Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit an AFP article detailing a tragic story which illustrates the Chinese government's callousness and utter disregard for basic human rights. AFP reports that China repatriated an 81-year old former South Korean prisoner of war who fled North Korea literally decades after first being captured. China regularly repatriates North Korean refugees, in violation of their international obligations oftentimes sending these individuals back to certain punishment and possible death. The Chinese government simply doesn't care. China Sends S. Korean POW Back to N. Korea Seoul.--China has repatriated an 81-year-old former South Korean prisoner of war who had fled North Korea decades after being captured, a newspaper report and an activist said Tuesday. Dong-A Ilbo quoted an unidentified government official as saying the man surnamed Jung was sent back despite intensive diplomatic efforts by Seoul to bring him to the South. A foreign ministry spokeswoman said she had no information. ``The government made tremendous diplomatic efforts but he was eventually sent back to the North,'' the source was quoted as saying. South Korea had contacted Chinese diplomatic authorities more than 50 times since Jung's arrest, the daily said. Choi Sung-Yong, an activist who campaigns for the return of South Korean abductees, said Jung was forcibly returned to the North in September last year, about a month after being arrested in China where he was hiding. He said Jung was arrested eight days after he fled the North with the help of South Korean activists. China repatriates escapees from North Korea as illegal immigrants even though they can face harsh punishment back home. By Seoul's official account 494 South Koreans, mostly fishermen, were seized in the Cold War decades following the war. Seoul also says more than 500 prisoners of war were never sent home after the Korean War armistice was signed on July 27, 1953. North Korea denies holding any southerners against their will, even though some have managed to escape from the hunger-stricken country.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Yesterday the House passed a supplemental appropriations bill under suspension of the rules. I think--and I would ask somebody to look--I think this Congress, and every Congress has a history and has a name. I think this will be called ``the suspension Congress.'' We have taken more legislation up under suspension of the rules, without any opportunity for people to be offering amendments. I think whatever side you're on, whatever party you're in, there really ought to be the opportunity for Members to offer amendments. And so I think, I don't know how you would do it, but I officially would request that maybe the Clerk of the House look to see how many bills at the end of this year were passed by suspension and to see if I was right by calling this ``the suspension Congress.'' We are now resorting to considering an odds and ends bill at the end again on suspension. This bill could clearly be put on our own bill. On July 12, the administration requested language to allow the Patent and Trademark Office to spend an additional $129 million in fiscal year 2010, with the desired effect being the reduction of backlogs in processing patent applications. The bill before the House does that, and fully offsets the spending, as requested, with a rescission from excess amounts appropriated for the 2010 Census. The language in the bill differs somewhat from the language requested by the administration. I personally--and maybe others on the committee had--but personally I have not seen the bill until today after it had been placed on the suspension calendar. So you're going to bring a bill up under suspension and the minority, maybe other people in the minority, but we haven't been given the opportunity even to see it. Since there was no subcommittee or full committee consideration and no discussion with the minority prior to introduction, I don't know why the changes were made to the request. It sort of says we're not going to talk to the minority; we're not going to discuss these things. Frankly I would tell the Patent and Trademark Office, ``You haven't been up here to talk to anybody.'' Just because the party in power happens to be the majority party, this ought to be an issue of nonpartisan, or bipartisan working together. But again it all just sort of rolls out and comes up. Finally, I would just say that this issue could have easily been addressed in regular order, either in committee markup or on the supplemental where I am sure the chairman, Mr. Mollohan, as we go to conference on a bill--and I appreciate the leadership of Mr. Mollohan on the committee--we could have rolled it in for timely action on the FY11 CJS appropriations bill. I don't know why we're doing it at this hour. Secondly, anytime one party pushes the other party, and I would say this to my own party. If we ever get back into the majority, we ought to be sure that we treat the minority the way that we wanted to be treated when we were in the minority, because there were times past when we were in the majority that we maybe treated the minority in ways that we should not have treated them. And so I would just say, speaking only for myself, but the party that I belong to, I think it's important if or when we return to the majority that we have respect for the minority, to notify them and tell them and do everything we possibly can to make sure that we're doing things in a bipartisan basis, particularly on bills that are not Republican or Democrat but are good for the country. With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will yield, I just want the record to show that Mr. Mollohan and his staff have been very fair. And I would not want to have the connection of what I said earlier with regard to that. Mr. Mollohan and his entire staff have been very, very fair and have treated us very, very well. I didn't want that to be inferred. With that, I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Army Colonel George Juskalian, a constituent from Centreville, Virginia, for his dedicated service in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. He passed away on July 4, 2010, at age 96, having served nearly 30 years on active duty. Colonel Juskalian was one of the most highly decorated Armenian- American veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Military. He also was a member of the Armenian Assembly of America. He joined the United States Army in 1939 and was called to active duty as a first lieutenant in 1940 and served with distinction in World War II. He continued to serve for three decades, as a battalion commander in combat in the Korean War as well as a military adviser in the Vietnam campaign. He was in General Eisenhower's secretariat in the Pentagon between 1945 and 1948 and an adviser to the Imperial Iranian Army in Tehran. He was captured by the Germans in Tunisia and spent 27 months in prisoner of war camps in Italy, Germany, and Poland. He retired with the rank of colonel in 1967. Colonel Juskalian received the Army's second highest award, known as ``the Legion of Merit,'' for non-combat service. He also received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal, the Air Medal and the Parachutist Badge, and the combat Infantry Badge with a Star awarded for World War II and the Korean War. Madam Speaker, I salute Colonel Juskalian for his patriotism and service to our Nation and express deepest sympathy to his wife Lucine and family on his passing.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. This administration must find its voice on human rights. On April 21 the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof authored a piece that closed with the following words: ``If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' Two weeks after the article ran, I wrote the President, and I submit a copy of the letter for the Record, putting forth a number of recommendations in the hopes in salvaging the administration's languishing Sudan policy. My concerns echoed those voiced by six respected NGOs who the week prior had run an ad in the Washington Post and Politico calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated policy'' and waning U.S. credibility as a mediator. Sadly, Kristof's assessment can be applied elsewhere around the world. It seems that President Obama and the administration as a whole have struggled to find its voice when it comes to the promotion and protection of basic human rights and religious freedom. These most cherished ideals, which are at the very heart of the American experiment, have time and again been sidelined by this administration's foreign policy. This is a grievous mistake which has dire implications for the world's dissidents and democrats who yearn for freedom and look to America to be their advocate. Looking back to Sudan, a nation I first visited in 1989, and most recently in 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur where there is genocide, I remain deeply concerned that the country is headed for a resumption of a civil war if the U.S. fails to exert its necessary leadership. While there were certainly times that I was critical of the Bush administration's policy, it is indisputable that President Bush and former Special Envoy John Danforth were instrumental in securing, after 2\1/2\ years of negotiations, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the CPA, which brought about an end to the brutal 20-year civil war in which more than 2 million perished, most of whom were civilians. A recent New York Times column by author David Eggers and Sudan activist John Prendergast titled, ``In Sudan, War is Around the Corner,'' spoke to this reality. The pair wrote, ``Shortly after George W. Bush entered the White House, he decided he would put the full diplomatic leverage of the United States to work in ending this war, one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century. He succeeded.'' Eggers and Prendergast rightly noted that when the South is given the opportunity to vote for independence in January, as guaranteed by the CPA, the conventional wisdom is that they will waste no time in severing ties with Khartoum. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering that President Bashir remains at the helm of Khartoum. Long an indicted war criminal, he was earlier this month also officially charged by the International Criminal Court with orchestrating genocide in Darfur. Bashir's murderous aims in Darfur are not without precedent. With just 6 months to go, Khartoum persists in dragging its feet, undermining installing the process at every turn. Furthermore, the deeply flawed April elections do not bode well for the fate of a free and fair and timely referendum process. Failure to deliver on the long- awaited promise of a respectable referendum could have grave implications. While some of the administration's rhetoric has improved of late, notably during Vice President Biden's trip to Africa, we have yet to see the administration apply real consequences to Khartoum. In fact, most Sudan watchers would agree that we have seen little to no evidence since the administration's release of their Sudan policy that they have any intention of utilizing sticks. Rather, they appear to be relying exclusively on carrots. A July 14 Associated Press article entitled ``Promises, Promises: U.S. Fails to Punish Sudan'' described the administration's track record on Sudan this way: ``The words of the Obama administration were unequivocal: Sudan must do more to fight terror and improve human rights. If it did, it would be rewarded. If not, it would be punished. Nine months later, problems with Sudan have grown worse. Yet the administration has not clamped down. If anything, it has made small conciliatory gestures.'' Eggers and Prendergast, in their New York Times piece, close with a chilling warning as it relates to the months ahead in Sudan: ``This is President Obama's Rwanda moment, and it is unfolding now, in slow motion. It is not too late to prevent the coming war in Sudan, and protect the peace we helped build 5 years ago.'' President Obama and his advisers need not rely on the warnings of those in the advocacy community and on Capitol Hill when it comes to the high stakes in Sudan in the days ahead. Rather, they can simply look to the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which recently predicted that over the next 5 years, listen to this, ``a new mass killing or genocide is most likely to occur in southern Sudan,'' more than any other country. A welcomed step toward preserving the tenuous peace would be to provide Southern Sudan the air defense system that the Government of Southern Sudan requested and President Bush reportedly approved in 2008. This defensive capability would help neutralize Khartoum's major tactical advantage, a virtual necessity in light of the scorched earth tactics and Antanov bombers that have marked their genocidal campaigns of the past and would make peace and stability more likely following the referendum vote. During the campaign for the Presidency, then-Candidate Obama said, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' These words still ring true today, and yet, apart from a recent National Security Council statement expressing support for ``international efforts to bring those responsible for genocide and war crimes in Darfur to justice,'' we have seen an administration and a President struggling to find its voice on this most pressing human rights issue. Special Envoy Gration, at a recent event on Capitol Hill, reportedly went so far as to say that the genocide charges against Bashir will make his job harder. What about the people who died as a result of this genocide in Sudan? Sudan is not an anomaly. Consider China, a country where human rights, religious freedom, and civil society continue to be under fierce attack by the country's ruling Communist Party. From the outset, this administration chose to marginalize human rights in the context of U.S.-China bilateral relations. On the first trip to Asia, Secretary of State Clinton was downright dismissive of human rights concerns saying that ``those issues can't interfere'' with economic, security, or environmental concerns. A firestorm of criticism ensued. Human rights organizations were rightly dismayed. How had impassioned advocacy for the dignity of every person been relegated to a position of mere interference? And this in spite of Obama campaign promises to be ``frank with the Chinese'' and ``press them to respect human rights.'' In China, we again see an administration which seems unable to find its voice on human rights. A glance at the news from the last several weeks alone makes it painfully clear that that voice, the voice which speaks out on behalf of those enduring tremendous persecution and oppression at the hands of their own government, has never been more necessary. A July 5 Associated Press story reported that Yu Jue, ``A best- selling author and fierce critic of the Communist Party was taken into custody by the police on Monday for reasons that were unclear.'' The AP reported on July 15 that ``dozens of blogs by some of China's most outspoken users have been abruptly shut down while popular Twitter services appear to be the newest target in government efforts to control social networking.'' Veteran dissident Liu Xianbin, an original signatory of Charter 08, a historic pro-democracy manifesto, was arrested by Chinese authorities on June 27 on suspicion of ``inciting subversion of state power.'' July also marks the 1-year anniversary of the deadly suppression of Uighur protestors last summer in the northwest of China. China's beleaguered Uighur Muslim community continues to face severe repression in the aftermath of the violence. According to multiple independent news sources, authorities installed 40,000 security cameras throughout the city in anticipation of the 1-year anniversary. Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, authored a piece in the Washington Post on the occasion of the anniversary. He highlighted a report by the Uighur Human Rights Project aptly titled, ``Can Anyone Hear Us?'' which documents ``the firing on protesters that led to hundreds of deaths, as well as mass beatings, the arbitrary detention of thousands, and a 10-month communication shutdown that cut off the region from the outside world.'' Gershman closes his piece with the following charge: ``The United States and the international community should also support the Uighurs' 3-month-old call for an independent international investigation into the events of last July and the opening of a meaningful dialogue with Chinese authorities. Uighur voices have been crying in the wilderness. It's time to listen.'' It is indeed time to listen. It is also time to add America's voice to the chorus of voices within China pressing for greater freedoms and basic human rights. Just last week, I had the honor of meeting with two courageous Chinese human rights lawyers visiting the U.S. for legal training and to brief policymakers on the situation facing those defending rule of law in China. These lawyers often choose to represent, at their own peril, those human rights activists, house church leaders, bloggers, et cetera, who face persecution in the form of trumped-up charges and the absence of due process. The lawyers said quite pointedly that their lives improve, and those of their cohorts in prison or facing other pressures by the Chinese Government, when the West speaks out for their plight and raises their cases by name. Why does not the Obama administration speak out for the plight and raise their cases by name? This sentiment is nothing new. I remarked that they are China's Sakharovs and Solzhenitsyns. Similarly, these giants in the cause of freedom time and again recounted how their lives in the gulags improved when the West and President Reagan championed their cause and challenged the lies that were at the foundation of the Soviet system. It seems this administration, the Obama administration, has forgotten the lessons of history to the detriment of China's young democrats. In their annual Freedom in the World Report, the NGO Freedom House documented a litany of abuses perpetrated by the Chinese Government and then made the following observation: ``While these acts of repression are disturbing, so is the absence of protest from the democratic world. When the Soviet Union arrested a dissident or suppressed religious expression, it drew widespread condemnation by figures ranging from heads of state to trade union leaders, as well as by human rights organizations and prominent humanitarians. China's current actions, by contrast, elicit little more than boilerplate criticism, and just as often they provoke no response whatsoever.'' Elsewhere in Asia we see an administration seeming to align itself with the oppressor over the oppressed. Look at Vietnam. On July 19, AFP reported that Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, said, ``As I look at all the friends in Southeast Asia, I think we have the greatest prospects in the future with Vietnam.'' This is a strange affinity and statement to have with a government that our own State Department said ``increased its suppression of dissent, arresting and convicting several political activists'' during the reporting period of the 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practices. The State Department report continues: ``Several editors and reporters from prominent newspapers were fired for reporting on official corruption and outside blogging on political topics. Bloggers were detained and arrested under vague national security provisions for criticizing the government and were prohibited from posting material the government saw as sensitive or critical. The government also monitored email and regulated or suppressed Internet content. The government utilized or tolerated the use of force to resolve disputes with a Buddhist order in Lam Dong and Catholic groups with unresolved property claims.'' Today, Secretary Clinton is in Vietnam for the ASEAN meetings. Initial news reports indicate that she raised human rights concerns in a meeting with the foreign minister and afterwards with journalists, and I appreciate that. However, a new New York Times story today pointed out that the timing of her comments on the sensitive issues ``suggested that she wanted to make her point and move on.'' If the administration is truly concerned about human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam, they would take the concrete step of placing Vietnam back on the Countries of Particular Concern, the CPC list, as has been recommended by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in the U.S. House of Representatives. Leonard Leo, chairman of the commission, rightly points out that Vietnam's human rights record has only improved when its ``feet were held to the fire.'' Leo continued: ``But once Vietnam, with U.S. help, joined the World Trade Organization in 2007, religious freedom and human rights advocates have experienced waves of arrest,'' Leo said. Waves of arrests from our ``friend'' in Southeast Asia? Are the Vietnamese, who are persecuting the Catholic Church, the Montagnards, the bishops, and killing people our friends? Or consider North Korea. Without question, this country is one of the darkest places on the globe. More than 200,000 North Koreans, including children, are being held in political prison camps. It is estimated that between 400,000 and 1 million people, 400,000 and 1 million people, have died in these camps, having been worked to death or starved to death. Is anyone in this administration going to speak out or say anything or do anything about that? Last summer an op ed in The Wall Street Journal featured a quote from a North Korean refugee woman who said: ``If I had a chance to meet with President Obama, I would first like to tell him how North Korean women are being sold like livestock in China and, second, to know that North Korean labor camps are hell on Earth.'' Let me just repeat what she said again. She said: ``If I had a chance to meet with President Obama, I would first like to tell him how North Korean women are being sold like livestock in China and, second, to know that North Korean labor camps are hell on Earth.'' However, because North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and threatens not only to use them against neighboring countries, but also to share nuclear weapon technology with such rogue states as Burma and Syria, the international community, the U.S. included, has tended to downplay or outright ignore the horrendous human rights abuses in North Korea in the interest of trying to negotiate, through the so-called six-party talks, an end to its nuclear program. When North Korea falls and freedom comes, a lot of people in the West, and this administration, I think, will really feel guilty for not having spoken out and advocated for these people. But nothing has been achieved by these negotiations, and the recent sinking of the South Korean ship has stalled efforts to revive the six- nation talks. Even in the face of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, it is inexcusable that its abhorrent human rights record is relegated to the back burner and that the North Korea Freedom Act, passed by Congress, has not even been fully implemented. Why has the Obama administration had so little to say about those trapped in ``hell