended the soldiers' range. In five days, they reportedly killed almost a thousand persons between Manwal Station and Aweil and captured 300 women and children. The burning of granaries and fields and theft of cattle caused many who escaped the troops to die later of starvation. The sources state that when military convoys moving in the Bahr El Ghazal lose vehicles to SPLA mines, the troops typically burn the first village they find and kill its inhabitants. Credible sources report heavy fighting from December 1992 to March 1993 in the Nuba Mountains, particularly in the Tulisci Range. Fleeing Nubans speak of widespread destruction of villages and killings near Dilling and Kadugli--including a massacre at Belenya, which reportedly was razed. Credible sources say GOS forces, especially 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. While PDF kidnapping of women and children seems recurrent, it is not, however, condoned by all GOS authorities. When the March train from Babanusa arrived in Wau, authorities forced the PDF to release the 300 women and children they had captured. Later that month, army forces at Aweil searched a train of PDF returning from Wau. They found and freed women and children who were being held in boxcars. In early 1993 the PDF captured near Meiram five children between 7 and 12. When a relative learned of their whereabouts and contacted the police, the children were released. Credible sources say that when the March military train to Wau reached Meiram, soldiers raped scores of displaced women. Thousands of displaced are currently reaching northern Kordofan from Bentiu and the Nuba Mountains. Medical workers note an unusually high rate of pregnancies among the women, who say the PDF raped them. There are credible reports of widespread conscription into government militias of children 10 or 11 and above from ``peace camps'' (resettlement camps) in the Nuba Mountains. In late January, 1993, soldiers in El Obeid impressed into the PDF scores of boys 13 and above. (The families, however, later secured the release of the children who could prove they were enrolled in school.) Credible sources state that since November 1992, thousands of displaced Nubans, particularly from the Tulisci, Habila, Koalib, Mendi, Tima, Lagawa, Sellara, Dilling, Kadugli, and Miri areas have been passing through El Obeid. Some are fleeing on their own, but others are being moved by the authorities. The governor of Kordofan has publicly said that the Government has moved many civilians from ``unsafe to secure areas.'' Some 2000 Nubans from En Nahud were left in rags last November outside El Obeid, without money, food, or shelter. Credible sources describe different forms of forced Arabization. Under a policy sometimes known as ``the marriage of fifty,'' Arab soldiers are encouraged to wed southern women they capture. Soldiers who have children from these marriages get special premiums. In displaced camps in Meiram and Abyei, some Islamic charities reportedly offer to feed, clothe, and educate destitute Dinka children--but in return, parents may not have contact with their offspring. Some areas are closed to Christian charities, even indigenous ones, while Muslim charities operate freely. There are reports that thousands died of starvation in Meiram displaced camp last year, while local authorities would not release donated relief food stored in Babanusa. There are consistent, credible reports that the PDF routinely steals large amounts of relief food donated for the displaced. Credible sources state that if the populations in the displaced camps at Meiram, Abyei, and Daeim do not receive food urgently, thousands more will die this year. Some casualty figures and other details may have been exaggerated by frightened and shocked witnesses, but the general tenor of the above reports appears credible. It tracks with fragmentary reports of abuses in the Nuba Mountains and Bahr El Ghazal that have become available from other sources over a period of months. To be fair, it must be said that many of these abuses, including the massacres, kidnapping and forced Arabization, have occurred time and again in these areas for years. Moreover, the reaction of the authorities in specific cases of kidnapping and enslavement suggest that the latter may be the fact of poorly-controlled militias acting without official approval--although, if this is the case, the authorities are derelict for not energetically curbing PDF excess. Other abuses, however, are occurring with a frequency, and, in the case of the massacres in particular, on a scale that make it difficult to think that they are happening without the knowledge of the Government of Sudan.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, one of the nation's capital area's most popular morning radio personalities recently reached a milestone in broadcasting at WMAL-AM 630. Frank Harden, now co-host of the ``Harden, Brant and Parks'' morning show, celebrated his 40th anniversary with WMAL on December 24, 1997. In announcing that momentous occasion, WMAL also said that Frank Harden has renewed his contract for another three years and will continue to be heard on WMAL on a limited basis while spending some well-deserved leisure time at his homes in Sweden and Maryland. That's good news for the thousands of listeners, including presidents and members of Congress, who have spent their mornings with Frank Harden for several decades. Many will recall the morning team of Frank Harden and Jackson Weaver. In 1959, Frank Harden auditioned with his late partner Jackson Weaver for the WMAL-AM morning team position. They won the affections of management and more importantly, Washington area listeners, and what began as a 13-week trial contract became the longest running two-man program in the history of radio. I had the pleasure of working with Harden and Weaver in the early 1980's, soon after I came to Congress. Faced with the closure of the popular Turkey Run Farm Park in the 10th Congressional District of Virginia because of budget cutbacks, people in the district mobilized to save Turkey Run. We went on the air with Harden and Weaver, who helped spur the community on with their daily reports on the importance of the park to school children in the area. And when Harden and Weaver spoke, folks listened. Needless to say, Turkey Run Farm was saved and remains open today. After the passing of Jackson Weaver in 1992, Harden was paired with sportscaster Tim Brant, and later former airborne reporter Andy Parks. The Harden, Brant