on Earth''? Now, looking to the Middle East, we again see an administration whose advocacy on behalf of persecuted peoples has been sorely lacking. A February 6 ABC news story opened with the following observations: ``Across the Middle East, where Christianity was born and its followers once made up a sizeable portion of the population, Christians are now tiny minorities.'' This is perhaps no more true than in Iraq. With the exception of Israel, the Bible contains more references to the cities, regions and nations of ancient Iraq than any other country. Abraham came from Iraq. Tragically, Iraq's ancient Christian community is facing extinction. The U.N. High Commission for Refugees estimated that some 250,000 to 500,000 Christians have left the country since 2003 and about half the Christian population and a large number also have been killed. While I have appreciated and am very grateful for Ambassador Chris Hill's commitment to this issue during his time as U.S. Ambassador, and while I believe that Michael Corbin, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State who is in charge with working on Iraqi minority issues, cares deeply about the issue, and both are good men, I see a continued unwillingness, unwillingness, at the highest levels of the State Department to acknowledge and ultimately address the challenges facing these ancient-faith communities. A 2009 column in The Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger summed it up this way: ``Candidate Obama last fall sent a letter to Condoleezza Rice expressing `my concern about the safety and well-being of Iraq's Christian and other non-Muslim religious minorities.' He asked what steps the U.S. was taking to protect `these communities of religious freedom.' Candidate Obama said he wanted these groups represented in Iraq's governing institutions. Does President Obama believe these things?'' I long advocated, both during the previous administration and in the current administration, for the U.S. to adopt a comprehensive policy to address the unique situation of these defenseless minorities. I have also pressed for a high-level human rights representative at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Such a U.S. presence is critical with a U.S. presence in Iraq drawing down and our bilateral relations now governed by the Strategic Framework Agreement. Among other things, we must be actively engaging the Government of Iraq to press for adequate security at places of worship and ensure minority representation in local police units. These are just some of the steps that could be taken to assist in the preservation of these ancient-faith communities. We have a moral obligation to do so. The Obama administration has a moral obligation to do so. I was reminded of this again last week while meeting with a visiting high-level delegation of Iraqi bishops. Their impassioned pleas must not be ignored. We do not want to see the eradication and the elimination of the Christian community, the Assyrian, Chaldean Catholic community, in Iraq. We need to protect them. Turning now to Egypt. Eli Lake pointed out in a July 18, Washington Times piece: ``The Obama administration ended support for a small fund operated by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that supported groups promoting Egyptian democracy and that bypassed any clearance from the Egyptian Government.'' They ended it. Ellen Bork, director of democracy and human rights at the Foreign Policy Initiative, summarized the situation well in a recent Weekly Standard piece. She said: ``Doing something for democracy in Egypt would require a policy reversal in Washington. Since the end of the Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration, there has been a retreat,'' and let me say I was critical during the Bush administration. More should have been done then, but equally now under the Obama administration. ``There has been a retreat, including a cut in funding for democracy programs and acquiescence to an Egyptian veto over which groups may receive U.S. funds.'' They are going to let the Egyptian Government that is doing the persecution decide which group gets the funds. Ironically, U.S. support for democracy promotion in Egypt is dwindling at a time when the people of Egypt are increasingly dissatisfied with the current regime. A Washington Post story yesterday reported that ``a protest in Alexandria last month was attended by 4,000 people, a high number in Egypt, where many people are afraid to join demonstrations.'' Lorne Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, who has a history of caring deeply about human rights and religious freedom, echoed these sentiments about the administration's human rights and democracy promotion policy in Egypt and elsewhere around the world, in recent testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He said, ``A lack of strong, consistent leadership from the top of the administration has become apparent to the bureaucracy. One result is the cutting or slowing of funding for democracy programs in countries like Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Another consequence is that our embassies abroad''--and this is painful to hear--``are providing less diplomatic support on human rights and democracy. Asked about the U.S. position on democracy in Egypt, our Ambassador to Cairo praises the country's press freedoms.'' The American Embassy in Cairo should be an island of freedom. The American embassy in every country should be an island of freedom. Those yearning for greater freedoms in Egypt are not alone in facing the ire of their government. So, too, Egypt's Coptic Christian community faces increasing hardship. USCIRF, the commission, in its recently released report, described a deteriorating situation for this community. USCIRF found that ``the reporting period marked a significant upsurge in violence targeting Coptic Orthodox Christians. The Egyptian Government has not taken sufficient steps to halt repression of and discrimination against Christians and other religious believers, or in many cases to punish those responsible for violence or other severe violations of religious freedom. This increase in violence and the failure to prosecute those responsible forces a growing climate of impunity. And even though our own State Department has concluded that the last 3 years have been marked by a decline of religious freedom conditions in Egypt, there has not been a significant change in U.S. policy. Elsewhere in the region, Morocco is actually an example where American citizens, many of whom are people of faith, are receiving hostile treatment by the Moroccan Government. Over the last 4 months, dozens of American citizens and scores of other foreign nationals have been deported and denied reentry into the Kingdom of Morocco for allegedly proselytizing. Authorities have refused to turn over any evidence or offer any explanation of the charges. Among the individuals who were deported or denied reentry were businessmen, educators, humanitarians, and social workers, many of whom had resided in Morocco for over a decade in full compliance with the law. Additionally, those deported were forced to leave the country within 2 hours of being questioned by the authorities, having to leave everything behind. Over the past several weeks I have met with and heard from scores of Moroccan Christians. Many feel their voices have long been silenced, and these events highlight some of these pressures they experience. On March 19, I wrote to the U.S. Ambassador to Morocco, Sam Kaplan, sharing my intent to meet the Moroccan Ambassador to the U.S. and urging Ambassador Kaplan to ``convey to the Government of Morocco that Members of Congress are watching these events closely and the outcome could negatively affect our bilateral relations.'' I've also spoken with Ambassador Kaplan on several occasions and shared with him my deep disappointment that the U.S. Embassy and the State Department have not been more publicly outspoken on behalf of these American citizens. It is the primary responsibility of the United States Embassy to defend and advocate for U.S. citizens and interests abroad. Unfortunately, the Moroccan Government has been utterly unwilling to compromise. Perhaps they think they don't need to, given the number of high-powered lobbyists, including several former Members of Congress, that the Moroccan Government has on retainer. I don't know how a former Member of Congress could ever go out and represent the Moroccan Government knowing what they're doing to American citizens and feel very, very comfortable. And do the American people know about this? And the American people should understand not only are they expelling Americans from Morocco, but they should also know that I have urged the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the MCC, to suspend the 5-year compact with Morocco, which is worth $697.5 million. That's right, you, the American taxpayer, are giving the Moroccan Government $697 million. They're expelling Christians from Morocco--although they've hired a couple of former Congressmen that, unfortunately, used to serve in this body. I mean, can you believe it? They're expelling Americans, and yet the Moroccan Government expects that we will give them $697.5 million? I will offer an amendment on this floor when the foreign operations bill comes up to suspend or cut this program, and I urge any Member who wants to vote the other way to go home to wherever you're from, whether it be the north, south, east or west, and tell your constituents, that's right, I understand; I voted to continue to send all this money to Morocco, $697 million. Yes, I understand we have a deficit. Yes, I understand we have great debt. Yes, I understand they're expelling Christians, Americans from the country, but I'm still going to give them that money. The MCC awards compacts on the basis of 17 key indicators of eligibility, six of which fall under the category of ``ruling justly.'' However, recent events raise serious questions regarding the Moroccan Government's willingness to abide by the principles outlined in the MCC indicators. And--and I am very appreciative of this--a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed rightly pointed out that during a time of economic hardship, the unemployment rate at 9.5 percent, ``U.S. taxpayers won't tolerate financing governments that mistreat Americans solely because of their religion.'' I appreciate the Wall Street Journal doing that editorial. Can the administration not find its voice when it comes to the rights of U.S. citizens being trampled abroad? I've been assured that the State Department is raising the matter privately with the Moroccan Government. Frankly, this is insufficient. The manner and the means by which we raise concerns of this nature with foreign governments communicate a whole host of unspoken messages. I hope the lobbyists for Morocco--particularly those who have been former Members of Congress-- are not influencing the State Department and are not influencing the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Do we simply have a private meeting with the ambassador and ask him to look into the matter, or does the Department's press secretary issue a statement expressing deep concern? Or better yet, does President Obama call the King of Morocco and make it clear that treating American citizens this way will not be tolerated? The President should pick up the phone and say to the head of the Moroccan Government, we will not give you $697 million in the Millennium Challenge grant as you're expelling Americans from your country. Each approach has distinct undertones which highlight the level of priority and seriousness that the U.S. Government places on a particular