and Parks brand of friendly humor, helpful information and wit has been waking up Northern Virginia, District of Columbia and Maryland listeners for over five years now. Frank Harden, a native of Macon, Georgia, began his radio career at WSAV in Savannah. Prior to joining WMAL's staff on December 24, 1947, Harden worked in Atlanta and Denver, and as an announcer for network radio shows including ``The Lone Ranger'' and ``The Edward P. Morgan Show.'' During his years with WMAL, Frank Harden has received awards such as the March of Dimes A.I.R. Lifetime Achievement Award, performed community involvement that is without equal, raised millions of dollars for Children's Hospital, made thousands upon thousands of announcements and personal appearances for community, civic, and church events, and sent many thoughtful, personal wishes to his faithful listeners. The ``Harden and Weaver'' program enjoyed ratings successes like no other morning drive-time show, and ``Harden, Brant and Parks'' consistently ranks near the top among morning listeners. Said WMAL President and General Manager Tom Bresnahan, upon the occasion of Frank Harden's 50th anniversary at the station, ``We're thrilled to have Frank as part of the WMAL family. He's a class act!'' Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Frank Harden is a class act. We offer our congratulations to him with our best wishes and hope that we will continue to hear his voice gracing the Washington airwaves for many more years to come.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 202, the Equitable Child Care Resolution. There's been a lot of talk about child care over the last few months, and I think that's good. It's good that we're talking about this subject. But my question is, is it fair and right to give tax credits only to those parents who use paid day care for their children? What about those who have made the decision to either be home with their kids, or who have their relatives caring for their children? There are a lot of different child care proposals on the table right now, and there will probably be more to come. The administration has laid out its child care proposal. But there is something that all of these proposals have in common: They are all trying to help families, but only those families who use commercial day care. But what I would like to see is fairness for the families who don't fall under that category. The fact is, at-home care of children is not just a thing of the past in some ``Leave It To Beaver'' world. The majority of families with preschool-aged kids are either caring for the children themselves or are having relatives take care of the kids. Some of these parents are working part-time, or working in ``tag-team'' shifts so they can both have time with their kids and avoid having to pay for someone else to care for them. Some of them have grandma or grandpa taking care of their children, or an aunt or uncle. According to the most recent information that we have from the Census Bureau, only about a third of children under the age of 5 are in some form of paid day care while the mother works outside the home. Is it really fair to only give tax relief to that one-third of American families? What can we do to help the other two-thirds of families? Let's not forget about them. The American family is under great financial pressure today. And a lot of that pressure is due to the burden of taxes. Who is being hit the hardest? Families with children. These last 50 years have meant a huge increase in the tax burden being placed on these Americans. In 1948, for example, a mom and dad with four kids only paid a mere 3 percent of their family income to the federal government in direct taxes. But last year, that figure had jumped dramatically. In fact, that same family had to pay almost a quarter of its income to Uncle Sam! (When you include state, local and indirect taxes, that 1997 figure leaps to about 38 percent.) This is ridiculous. And something has to be done about it. Why are we penalizing people for getting married and having children? And why, as we talk about child care proposals, are we penalizing those who are sacrificing even more by staying at home or having relatives take care of their kids? And that's why I stand here to give my support to the Equitable Child Care Resolution, H. Con. Res. 202. I urge my Colleagues to take this step to ensure that all families will be treated fairly as we continues these discussions about day care.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to speak on what has been happening in the country lately. It is not about impeachment of the President or prosecution of the President; it is about what is on my mind and my conscience. First of all, for all the clamor in the press and on radio and TV about allegations swirling around the President, there has been a blanket of silence on the part of many who ought to provide commentary on the moral tone of this country. And I am not sure why there has been this silence. Perhaps there is a ``do not rock the boat'' feeling. Times are good and let us just sweep this under the rug and not focus on the moral aspects of this. Perhaps the talk of impeachment and prosecution, which I think have been gotten out there too early, may have preempted those who might have felt obligated to comment on the moral issue and its impact on the leadership of the country. Their reluctance was not evident in earlier cases. The young woman who flew the Air Force B-52s. The military general passed over for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Tailhook scandal, which touched a number of senior Navy officials. Charges against a former Senator who resigned. A Supreme Court nominee and a Presidential candidate and others brought a tidal wave of comment from every corner of America. In America, a person is innocent until proven guilty. But we are not talking about a court of law. We are talking about right and wrong. We must give the President the benefit of the doubt. But let us not say that these things do not matter, because they do. They are at the very heart of honor, integrity, character and leadership. What a person does in private affects the type of person he or she is in public, and a leader has an obligation to take responsibility for his or her actions and not try to explain them away or blame others. If, indeed, we have lost the capacity to distinguish vice from virtue, if we believe that private behavior has no public consequences, if we believe that our Nation's leaders do not have to be good or moral and righteous men and women who live by the truth, then we abandon the very heritage of this Nation. I believe America ought to expect more from its leaders, and I think most of the American people agree. If, as has been the case for ages, kids want to grow up to be President of the United States, then like it or not the person holding that title has a special responsibility, and we have every right to hold him or her accountable to that duty. Saying Americans do not care just does not wash with me. Truth is something we have always honored in this country. We teach our children from an early age to be truthful. George Washington's birthday is coming soon, and we have long told the story about him admitting to cutting down the cherry tree, where he said, I cannot tell a lie. When any President takes office, there is an implied promise that he or she will level with the people, that he or she will be honest with them. A solemn bond of trust has always existed between the President and its people. And it must always be that way. Every President has an obligation to tell the whole truth. If Richard Nixon had told the whole truth and had asked the American people for forgiveness, I believe he would have been forgiven. Today there is a pall of doubt over the Presidency. Not being forthcoming with whatever the truth may be leaves doubt about the bond of trust between the President and the people and keeps open the question of fitness to serve in high office. The only way America can put this behind us once and for all is to be assured that when the President speaks, he is telling the truth. I hope this President can give this assurance. If President Clinton tells the American people the whole truth and needs forgiveness, I believe he will be forgiven. But let us remember, all of us, all of us err and make mistakes, including me. No one, not one is perfect. But for forgiveness and healing to take place, there must first be confession and truth, and then we can move on.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 137, which condemns the government of Iraq for its continued reign of terror against the Kurds, and that is what it has basically been for the last several years, a reign of terror that unfortunately the West has not focused on. But with this resolution and with the effort that the Kurds are now making, I think more and more people are focusing on it. What this would do is encourage the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and the other Iraqi officials for their crimes against humanity. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and the other Members for sponsoring this resolution. Hopefully this resolution will send a message not only through the United States, but to the Kurdish population around the world and particularly in that area, that the United States Congress, the people's House, cares very, very deeply. Iraq is a bad actor government. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who cares about nothing more than hanging onto his power. He has persecuted the people of Iraq. He is engaging in a dangerous showdown with the West. He is not afraid to murder members of his own family who threaten to tell the truth about his brutality or threaten his reign. He is seeking to wipe out the Kurds of northern Iraq who are trapped because of their geography. The Kurds of northern Iraq have nowhere to go to escape their plight. They have been and are being murdered, imprisoned, tortured and repressed. Hopefully with this resolution, sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and supported by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and so many other Members, it will send a message to Saddam Hussein that the West cares, and send a message to the Kurds that are going through this problem that we deeply care and that we stand with them.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled and puzzled and disappointed that the House tonight has decided to take up this resolution with regard to the Church of Scientology in Germany when the House has decided not to bring up the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, a bill that I sponsored along with 96 other Members of the House. While we are debating this resolution tonight, millions of Christians in Tibet, Buddhists in Tibet, Buddhists, Ahmadis in other countries, the Baha'is in Iran, Muslims in China and people of other faith are being brutalized, killed, raped, tortured and maimed because of their beliefs, and yet the House does not deal with this issue and they deal with this issue with regard to this resolution. There is real life slavery. In Sudan tonight they are going into slave markets and taking people out, and the House does not deal with that issue, but yet it deals with this issue. In Egypt Coptic Christians are being persecuted today as we now speak. The House does not deal with that issue, but it deals with this issue. In closing, I am troubled and puzzled and very disappointed. If we are going to take up this resolution tonight, we basically are saying these other issues should be taken care of, and they are not being taken care of. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled and disappointed that the House of Representatives has decided to take up the resolution on the Scientologists in Germany when the House has decided not to bring up the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, a bill I sponsored with Senator Arlen Specter. The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act has over 96 bipartisan cosponsors and deals with persecution against people of all faiths in all countries around the world. While we are debating this resolution today, millions of Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, Ahmadis, Bahai's, Muslims and other people of faith are being brutalized--killed, raped, tortured, and maimed--because of their religious belief and practice. Why won't the House speak out for them in this first session of the 105th Congress. In China, Catholic bishops and priests are in jail and being tortured. Protestant pastors and laypeople are in jail and being tortured. Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns are in jail and being tortured and killed. In Xinjiang Province in Northwest China, Muslim Uighurs are being persecuted. In Sudan, 1.2 million people from the South, who are predominately Christians and animists, have died in the decade-old conflict. There is crucifixion taking place in the Nuba Mountains. Christian women and children are kidnapped and sold into slavery. I have submitted for the record excerpts from a recent trip report of Christian Solidarity International, an international humanitarian organization with vast experience in Sudan. On their recent trip, CSI representative talked to dozens of women and children and heard of their ordeal. They talked with slave traders and visited slave markets. One woman, a 20-year old mother, told of her ordeal when she was enslaved in May, 1997. She told CSI I was sitting in my compound early in the morning when armed men on horseback surrounded my home. they came without warning. I did not try to run away because there was no escape. One of the raiders lashed me and took me away with my child. As we left, I could see the raiders looting everything I owned, and setting my home on fire. I was taken to another village for some hours and was then forced to carry sorghum on my head. When I could walk no further, my captor, took my child and tied her on a horse. [My captor] often insulted me, calling me ``slave'' and he would beat me with a stick. He accused me of being lazy and refusing to obey orders. He used me as a concubine. Real life slavery of Christians in Sudan. 1.2 million people have died. But the House of Representatives will not speak out for them today. In Egypt, Coptic Christians are killed, forced to pay ``protection money'' to local thugs, harassed and sometimes imprisoned. In Pakistan, Christian villages have been burned, devastating the lives of tens of thousands. Ahmadi Muslims are being persecuted. In Vietnam, Christians and Buddhists are being persecuted. And there are many other examples around the world. Why will this Congress not take up the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act--a bill that would cut off foreign aid to governments that kill, rape, torture, enslave or engage in other gross acts of violence against religious believers. We should speak out for these religious believers today. There was a promise by the speaker to 40 religious leaders in August that the bill would be a ``must do'' item. He said ``this is one of the top priorities of this Republican Congress.'' Why take up this resolution to help Scientologists in Germany, but not bring up a bill that would help millions of people of faith in dozens of other countries around the world? The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act is supported by the groups representing the vast majority of America's religious believers. It is supported by the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Conference and the International Campaign for Tibet among others. It is also supported by the American Coptic Association, the Assyrian National Congress, the Catholic Alliance, Christian Coalition, Evangelicals for Social Action, Family Research Council, Iranian Christians International, National Jewish Coalition, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Pakistani-American Christian Association, World Lebanese Organization, World Maronite Union-USA, and the South Sudan Community of the U.S. In May, over 90 religious leaders wrote to House leadership endorsing the measure and I submit that letter in the record. I also submit recent letters from the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference and Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism in support of the bill. When he met with the religious leaders in August, Speaker Gingrich said ``As Speaker of the House, I will continue to use my bully pulpit to speak out for those who are unable to speak for themselves.'' Mr. Speaker, please use that bully pulpit and your extraordinary power as Speaker of the House to bring up the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act early in the next session. It's puzzling and it's disappointing that this resolution is being brought up but the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act is not. Draft Preliminary Report: Visit to North-Eastern Bahr El Ghazal, Sudan october 8-12, 1997 Slavery in Sudan The primary objective of this visit was to develop CSI's work to combat contemporary slavery in Sudan. CSI had received various unconfirmed reports of the practice of slavery on early visits to Sudan. But it was not until we visited Nyamlell in Aweil West County briefly in May 1995 that we discovered slavery as a flourishing and widespread institution. We learnt that on March 25 1995 the Popular Defense Forces (PDF) of Sudan's ruling National Islamic Front (NIF) regime attacked Nyamlell, killing 82 civilians, enslaving 282 women and children; burning dwellings and looting cattle and grain. Since then, CSI has returned 8 times to this area and has visited other locations in northern Bahr El Ghazal, such as Malwal Akon in Aweil East County and Turalei in Gogrial County, to obtain further data on slavery. During these fact- finding missions, we have interviewed slaves, slave traders, PDF officers and the families of people who are still enslaved. We have accumulated an abundance of evidence to prove beyond doubt that chattel slavery thrives in these parts of Sudan and that the NIF regime actively encourages it. See reports of CSI visits to Sudan: May-June 1995; August 1995; October 1995; April-May 1996; June 1996, October- November 1996, March 1997 and June 1997. The evidence obtained during this visit amplifies our previous findings about the pattern of the slave trade. Interviews with some of the newly redeemed slaves give an indication of their experiences during enslavement. (i) Ayen Deng Ding from Akek Rot near Marial Bai. Her village was attacked 4 years ago. When the raiders came, she was in her home with her 10- year old daughter Ajok Garang. She saw the horses coming and started to run but she and her little girl were caught by a horseman. She was beaten (she showed us scars on her arms), tied with a rope and taken North to Abu Matarik, where she was handed over to another man. She was separated from her daughter, but they were nearby. When the trader came to negotiate her release, she told him about her daughter and he managed to secure her release also. During her 4 years of slavery, she was treated very badly: subjected to beatings while caring for the cattle; she also had to cook, fetch water, carry firewood, wash clothes and work in the garden. She was not given enough food--only leftovers--and was constantly hungry. She saw other slaves being beaten, 4 of whom died--3 men and 1 woman. She was raped repeatedly on the forced march north, but