issue. Privately raising the issue with Moroccan Government officials is a far cry from what we used to see by doing it publicly. Even as the administration is struggling to find its voice on human rights, changes within the State Department threatens to institutionalize the marginalization of these core issues. The State Department's International Religious Freedom Office, IRF, has been without ambassadorial leadership, as is required by law, for more than 18 months. After increasing pressure from Congress and religious advocacy groups, Obama named Suzan Johnson Cook to this post in June. She has not been confirmed. Eighteen months, nobody's there. With a void in senior leadership at the IRF office, I have been increasingly alarmed by reports that the office is being subsumed into the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Tom Farr, the first Director of the U.S. State Department Office of International Religious Freedom, described what is happening this way in a Washington Post online column: ``The ambassador will not report directly to the Secretary of State as do other ambassadors at large, all of whom are experts in their fields. The staffers who reported to predecessors will not report to Johnson Cook should she be confirmed. The position will be emasculated, in direct contravention of the legislation that created it.'' In a May 25 letter to Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner, I raised these concerns in detail. I submit a copy of the letter for the Record. If the changes described by Farr move forward, this could potentially violate U.S. law and break with 10 years of established practice under previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican. The Ambassador-at-Large position was established under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, of which I was the primary author, to promote religious freedom abroad. The legislation specifically states, ``There is established within the Department of State an Office on International Religious Freedom that shall be headed by the Ambassador- at-Large for International Religious Freedom.'' Considering the importance of religious freedom to U.S. foreign policy and human rights promotion, I am alarmed by the possibility that DRL could be removing supervisory control from the Ambassador-at-Large over the Office of International Religious Freedom. These reported changes, combined with the long ambassadorial vacancy, do not bode well for the Baha'i leader imprisoned in Iran's notorious prisons or for the Ahmadi Muslim in Pakistan, subject to officially sanctioned discrimination and persecution. Who will be their advocates? Who will advocate for the Baha'is? Who will advocate for the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan? Who will be their advocates? The IRF office is but one example of internal changes at the State Department. Not many people know this, but the congressionally mandated Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, headed by a special envoy, only has a single dedicated staff person. During the Bush administration, there were three to five employees at various points. An April 2010 CNN story featured the findings of a study released on the eve of the Holocaust Remembrance Day, which found that the number of anti-Semitic incidents more than doubled from 2008 to 2009. At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise globally, the special envoy is relying almost exclusively on the already stretched thin IRF office for her staffing needs, therefore making it more difficult for the IRF office to fulfill its congressional mandate. If the old adage ``personnel is policy'' is true, then you could surmise that the absence of necessary personnel is itself a shift in policy priorities. There are staff vacancies also at the State Department that are deeply troubling. On June 24, I wrote Secretary of State Clinton about the Office of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues. I submit the letter for the Record. I was prompted to write the letter, in part, because it had come to my attention that there was only one person working in the office. Have you seen how China has plundered Tibet, and there is one person working in the office? Congress codified the position of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues as part of the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002. Not long after the establishment of the office, Congress approved language directing that the office ``consist of three professional, full-time staff members and additional support staff, as needed, in addition to the special coordinator.'' Their current inadequate staffing levels, at that point 17 months into the administration, were troubling and at odds with congressional intent. Further, the congressionally mandated Report on Tibet Negotiations, which is due to Congress by March 31 of each year--and we are in July-- has not yet been submitted. These developments, or lack thereof, send a message about the priority this administration is placing on Tibet. Does this administration care about the plundering and the persecution in Tibet? I have visited Tibet. I have been there. I have seen what has taken place in Drapchi prison. I have seen and talked to Buddhist monks who have told me about their times. I have seen the cameras on all of the buildings. I have seen the areas that they have bulldozed and large areas of loss. They have taken away the Tibetan culture. I have seen that. So does not this administration care about that? That message is not inconsistent with the message the White House sent last fall in declining to meet with the Dalai Lama when he was visiting Washington--the first time since 1991 that the Nobel Prize recipient and spiritual leader was not afforded a meeting with the President of the United States. In closing, the complexities of foreign policy do not escape me. I am well aware that there are multiple dimensions to our bilateral relations with countries around the globe, but if the United States of America cannot be relied upon to speak out on behalf of those whose voices have been silenced, then it is, indeed, a dark day for millions around the world who are yearning to breathe the sweet air of freedom. Where the administration fails to find its voice, Congress must stand in the gap. For decades, human rights enjoyed bipartisan support in this body. Now I fear these issues have fallen victim to bipartisan apathy. Too often, we underestimate the power of our words or, worse yet, the power of our silence. The late Robert Kennedy, speaking in 1966 Cape Town, South Africa, to a gathering of students committed to challenging the injustice of apartheid, famously said, ``Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'' America must stand up for the ideals upon which our own experiment in self-governance was founded. America must strike out against injustice, whatever form it takes. America must believe that even the mightiest walls of oppression can tumble and work toward that end. The hour is late and the stakes are high. Will the administration accept this charge? Will the Obama administration accept this charge? Can President Obama find his voice? Will the ``ripples of hope,'' of which Bobby Kennedy spoke, once again infuse America's foreign policy? We'll see. House of Representatives, May 5, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, President, The White House, Washington DC. Dear Mr. President: ``If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' These were the closing words of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof two weeks ago. I could not agree more with his assessment of Sudan today. Time is running short. Lives hang in the balance. Real leadership is needed. Having first travelled to Sudan in 1989, my interest and involvement in this country has spanned the better part of 20 years. I've been there five times, most recently in July 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur. Tragically, Darfur is hardly an anomaly. We saw the same scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year civil war with the South where more than 2 million perished, most of whom were civilians. In September 2001, President Bush appointed former Senator John Danforth as special envoy and his leadership was in fact instrumental in securing, after two and a half years of negotiations, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), thereby bringing about an end to the war. I was at the 2005 signing of this historic accord in Kenya, as was then Secretary of State Colin Powell and Congressman Donald Payne, among others. Hopes were high for a new Sudan. Sadly, what remains of that peace is in jeopardy today. What remains of that hope is quickly fading. I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who urged you to appoint a special envoy shortly after you came into office, in the hope of elevating the issue of Sudan. But what was once a successful model for Sudan policy is not having the desired effect today. I am not alone in this belief. Just last week, six respected NGOs ran compelling ads in The Washington Post and Politico calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated policy'' and waning U.S. credibility as a mediator. In that same vein, today I join that growing chorus of voices in urging you to empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of the languishing Sudan policy. They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to ensure options for consequences are on the table. There is a pressing and immediate need for renewed, principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership which, while recognizing the reality of the challenges facing Sudan, is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum. We must not forget who we are dealing with in Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP). In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese government against its own people, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s. I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan to date, under the leadership of General Gration, and with your apparent blessing, has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the NCP. Any long-time Sudan follower will tell you that Bashir never keeps his promises. The Washington Post editorial page echoed this sentiment this past weekend saying of Bashir: ``He has frequently told Western governments what they wanted to hear, only to reverse himself when their attention drifted or it was time to deliver . . . the United States should refrain from prematurely recognizing Mr. Bashir's new claim to legitimacy. And it should be ready to respond when he breaks his word.'' Note that the word was ``when'' not ``if' he breaks his word. While the hour is late, the administration can still chart a new course. In addition to recommending that Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice take the helm in implementing your administration's Sudan policy, I propose the following policy recommendations: Move forward with the administration's stated aim of strengthening the capacity of the security sector in the South. A good starting point would be to provide the air defense system that the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) requested and President Bush approved in 2008. This defensive capability would help neutralize Khartoum's major tactical advantage and make peace and stability more likely following the referendum vote. Do not recognize the outcome of the recent presidential elections. While the elections were a necessary part of the implementation of the CPA and an important step before the referendum, they were inherently flawed and Bashir is attempting to use them to lend an air of legitimacy to his genocidal rule. Clearly and unequivocally state at the highest levels that the United States will honor the outcome of the referendum and will ensure its implementation. Begin assisting the South in building support for the outcome of the referendum. Appoint an ambassador or senior political appointee with the necessary experience in conflict and post-conflict settings to the U.S. consulate in Juba. Prioritize the need for a cessation of attacks in Darfur, complete restoration of humanitarian aid including ``non- essential services,'' unfettered access for aid organizations to all vulnerable populations and increased diplomatic attention to a comprehensive peace process including a viable plan for the safe return of millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs). When the administration released its Sudan policy last fall, Secretary Clinton indicated that benchmarks would be applied to Sudan and that progress would be assessed ``based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground. Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and our international partners.'' But in the face of national elections that were neither free nor fair, in the face of continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo, in the face of Bashir's failure to cooperate in any way with the International Criminal Court, we've seen no ``disincentives'' or ``sticks'' applied. This is a worst case scenario and guaranteed, if history is to be our guide, to fail. Many in the NGO community and in Congress cautiously expressed support for the new policy when it was released, at the same time stressing that a policy on paper is only as effective as its implementation on the ground. More than six months have passed since the release of the strategy and implementation has been insufficient at best and altogether absent at worst. During the campaign for the presidency, you said, regarding Sudan, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' These words ring true still today. Accountability is imperative. But the burden for action, the weight of leadership, now rests with you and with this administration alone. With the referendum in the South quickly approaching, the stakes could not be higher. The marginalized people of Sudan yearn for your administration to find its voice on Sudan--and to find it now. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of food banks and food pantries in the 10th District of Virginia and their hard work and dedication to serving their communities. Serving Fairfax County are Food for Others, SHARE of McLean, and Reston Interfaith. In Loudoun County are Loudoun Interfaith Relief, LINK, Seven Loaves, Tree of Life, and Guilford Food Pantry. In Prince William County is SERVE Inc. In Fauquier County is Fauquier Food Bank. In the Shenandoah Valley is Lord Fairfax Food Bank. Without the devoted workers who generously volunteer their time and efforts to feeding the community, countless individuals would go hungry each day. I commend all of the volunteers and staff for their tireless commitment and service to those who are unable to make ends meet and put food on the table. I also commend the partnership that has developed between local grocery stores and food banks and food pantries to make available leftover and unused food, and I also thank those in the community who donate food to fill food pantry shelves.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Telework Improvements Act of 2010, and thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been pleased to work with the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, in sponsoring this legislation and thank him for his tireless efforts. I also appreciate the persistent work of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns, on this matter. There are several points I would like to make, especially to my side of the aisle. H.R. 1722 does not authorize any new appropriations of taxpayer funds. The Congressional Budget Office in April scored this legislation as deficit-neutral. CBO estimated that the implementation costs of $30 million over 5 years, assuming the appropriations of necessary funds, will come from developing regulations to implement telework programs, reporting and training costs. As my colleagues know, however, such costs are routinely absorbed by current administrative budgets in each agency. Let me repeat--this legislation is deficit- neutral and does not authorize any new appropriations. I have been actively engaged in the telework issue for over 20 years and know for a fact that telework saves money. The limited administrative costs will be more than offset when a robust telework program is fully integrated into the federal government's Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP). During February's snow storm, when the government was shut down for four days, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) estimated that roughly 30 percent of eligible federal workers in the metropolitan D.C. area teleworked. Rather than absorbing the almost $30 million in salaries for those employees for each day that it was closed, the federal government reaped the rewards of telework because those employees were productive and continued the work of the federal government when they couldn't reach their regular workplaces. The government must be able to function during an emergency or natural disaster. Currently, only 56 percent of government agencies have formally included telework in their COOP plans. H.R. 1722 would change that policy. What if there is another terrorist attack? Telework was vital to ensuring that our government continued to function after 9/11. Or what if the ``big one'' earthquake hits California? Some 700,000 of the one million workers displaced by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake--the World Series earthquake--teleworked from their homes or nearby locations, including federal workers. What happens when snowmageddon hits the nation's capital again? Those federal employees who were eligible to telework recognized that the government must continue to function and that people in other parts of our nation were counting on them to do their jobs. Snowstorms or hurricanes or tornados should not prevent the most powerful nation on earth from functioning. We must fully embrace new technologies to keep the government working and telework is the ideal way to keep employees on the job. Telework also provides other obvious benefits, from reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, gasoline consumption and our dependency on foreign oil to allowing individuals and working parents the flexibility to meet everyday demands outside of work. Employers with a strong telework option report fewer days used by employees for sick leave, better worker retention, higher productivity, and increased morale. They also report overhead savings in office space. The private sector has long recognized the benefits of telework. Roughly 115,000 IBM employees telecommute each day with 40 percent operating without dedicated office space. In return, IBM saves $450 million a year in infrastructure costs. One government agency, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), has had a long track record on telework mirroring the success that IBM has had in the private sector. Some 83 percent of eligible PTO employees telework. These arrangements have enabled the agency to save $11 million otherwise needed for new office space. No other federal agency has the policies in place to enable more than 50 percent of eligible employees to telework at least one day a week. Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is no magic about strapping ourselves into a car, driving sometimes up to an hour and a half to our workplaces, and sitting in front of our computers all day. Information accessed at workplaces can just as easily be accessed from computers in our living rooms. Telework is a win-win for employers and employees and the federal government should be the model for telework in the 21st Century workplace. H.R. 1722 is good government legislation and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill. But let me just say, Mr. Issa said that the Republicans wanted to be part of this. And I think we've got to start doing things in this institution in a bipartisan way. Quite frankly, I skimmed the motion to recommit, and it looks like it's pretty good. So the more we can kind of work together, the better, the better it will be for all of us. And so I appreciate the gentleman giving me this time. I've been involved in this issue for a number of years. IBM--in fact, many times I hear Members on both sides say we should be more like the private sector. IBM has 115,000 employees every day teleworking. And if you want the government to be like the private sector, allow the Federal employees to do the same. And it saves them roughly $450 million a year. There's nothing magic about strapping yourselves into a metal box and driving 25 and 35 miles a day to a place and sitting before a laptop when you can do it at home. Simon and Garfunkel, in the song called ``The Boxer,'' says: ``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' This Congress on both sides many times only hears what it wants to hear and more often than not disregards the rest. Let me tell you, 9/11, if you were here on 9/11, nothing worked. If you couldn't have teleworked, or if we had more telework, we could have had a continuity of government. The government shut down. It shut down. Would you rather have somebody not working at home and getting paid or working? Secondly, the earthquake in California, the so-called World Series earthquake. Do you remember that? Norm Mineta was Secretary of Transportation. That's when telework really took off, because had they had to go into work, the people of California wouldn't have had highways. They wouldn't have been able to get search and rescue people there. Continuity of government. Hurricanes. Has anyone ever heard of Katrina? You want to shut down the government in the South, Louisiana and Texas, and say go home and we'll pay you? Or do you want them to telework at home, where they can do, where they can get and connect to a Veterans Administration, someone's who's having a difficult problem, maybe some who has prostate cancer: How can I connect? How can I get my treatment? Telework. Telework makes all the difference in a tornado. As tornadoes hit and destroy, telework gives you that ability to do it. Continuity of government, saving money. So man hears what he wants to hear. But what you're disregarding, this is important. This is a good ``yes'' vote for continuity of government. This a good ``yes'' vote so you can serve your constituents. This is a good ``yes'' vote if you really want to save money. The vote to save money today, the vote that will save money will be the vote for this bill. I want to thank, again, Mr. Issa. And I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, if you can take--I think the motion to recommit has a lot of good things. But I think it's more important that we come together and find some things that we can come together and work in a bipartisan way. But for continuity of government and to save money, I ask for a ``yea'' vote on this bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the following op-ed which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, July 6. The Kingdom of Morocco, often portrayed as a beacon of tolerance in the Arab world, has shown its true colors with the recent expulsion of dozens of U.S. citizens and scores of foreign nationals without due process. I urge my colleagues to support these American citizens whose human rights have been violated by the Moroccan government. [From the Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2010] Expelled in Morocco--U.S. Ally Mistreats American Christians Morocco has long been considered a bastion of relative religious tolerance in the Muslim world, but since March the government has summarily expelled dozens of Americans for Christian proselytizing. Of the more than 100 Christians (some of them non- Americans) who have been deported--humanitarian workers, businessmen and teachers--many had lived in Morocco for more than a decade. Most were denied any semblance of due process, and some were given only a few hours to pack their bags. The government has provided little or no evidence of proselytizing, which is illegal in Morocco. Eddie and Lynn Padilla had been foster parents in the Village of Hope, an orphanage located in the Atlas Mountains east of the capital of Rabat, where they were raising two Moroccan orphan boys under the age of two. The government has long known they are Christians and had granted them a 10-year visa. That changed on March 9. After three days of police inspection and interrogation, the Padillas were given a few hours to gather their belongings. ``It happened so fast that you didn't even really have time to feel the shock of it until later,'' Mrs. Padilla told us in an interview. ``The worst moment of it all was handing over the boys. . . . These children were abandoned by their birth mothers. We were their parents.'' Outside of the Christian press, the deportations have largely gone unnoticed. One man who has paid attention is Virginia Representative Frank Wolf, a Republican who co- chairs Congress's Human Rights Commission. In hearings last month, Mr. Wolf scored Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to Morocco Sam Kaplan for failing to speak up for the expelled Americans. Mr. Wolf wants Congress to suspend its $697.5 million five- year Millennium Challenge contract with Morocco. The program, which is intended to fight poverty, gives grants to countries based on factors like ``ruling justly.'' U.S. taxpayers won't tolerate financing governments that mistreat Americans solely because of their religion.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize grocery stores in the 10th District of Virginia for their assistance in working with local food banks and food pantries. I salute the excellent work of community grocery store managers, employees, and volunteers for their dedicated work with local area food banks and food pantries. These grocery stores are the backbone of the food donation network. Without their support, food banks and food pantries would not be able to serve the community. This community partnership is vital to continuing to feed families throughout the 10th District of Virginia who are struggling to put food on the table. Grocery stores around the country can make a positive difference in their communities by donating unused food to their local food banks and food pantries. I also want to make it clear that food donations from grocery stores to food banks are protected from liability under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act. I urge grocery stores nationwide to follow the example of these stores in northern Virginia by donating food that would otherwise go to waste.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the centennial of McLean, Virginia, and the celebration event held on June 26. I want to thank the McLean Community Center, honorary chair former Virginia Governor and Senator Charles Robb, master of ceremonies former Delegate Vince Callahan, and McLean & Great Falls Celebrate Virginia board of directors for making the centennial celebration possible. McLean & Great Falls Celebrate Virginia was founded to perpetuate and promotion the preservation of local history. It grew out of the local organization founded in 2003 as part of the statewide celebration for the 400th anniversary of the settlement at Jamestown and has worked tirelessly to organize the 100th anniversary celebration for the McLean community. The small village that grew to become McLean began when John R. McLean and Senator Stephen Elkins of West Virginia obtained a charter to operate a trolley line called the Great Falls & Old Dominion Railroad to promote the scenic beauty of the Great Falls of the Potomac. The 14-mile electrified railroad linked Washington, D.C., to the falls on the old Aqueduct Bridge. Over the last century many people have made McLean their home, seeking a refuge from the hectic lifestyle of the nation's capital. The beauty and mixture of farmland, forests, and the Great Falls of the Potomac make McLean a truly unique and special place. While McLean has grown over the years it has managed to keep its community spirit and rural flavor. With first class schools both public and private, safe neighborhoods, and special sense of community, the ``village'' of McLean is indeed a welcoming place to live and raise a family. Madam Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to represent the McLean community and to help commemorate the 100th anniversary of this special community.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit excerpts from the testimony of Lorne Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, IRI, speaking before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on June 10. Mr. Craner spoke with great clarity about a number of important issues regarding the promotion of human rights and democracy in the context of U.S. foreign policy. He opened with reflections on President Reagan's conviction that freedom is a birthright--one that ought to be enjoyed by all peoples. Mr. Craner testified: ``President Reagan said `We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . .' ``But Reagan went beyond simply noting the importance of freedom in the speech. He laid out a strategy to achieve it, stating that `If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy. While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move towards them.' ``Further, he enunciated a method to help achieve the strategy, saying `the objective I propose is quite simple . . . to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their differences through peaceful means.' ``Reagan counseled patience, noting that `the task I've set forth will long outlive our generation.' He would be characteristically modest about his role, but within eight years, the number of `free countries' in Freedom House's survey had risen to 76, compared to 51 at the time of his inaugural, `partly free countries' had risen to 65 from 51, and `not free' countries had declined from 60 to 42. Most dramatically, the Soviet bloc had disintegrated. While many West Europeans now claim it was engagement--exemplified by `Ostpolitik'-- that ended the Cold War, those who lived under Soviet domination instead give much credit to Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan . . .'' Later in his testimony Mr. Craner remarked on the critical role that Congress plays in pressing the State Department to elevate these issues of human rights and religious freedom . . . issues which often are downplayed in the name of bilateral relations. Craner noted: ``Indeed, for more than 30 years, beyond the inception of NED, Congress has truly been at the forefront on issues of human rights. For example, the State Department Bureau I headed, for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, was also founded by an act of Congress. On many occasions the Congress has actually led on human rights and democracy policy. The annual State Department Country Reports on Human Rights were established over the objections of the then-administration. I referred earlier to Congressional action on human rights early in the Reagan administration. In the 1990s and this decade, a number of the entities within the State Department intended to advance human rights-- the Office of International Religious Freedom, the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, and the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism--were also established over administration opposition. The recent Advance Democracy Act was opposed by the then- administration. Legislative action regarding human rights in various countries, from China to El Salvador to South Africa, has been taken by Congress despite the administration's wishes. It is especially important to note that passage of such legislation was undertaken by Congresses with Democratic or Republican majorities during both Democratic and Republican administrations.'' Lastly, he spoke compellingly of the need for ``Strong, consistent, leadership on democracy and human rights from the top of the administration . . .'' He gave several reasons: ``First, much attention is paid to the administration's funding levels for democracy programming. This is substantively important, given what democratic foreign leaders point to as the results of America's democracy programming over the past quarter century, from Chile to the Philippines to Poland, Mongolia, Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, and many others. Here in Washington, it is also seen as a symbolic measure of U.S. support for democracy in countries in remaining repressive countries such as Cuba, Belarus, Iran, and Burma. In instances such as these, Congress can exert its influence by earmarking funds certain countries. The implementation of such earmarks can be greatly influenced by the second reason for strong presidential/ administration support: the message sent within the bureaucracy. ``Too often it is easy for the career bureaucracy to minimize democracy and human rights because these elements complicate other bilateral issues, such as economic or trade or security relationships. Skilled diplomats know that it is possible to achieve both. But clear statements by the President and Secretary of State on democracy and human rights contribute to the degree to which efforts will be made by U.S. Country Teams to implement programs and seek to garner international support for those seeking to better their conditions under authoritarian regimes. Under President Clinton and Secretary Albright and President Bush and Secretaries Powell and Rice, for example, U.S. diplomats understood that human rights and democracy were strong emphases of U.S. foreign policy. ``Third, and perhaps most important, the degree of administration support for democracy and human rights is watched closely by autocratic and totalitarian foreign leaders. They are trying to discern how to manage relations with the world's most powerful country. When American leaders diminish our emphasis and consistency on democracy and human rights, foreign leaders understand that they don't have to do as much on those issues to maintain good relations with Washington.'' Mr. Craner closed by noting that the Obama administration has gotten off to a weak start on these issues, and that this has not gone unnoticed by those to whom U.S. policy in this regard matters most . . . ``democrats and dissidents.'' Craner remarked, ``Commenting on President Obama's delayed meeting with the Dalai Lama, former Czech President Vaclav Havel said of Beijing `they respect it when someone is standing his ground, when someone is not afraid of them. When someone soils his pants prematurely, then they do not respect you more for it.' ``Cyberdissident Ahed Al-Hendi stated that previously, in Syria `when a single dissident was arrested . . . at the very least the White House would condemn it. Under the Obama administration, nothing.' ``Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim said `Our concern is that the Obama administration is perceived to be softening on human rights . . . once you give a perception that you are softening on human rights, then you are strengthening the hands of autocrats to punish dissidents throughout the world.' ``According to Egypt's Saad Eddin Ibrahim, `George W. Bush is missed by activists in Cairo and elsewhere who--despite possible misgivings about his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan--benefited from his firm stance on democratic progress. During the time he kept up pressure on dictators, there were openings for a democratic opposition to flourish. The current Obama policy seems weak and inconsistent by contrast.' '' I share Mr. Craner's concerns and echo his charge to Congress to stand in the gap even in the face of an administration that is struggling to find its voice on matters which ought to be central in American foreign policy.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss a critical issue for American families: job creation. With unemployment still hovering around 10 percent, this country must focus on new and innovative ways to create jobs in America. I believe that we must be aggressive and creative in our approach to job creation. That's why I've been urging both the Federal Government and my home State of Virginia to work to repatriate jobs that are going overseas, to bring them back to America. We must launch a systematic program, led by all the Governors of each State, to identify American companies that are doing business abroad and incentivize the repatriation of jobs back to America. This is necessary and feasible. Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal reported that a major American manufacturer, Caterpillar, was considering expanding its manufacturing inside the U.S. rather than overseas. According to the article, repatriation is gaining momentum; and after a decade of rapid globalization, economists say companies are seeing disadvantages of offshore production, including shipping costs, complicated logistics, and quality issues. Political unrest and theft of intellectual property pose additional risk. I applaud Caterpillar's effort and call on every other American company to follow its lead. I believe that every American company has a moral obligation to try to create jobs in America. American companies with overseas factories take ample advantage of American law enforcement, the American justice system, and countless other resources provided by the American taxpayer. In doing so, they have an obligation--a burden--to contribute and to support American job creation. When an American company operating factories overseas needs law enforcement help, they turn to the FBI, not the Chinese secret police. When an American company is the victim of cyberattack or intellectual property theft, they turn to the American Government for support and assistance, not to the Chinese Government, which is spying and stealing from them and arresting Catholic bishops and Protestant pastors. That's why I believe that, if asked, American companies will support their home country in creating new jobs. Many of the world's largest companies are American, but much of this manufacturing and call-center work has shifted overseas over the last two decades. This trend is fueled primarily by the opening of international markets, cheap labor, and affordable shipping. Although free trade has yielded significant benefits to our economy and consumers, the U.S. has done a poor job of encouraging domestic manufacturing investment. Now is the time for American companies to reevaluate their business models and return home. Our competitive dollar makes the U.S. an excellent location to export to international markets. Rising oil and gas prices have added to the cost of international air and shipping, which has helped level the playing field for U.S. domestic producers. More importantly, we have a highly skilled and efficient workforce in the U.S. that is ready to help companies start producing at home. Finally, I believe that a repatriation initiative is important because it focuses the U.S. on competing internationally for these jobs rather than States competing with other States for existing American jobs. Instead, this will lead to net job growth throughout the United States. Over the last 4 months, I've been urging Secretary of Commerce Locke and other officials in the Department to launch a national repatriation initiative in conjunction with its export initiative. As a result, I will be urging the Appropriations Committee to include language in this year's bill, the 2011 Commerce-Justice-Science bill, to direct the Department to launch such an initiative working with the Governors of this country. I hope the administration and my colleagues in the Congress will embrace this initiative and reach out to large American companies about bringing the jobs home to America. A major repatriation program will allow us to create new jobs, promote U.S. exports, and demonstrate that America can still be a highly competitive manufacturer in a global market.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I was honored on June 5 to join in a salute to the Virginia National Guard and the role of its Third Battalion, 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division in the D-Day invasion. The event was held at the National Guard Armory in Winchester and organized by the Honorable Jack Marsh, former Virginia congressman and counselor to President Ford, the longest serving secretary of the Army, and my long-time friend and mentor. Earlier this year Jack helped draft a resolution passed by the Virginia General Assembly which commemorated the Virginia National Guard's 29th Division for its part in storming Omaha Beach and invading Normandy on D-Day--June 6, 1944. On Monday, May 31, Madam Speaker, we observed Memorial Day. We honored those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. I also took time last week to visit Gettysburg where President Lincoln so eloquently described that kind of sacrifice in his ringing words of the Gettysburg Address: They gave ``the last full measure of devotion.'' As we reflect this week on the 66th anniversary of D-Day, many people may not know that the only National Guard Division on the beach at Normandy was the 29th Division of Virginia, Maryland and District of Columbia National Guard. And only one Regiment of the 29th--Virginia's 116th Infantry, which includes the 3rd Battalion that calls the Winchester Armory home--was selected to be in the first wave at Omaha Beach. There were 17 Virginia communities in the Infantry units of the 116th--from Winchester, Berryville and other places stretching up and down the Shenandoah Valley. This historic unit is the sixth oldest regiment of the Army and its predecessors served under our forebears-- George Washington and Stonewall Jackson--giving it the name: ``Stonewall Brigade.'' The soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade stormed the beach with 3,100 officers and men. They had to cross over 300 yards of sand beach under heavy crossfire to reach the shore and fight their way up bluffs that towered to 100 feet. By the end of what is known as ``the longest day,'' the 116th took over one thousand casualties. Military historians call the Omaha battle the most violent of World War II. Only a handful of those who crossed the beach, who Tom Brokaw has called, ``the Greatest Generation,'' remain. Once on shore the mission of the 29th Division was the capture of the city of St. Lo, a key transportation hub. It proved to be an arduous task. German defenses were formidable. Timetables were disrupted. Mid- July found the 3rd Battalion 116th Infantry at the edge of St. Lo. It had a new commander, Major Tom Howie of Staunton, Virginia, where he taught English, and coached football at Staunton Military Academy. Howie was from South Carolina and a 1929 graduate of the Citadel where he was class president and an all-state half-back. Tom Howie became the role model for the character Captain Miller, played by Torn Hanks, in the film, ``Saving Private Ryan.'' The second battalion of the 116th became surrounded near St. Lo. Major Howie's 3rd Battalion in a night attack operation broke through German lines to relieve the 2nd Battalion. In the morning on July 17, Howie and his troops continued the attack on St. Lo. His last words were ``see you in St Lo'' before he was killed instantly by German mortar fire. Loved and respected by his men, his body was draped in an American flag and placed on the hood of a Jeep that led the victorious troops into the city. There on a pile of rubble of the Church of St. Croix it was placed to honor him. A Life magazine photographer happened by, and took the famous picture. Because of censorship neither the soldier, nor unit could be identified. It was captioned only, ``The Major of St. Lo,'' but it was seen round the world. The French have since built a monument to honor him. Today there is also a Howie Bell Tower near the Citadel Parade Ground at his alma mater. When the 29th Division deployed to England in September 1942, Tom Howie bid his wife and small daughter Sally, not quite 4-years-old, goodbye. They would never see him again. His daughter, now Sally McDivitt, age 71, of Culpeper, Virginia, was an honored guest at the ceremony in Winchester and unveiled a portrait of her father, which will be displayed in a classroom at the armory bearing Major Howie's name. Madam Speaker, Sally Howie McDivitt is a symbol of the sacrifice made by military families, then and now. The 116th made extraordinary contributions at Normandy and continues in that sacrifice of service today. The spirit of the heroes of D-Day lives on in the men and women of the 116th of today. They call the same places in Virginia home and show the same dedication and courage by fighting for freedom and democracy in places which are continents away. This same unit has now served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and has lost two members, Staff Sgt. Craig Cherry, 39, of Winchester, and Sgt. Bobby Beasley, 36, of Inwood, West Virginia. The Winchester Armory now bears their names. I have visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including soldiers from Virginia. They deserve our support and gratitude for accepting the same responsibilities and hardship of those in the uniform of their country who have gone before them. We must always remember that when we send men and women into harm's way, their families are also sacrificing for their country. Military families, then and now, bear a heavy burden. They have been willing to sacrifice their goods, their comforts, their husbands, sons, daughters, fathers, and brothers. They are willing, as words of the Declaration of Independence state: to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for their country. In a speech given at Point du Hoc, France, commemorating D-Day in 1984, President Reagan said: ``The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.'' We call on our colleagues and every citizen of America--the land of the free and home of the brave--to continue to strengthen the character of our nation, which has been built through hardships, and the freedom of our nation, which has been ensured through the lives of so many before us, including those brave souls from Winchester and the Shenandoah Valley who fought their way onto the shores and up the bluffs of Omaha Beach.