her owner only raped her once. I lost hope I would ever see my home again, but I just prayed to God. I was so happy when I saw the trader coming, I began to dare to hope. But many other slaves are still left behind. She now has only her daughter left; her husband was killed in the raid. She has gone to live with relatives, but she also lives with the fear that the raiders will come again. She asked us to convey this message: We are so happy now we are feeling free. Thank you for what you have done for us. The problem remains and there are still people left behind as slaves, but we are comforted because when we saw you we felt you care for us very much. When we arrived here, we were so relieved and happy we had could meet in a secure environment, to engage in politically legitimate activities which are banned by the NIF in the North. Expectations had been raised during previous visits of Umma Party representatives and disappointment was expressed over the delay in fulfilling them. Several more Arabs expressed similar sentiments, which can be summarized in the words of two of their spokesmen: We are the supporters of the Umma Party. We are Ansars, not NIF. We are rivals of the NIF, but the leaders of the Umma Party have been unseen and unheard for a long time. This has enabled the NIF to recruit our people. NIF Recruitment Policies: Another spokesman claimed that the training and arming of Arab citizens by the NIF over 4 or 5 years has been very intensive. But after receiving the messages from the Umma Party leadership, this has slowed down, although there are still bad elements in society who are tempted by greed still to participate in the raids. Because of their difficulty in recruiting raiders, the NIF are now recruiting school children from about 15 years of age to fight in the PDF. So-called ``co-ordinators'' from the regular Army are used to round up children from schools. There are many children now at the military headquarters at Daien. Airplanes come to take the children away and they are never seen again. All tribes in Darfur are affected. It is Omer El Bashir who gives orders for the rounding up of children. The ones who actually do it are the Security forces and the police, but they are just obeying orders. Living Conditions in Darfur: These are very, very bad in Nyala, Daien and other towns. We have no choice but to migrate. Nomads and everyone else are badly affected. A 20- litre barrel of fresh drinking water is K3,000 (Sudanese pounds), a portion of bread is K250 (SP), 2cc of penicillin cost K4,000 (SP), while the maximum pay a labourer or clerk is K20-25,000 (SP) per month. A consultation with a doctor, just for diagnoses, not for treatment costs K20,000 (SP). Here is proof that life in Darfur is unbearable: I am an old man and I had to walk through water for 7 days carrying heavy loads to trade with the Dinka--this shows just how bad conditions are in Darfur. The meeting concluded with a final message from Ali Mahmoud Dudein: Recruitment to the PDF has diminished, because of CSI's work to promote peace and reconciliation. The NIF can still recruit, but not like before. We camped overnight at Manyiel. friday, october 10 We walked on from Manyiel to Majak Bai, the village we visited in June, shortly after it had suffered from a major raid (CSI field trip report of June 1997). During that raid, the school was burnt to the ground. On this occasion we met the headteacher again, Aguek Manjok. He described the situation: there had been 300 children in the school but some disappeared as a result of the raid. During the attack, everything was burnt: the building, all the books and every piece of equipment: there was absolutely nothing left. They now urgently need teaching resources for their curriculum of English, Maths, Geography, History, Science, Hygiene and Religious Education, with text books to cover levels P1-8. At present, he said, we can only teach what is in our minds and that is not enough. There is also a need for help to send people for teacher training. There is a centre for Aweil West County in Majong Akon. NB. The need for professional education/updating was repeated many times. One specific request, which we would support, was made by Simon Kuot, the nurse/medical co- ordinator based at Nyamlell. We have seen him at work and been very impressed by the standard of professional competence he displays (e.g. treating the serious casualties from the raids). His area of responsibility is very large and makes many professional demands. We hope it will be possible for to dance. Although we were beaten and humiliated and though there are still problems here, like shortages of medicines, these are not real problems--we can cope with those. We are so happy to be back. (ii) Abuk Atak from Panlang near Marial Bai. 3 years ago her village was attacked and she was beaten by an Arab with a gun during the raid. She had her 18-month old daughter with her, but lost her in the raid and has never seen her again. After being taken North, she was sold to Anur Mohammed in Abu Matarik in Southern Darfur. She was raped every day, sometimes many times, by different people; if she did not submit voluntarily, she was beaten. Clearly embarrassed by talking about her ordeals, fidgeting anxiously with dead leaves, she said she had been subjected to circumcision. But she would talk about it because ``I can't deny the facts. We were subjected to torture and suffering and I can't deny our humiliation.'' She never thought she would be able to come home again and during those 3 years she lost all hope. But now she is home, she said: We were left with nothing after the raids; we lost our homes, our crops were burnt, our cattle stolen, we have not even any clothes . . . but there is no problem which we cannot endure. (iii) Acol Bak, aged 12 from Panlang, who assured us at the outset that she was not afraid to talk about here experiences. 4 years ago she was at home in the early morning; Arabs suddenly appeared and she was surrounded by horses. He mother managed to escape but she and her elder brother were caught and taken to Gross near Abu Matarik. She doesn't know what happened to her brother. On the walk North she was forced to carry looted property on her head; they were given no water and could only drink from muddy puddles; neither were they given any food during the 3-day forced march. She was beaten and her right arm was broken. She was forced to do housework from morning until night and beaten by all the family if she ever complained of tiredness. She had to sleep outside with no bedding, just trying to keep warm by a fire. One month after her arrival in her owner's home, an old woman came to circumcise her. She was told that unless she was circumcised she would not be a human being; she would be just ``like a dog''. She knew other girls who had also been circumcised. She said she was very, very happy to be home again and for the people who brought her back. She is living only with her mother as her father had been killed in the raid and her brother has not been found. (iv) Acol Anei Bak from Panlang was caught by surprise when the enemy attacked her village 4 years ago, when she was about 8 years old. Her brother, aged about 12, was caught at the same time and she does not know what happened to him. She was taken to Pielel, near Nyala, where she was sold to a man called Amsal Abrahaman. She was forced to help to care for the 5 children in the family, especially with washing them, and to look after cattle and horses. The children were very unfriendly and would not speak to her. She was circumcised, and told that this was being done to her because the owner wanted her to be an Arab. (v) Ayen Ding Yel from Akek Rot near Marial Bai was captured in May this year. She showed us her foot which was injured when a horse trod on it during the raid; she was also shot and showed us the scar caused by the bullet which injured her left knee. She was initially left behind, after she was injured, but then another Arab put her on his horse and took her to Abu Matarik. She was badly treated and beaten whenever she asked for food. Her owner asked her why she needed food--saying she did not deserve food. She said she never dreamt that she would be free again and that her mother was overjoyed to see her yesterday. (vi) Nyibol Yel Akuei is a 20-year old mother. Three of her children have starved to death. Her only surviving child is a one-year-old daughter, Abuk. The mother and daughter were enslaved during the PDF raid on Majak Bai on May 16, 1997. Nyibol explained what had happened to them: I was sitting in my compound early in the morning when armed men on horseback surrounded my home. They came without any warning. I did not try to run away because there was no escape. One of the raiders lashed me and took me away with my child. As we left, I could see the raiders looting everything I owned, and setting my home on fire. I was taken to another village for some hours and then was forced to carry sorghum on my head. When I got tired and could not walk further, my captor, Mahmoud Abaker, took my child and tied her on a horse. I walked for seven days to Abu Matarik. There, I had to work from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 pm. My jobs were to carry water from the pump, clean the compound and wash clothing. Mahoud Abaker often insulted me, calling me ``slave'' and he would beat me with a stick. He accused me of being lazy and refusing to obey orders. He also used me as a concubine. Mahmoud Abaker told me that I should practice Muslim prayers. I had trouble praying in Arabic, so they gave me some training. Abuk was renamed Miriam. I was not allowed to go far from the compound. Mahmoud Abaker may have had other slaves at his cattle camp, but I never saw them. He had no other slaves in the compound. One day, I was told to leave the compound with a trader. I was afraid to go. They told me I would go back to southern Sudan. I didn't believe them, but went anyway. I was very happy to see you and to find that you spoke nicely to us and are not going to do something terrible to us. My husband is now away trying to find food. When he comes back we will find a new place to live. (vii) 11-year-old War Weng is also from Majak Bai. He was enslaved in 1994 when he was fishing with his father. A group of raiders came and snatched him, while his father managed to run away. He recalled his life as both the chattel slave of a master and a inmate in a radical Islamic youth indoctrination centre: I was taken to Daien by Musa Osman. My jobs there were to clear cattle dung and take the calves to the river. I received only left-overs to eat and sour milk to drink. After a year or so, I was taken from Musa Osman to a big camp in the town where you can see the light even at night. There were big lights over the compound. There were a lot of boys in this compound. All of them were Dinka boys. We all were given uniforms. This compound was run by the Salsabil organisation. (War Weng was wearing a uniform with the Salsabil logo). Every morning we would wake up early and gather in one place to pray. Then we were taught the Koran for the rest of the morning. At about mid-day we were given food and allowed to rest. From 3:00 until the evening there was more learning. The most important teacher there was Abdel Rahman. None of us were allowed to speak Dinka. We had to speak Arabic all the time. I was beaten for speaking Dinka with my friends. One day, one of the teachers told me and three others to go to the river with a man and his horses. I thought he was going to take us to a new master. Instead he brought us back home. I did not like the camp. It is very good to be back here. Now I am not beaten. I expect to go back to my father. He has already visited me one and given me some food. (viii) Atoc Diing is about 11 or 12 years old. She was enslaved during the raid on Majak Bai last May. She recounted: We heard gunfire early in the morning. My Mother said run quickly. We ran towards the river. When we got there, we found Arabs all around us. We couldn't run anymore. My Mother stopped and started to cry. One of the raiders came towards us and beat my mother. She fell down. I was taken away and put on horseback. I was taken from place to place before we reached Abu Matarik. There, my captor, Ali Abdullah sold be to another. After four days, I was sold again to another man. His name was Mohammed. He took me to his home in the small village of Gumbilai, near Abu Matarik. I had to fetch water and firewood, and clean. They gave me milk to drink everyday, but some days they gave me no food at all. The young sons of Mohammed were very rough with me. They would beat me, and they tried to have sex with me. But they did not succeed. Mohammed has many slaves. Most of them were in the cattle camp. He has three female slaves at his house. Now that I am back, I will go to live with my sister. My father is dead, and my mother went North to look for me and has not yet returned. Interview with casualty of the PDF's May 1997 raid on Majak Bai, the 28-year-old mother, Adel Lake. She was evacuated by CSI to the ICRC hospital in Lokichokio in Kenya last June. The ICRC was not able to evacuate her because the NIF regime has suspended its operations inside Sudan since November 1996. This has meant that thousands of casualties have died slowly, painfully and needlessly from easily treatable wounds. Adel Lake returned to Bahr El Ghazal with her health restored while we were there. She told us: When the enemy came we were in our tukul. We heard gunshots. I picked up my twin one-month-old babies and ran away to hide. I could not also carry by three-year-old son, Wek Wol, and he was left behind. I hid in the bushes together with my sister-in-law and some other people. The Arab soldiers spotted us and started firing their guns. Everything was in a mess and confused. I was show in the leg and lost consciousness. When I regained consciousness, I could not walk. The bullet had badly fractured my thigh. I was horrified to find that my tukul had been burnt down, and that my son, who had remained inside, had been burnt alive. I also discovered that my sister-in-law had been shot dead. I was weak and sick for many weeks after being shot. I was in a lot of pain and could not look after my babies by myself. I did not believe that help would come. I thought I would never get better. When you came and found me in my bed I felt very happy and believed that you would do something to help me. At the hospital, they made my leg better. The wound and fracture is healed, but I still feel some pain. Please give my greetings to all of those who helped me. Saturday, October 11, departed Nyamlell and arrived in Malwal Akon; Interviews with ex-slaves (i) Mabior Aguik Deng From Kurwech, near Warawar, aged about 12, was taken when he was much younger and sold to an owner called Mohammed. He was forced to work as a cattle herder; given very little food; had to sleep under a plastic sheet at night. The worst thing about being a slave was being taken away from his family and not seeing them for such a long time. He was saved by a trader and returned to his home in September. (ii) Mahid Kuot Mou from the village of Kurwech. When the PDF came with their horses, he tried to hide but was caught and bound and forced to go `footing' for many days, during which they were given very little food and water. He was sold to another owner whose name was Abdullah. He was forced to look after cattle, and lashed if he made any mistakes. He had to sleep under a plastic sheet at night and given only sorghum to eat. He was beaten with bamboo sticks which was very painful. He was given the name of Mohammed. He also had to collect the water. When he went out to collect the water, the local boys were very cruel to him. They used to force him to crawl and rode on his back, calling him a horse. When he was returned by the trader, some relatives recognized him and took him home. They were very, very happy to see him and celebrated his return by killing a chicken. (iii) Yak Mawien Yak from the village of Rum Marial. When he heard the enemy coming, he ran away to hid with his father but his father was killed. Looking down at the ground, he spoke reluctantly about this: The enemy slaughtered my father with knives. They took me to the horses after beating me. During the beating they asked me where other people were and I said there was only my father around. We spent two days walking to the Arab area and the owner of the horses kept me and made me work for him. The raider who killed his father and took him with him said: I am now you father and now you are my enemy; so if you do not take my advice and come with me I will kill you; otherwise you can become my son. He slept in the same shelters as the goats and sheep, he was only given uncooked sorghum to eat; one day another local boy attacked him with a knife and wounded him (he showed us his scar); a small girl came to help him. If his owner shouted for him and he did not hear him, the owner would beat him with a stick, calling him stupid. He was forced to walk long distances to collect water and to pound grain. He was given the name of Mahmoud after being forced to pray in a mosque. All slaves are forced to go and pray in a mosque, he said. He was away from home for seven years and almost forgot about his own family. But, he said, with a very big smile, he is very, very happy to be back with them. (iv) Yak Deng Yak from the village of Warawar. His family's original herd of cattle had been stolen by Arab raiders, and the family was in such difficult circumstances that he was going with his mother to seek help from the UN in Meiram. On the Meiram. On the way they were captured in an ambush by Arab raiders. He was separated from his mother and taken to an Arab village. A girl used to steal `good food' for him. When the people saw that the girl was friendly with him they sent him to work in the field where he had to cultivate ground nuts and to sleep on his own. He was given sorghum and water and some days he was beaten with a stick. His owner was called Ibrahim, who forced him to attend the mosque; if he did not `do properly' in the mosque he was beaten. He has been away from home for four years until an Arab came and bought him. His mother was also in the same area and recruiting our men into the PDF. But that was now over one year ago. We want to have more frequent contact with our leaders in the Umma Party. Please convey our warmest greetings to Sayeed Sadiq El Mahdi and Mubarak El Fadil.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, and distinguished colleagues, today I rise to acknowledge the work of John N. Sturdivant, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, who died October 28 after a long battle with leukemia. I admired Mr. Sturdivant for his committed advocacy on behalf of the Federal worker. Having first-hand knowledge of how very difficult it can be at times to be an outspoken friend of the Federal worker, I rise to commend his convictions and integrity in championing the national service of the Federal employee. All too often, hard working and dedicated Federal employees become the target of unfair treatment from both the Government and citizens they serve. Nevertheless, their work is essential and vital to our constituents. Mr. Sturdivant recognized their value to this country and thus dedicated his career to their advocacy. Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to extend my sympathy and prayers to the family and friends of Mr. Sturdivant as we mourn the loss of this friend of the Federal worker.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong, strong support of this bill. I would hope it could be almost passed with a unanimous vote, because it is important to note, the Chinese Government is watching really today. In fact, this debate right now is being watched in Beijing. This debate right now is being watched up on Connecticut Avenue at the Chinese Embassy. What is said here and what tabulation up on both of these things and the tabulation on the board at the end is a message to the Chinese Government that they will get literally in about a half hour from now. The message is the body is divided, or the message is that we are together. There is major, major persecution. I almost feel it is a redundancy to say, but there are probably six or seven Catholic bishops in jail today as we meet. And all the people that gave the announcement, including the administration, that Bishop Su was out of jail, it is just not true. He is not out of jail. In fact, we have a press release dated today that says Bishop Su is still in jail. It says he was never released, as reported by the news agency. He is now being held in the detention center. So he is not out of jail. They are also persecuting the Protestant Church. There have been a number of Protestant pastors who have been arrested. For those in this body who maintain that they care about diversity, they are persecuting a lot of Muslims in China in addition to we all know what they are doing with regard to Tibet. Mr. Speaker, I just urge that we pass this vote with, hopefully, a unanimous vote or almost a unanimous vote, knowing that the Chinese in Beijing are watching and the Chinese up at the Chinese Embassy are watching, and also the people of China. And can my colleagues imagine, if they were the loved one of a Catholic bishop or a Catholic priest or a Protestant pastor or a Buddhist monk or a Buddhist nun, and they heard that the United States Congress, the people's House, had passed this resolution by an overwhelming vote with regard to, free the clergy, can we imagine the inspiration that we would get? So I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the other gentleman that worked on this bill for their support.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the others for this. Before I begin, let me just say outright, I am worried that this administration and this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are becoming an economic-driven party that cares very little with regard to some of these fundamental values. And I know there are good people on both sides, but I worry every time I hear about things, it is economic, economic, economic, economic, and very little about the passion and the compassion and what is going on with regard to that. So this is a good bill, but will the administration enforce it? Will they do anything about it? I just do not know. Now I want to say what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith) said. I happened to be with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith) in Beijing Prison No. 1. We have socks in my office that I picked up off the line and we had analyzed. They were for export to the United States. They had golfers on the sides of the socks. They do not play golf in China. Certainly they did not play golf in 1991. Secondly, we have got to know that there are more gulags in China today than there were when Solzhenitsyn wrote the book that was a profound book, ``Gulag Archipelago.'' There are more gulags in China today than there were during his time. Fifty million people have been through them; 6 to 8 million people are going through them today. And what items? Toys, artificial flowers, Christmas decorations, and the birth of Christ, the birth of Christ, Jesus at Christmastime, and more of the Christmas decorations are made with regard to slave labor. In fact, as I will tell my colleagues, there are Members in this body and there are Members that are watching that have goods. Some of my colleagues are wearing goods; they do not know it; many of my colleagues have it at home, with regard to artificial flowers, with regard to cotton goods that are made in slave labor camps. Two million dollars; it is good. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. I doubt, though, whether this administration, and let me just say the Bush administration was no better, the Bush administration was no better in enforcing these, and the Customs officials at the administration were no better, and this administration has been a disaster. In fact, it took them 2 years to go into Beijing Prison No. 1, and finally, when they went in, they had removed all the evidence. There are gulags, there are goods coming over. This will be a good first step. I just hope and pray, after we pass it with an overwhelming vote, that it will go over to the Senate with such a majority vote, such a lead vote, that Mr. Lott and others will pick it up and pass it whereby we can take the whole package and then do something whereby the people that are in the camps know that the United States Congress has spoken out and has done something constructive.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to salute Virginia's Governor, my Governor, George Allen and his wife Susan Allen for their eloquence, their grace and their conviction in speaking out on behalf of universal human principles and democracy as the Chinese President visited at Colonial Williamsburg. Mrs. Allen in remarks at yesterday's luncheon for the Chinese President noted, ``Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom and our Declaration of Independence. Virginia is proud that one of its sons wrote words that are universal in their meaning for all people, declaring that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' In an earlier letter to President Zemin, Governor Allen wrote, ``Williamsburg offers a unique insight into America's courageous and spirited beginning here in our blessed Commonwealth of Virginia. May this treasured setting provide you with a greater understanding of and appreciation for the universal human principles upon which America is built: freedom, liberty, and representative democracy.'' I salute Governor Allen and Mrs. Allen for their willingness to speak in a clear voice on the core principles that has made America good. I just hope that the Chinese President heard them. Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from Governor Allen to President Jiang for the Record.