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, a recent Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) article featured comments from Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi who spent 100 days in Iran's notorious Evin prison between February and May 2009 on espionage charges. Saberi indicated that the day of her release was bittersweet, saying, ``As they drove me away, I remember turning my head to the side and seeing the prison disappear behind me. And finally, I cried . . . I realized, however, that my tears were not just tears of joy, but they were also tears of sorrow for the many innocent prisoners I was leaving behind. Why was I freed while all these others are still there?'' Among those she was leaving behind were the two female Baha'i leaders who have been in jail for more than two years on baseless charges-- Fariba Kamalabadi and Mahvash Sabet. There are news reports that these two, in addition to the five male Baha'i leaders, are scheduled to have their fourth court session on Saturday, June 12--the same day as the anniversary of Iran's deeply flawed presidential election. The RFE/RL article continues, ``Saberi believes the media attention and international support she received during her ordeal led to her release.'' Saberi's comments are consistent with the reflections of dissidents dating back to the Cold War. Time and again those who are unjustly languishing in prison have reported that their lives improved in captivity when President Reagan and others raised their cases by name. And in some instances, their freedom followed soon thereafter. The U.S. and the rest of the free world must continue to speak with one voice about the deplorable human rights situation in Iran. We must continue to advocate for due process and a fair trial for these seven Baha'i leaders and for basic rights for the community as a whole which according to the recently released report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, ``has long been subject to particularly severe religious violations in Iran.'' The world cannot turn a blind eye to this regime's brutal repression of its own people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, BBC reported yesterday that roughly 600 people were killed in Darfur in May, a new high since peacekeepers were deployed in 2008. Additional thousands have fled their homes. Against this backdrop, an internationally indicted war criminal was inaugurated as President of Sudan. And, unbelievably, the Obama administration sent a U.S. Government representative to the ceremony, thereby conferring a sense of legitimacy on Bashir's genocidal rule. Leading Sudan advocacy groups expressed their dismay. Enough's John Prendergast said, quote, ``The administration missed an opportunity to build leverage and lead by example. Getting nothing in return for this reversal of longstanding U.S. policy is baffling and ineffective diplomacy.'' I could not agree more. Vice President Biden is leading a delegation to Africa this week. He will be the highest-ranking U.S. official to meet with Southern Sudanese President Salva Kiir. We can only hope that this trip marks the start of a new beginning for the administration's long-faltering and ineffective Sudan policy.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the ``Homes for Our Troops'' program in Warren County, Virginia, and bring to the attention of our colleagues a program at work throughout the country building houses for injured veterans returning home from serving our country. Homes for Our Troops is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 2004 and committed to helping those who have selflessly given to our country and have returned home with serious disabilities and injuries since September 11, 2001. They feel a duty and honor to assist severely injured servicemen and women and their immediate families by raising donations of money, building materials and professional labor, and to coordinate the process of building a home that provides maximum freedom of movement and the ability to live more independently. John Gonsalves, a construction supervisor, started the organization in 2004 after watching a news report of a severely injured servicemember who had returned from Iraq. He realized the need for special housing projects for injured service members. He focused on constructing customized homes with specially adapted and barrier-free features that allow servicemembers to regain some of their independence and mobility. In its first 2 years, Homes for Our Troops built a handful of homes as it worked to spread the word about its mission. Since then, the organization has grown into a successful national nonprofit organization that has built and donated more than 50 specially adapted homes to severely injured veterans. It has approximately 30 homes in various stages of construction across the United States on a continuous basis. All the services that this organization provides are at no cost to the recipient. Most recently, volunteers helped to complete a home for my constituent, Army SSG Arthur ``Bunky'' Woods, who was injured by a sniper's bullet during a tour in Iraq. The Build Brigade, of more than 50 volunteers from the community constructed the frame of Bunky's house in just three days, a project which usually takes several weeks. His new home on Waterhouse Lane in Warren County, Virginia, will be ready by the end of the summer. The home will have controls and special features specifically tailored to Bunky's needs, allowing him to perform everyday actions such as opening doors. This project would not be possible without the help of Martha Buracker, who is the owner of the Buracker Construction Company in Bentonville. She generously volunteered to be the general contractor for Bunky's home, donating her time and her company's resources. Martha's selfless actions should be an example to all to get involved with this truly remarkable program. There are hundreds of soldiers who will be needing our help across the country and more coming home each day with life-altering disabilities and injuries sustained while fighting for our freedom. It does not matter what state or which branch of the military these soldiers are from, these are our American heroes, and we all need to unite, support and help them. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important program so disabled servicemembers can experience the gift of independence.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I have been working for nearly 4 years with Representative Jim Cooper to address the country's unsustainable financial path. While I believe

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit a piece by actress and activist Mia Farrow which ran in today's Wall Street Journal. It is appropriately titled, ``Obama Ignores Sudan's Genocide.'' The President has failed to exhibit the necessary leadership on this issue. He has barely uttered a word on Sudan or Darfur since coming to office. Having spent extensive time in the region, Farrow points out, ``When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, hope abounded, even in Darfur's bleak refugee camps.'' Later she continues, ``Such hopes did not last long.'' Were the President to move swiftly to empower Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Rice to take the reins of the administration's languishing Sudan policy, perhaps hope could be restored. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2010] Obama Ignores Sudan's Genocide (By Mia Farrow) Last week U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that although he remains supportive of ``international efforts'' to bring Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to justice, the Obama administration is also pursuing ``locally owned accountability and reconciliation mechanisms in light of the recommendations made by the African Union's high-level panel on Darfur.'' Mr. Bashir is indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the African Union Panel on Darfur has clearly aligned itself with Khartoum. One panel member, former Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Al Sayed, said in an interview with an Egyptian newspaper, ``The prosecution of an African head of state before an international tribunal is totally unacceptable. Our goal was to find a way out.'' The African Union panel is led by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, who in 2008 dismissed the ICC indictment, saying that it is ``the responsibility of the Sudanese state to act on those matters.'' Then, late last year his panel proposed a counter initiative to the ICC in the form of a hybrid, Sudan-based court with both Arab and African judges to be selected by the African Union. But all this is moot since Mr. Bashir swiftly rejected Mr. Mbeki's proposal. Perversely, Mr. Gration has now thrown U.S. government support to a tribunal that does not and probably will never exist. Even if it did, the ``locally owned accountability'' he refers to is not feasible under prevailing political conditions, as any Sudan-based court will be controlled by the perpetrators themselves. For seven years, the people of Darfur have been pleading for protection and for justice. They do not believe either peace or justice can come while Mr. Bashir--orchestrator of their suffering--remains president of Sudan. Nor do they believe ``locally owned accountability'' is remotely possible under the current regime. When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, hope abounded, even in Darfur's bleak refugee camps. Darfuris believed this son of Africa could understand their suffering, end the violence that has taken so much from them, and bring Mr. Bashir to justice. The refugees hoped that ``Yes we can'' was meant for them too. They believed President Obama would bring peace and protection to Darfur and would settle for nothing less than true justice. I have held new babies named Obama and watched as Darfuris began to dream again. Fatima Haroun, a 24-year-old widow and mother, told me the day was surely near when the refugees could leave the filth and hunger of the camps and safely return to the ashes of their villages. First, she said, they would honor their lost loved ones; they would search the ashes for bones, wrap them in best cloths, and bury them with respect. They would gather wood and tall grasses to rebuild their homes, they would sing new songs and prepare their fields for planting. Hunger and terror would go away. Omar al-Bashir would rot in jail. Such hopes did not last long. Nearly three million souls are still waiting in wretched camps across Darfur and eastern Chad. Sudanese government bombs are still falling, murderers and rapists still roam free, and the refugees have not felt safe for a very long time. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has expressed concern over increasing levels of violence in Darfur. In their darkest hours and through losses too grievous to fathom, the world has repeatedly abandoned the people of Darfur. Over more than seven years, two American presidents have used the word ``genocide'' to describe what has unfolded there, but they have done little to end it. It is past time for us to step up and accept our moral obligation to protect a defenseless people. The American people should urge Mr. Gration and the Obama administration to lead a diplomatic offensive to convince the world to isolate Mr. Bashir as a fugitive from justice, and to wholeheartedly support the only body offering Darfur's people a measure of authentic justice: the International Criminal Court. Ms. Farrow has visited Darfur and eastern Chad 13 times since 2004.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a piece by Tom Farr, former American diplomat and senior fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs which recently ran in The Washington Post. Farr highlights several of the more alarming findings outlined in the recently released annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Whether it is the persecution endured by Tibetan Buddhist monks or the violence perpetrated against the ancient Christian community in Iraq--religious freedom is under assault around the world. Farr points out that the commission makes a host of policy recommendations which should prove invaluable to the U.S. State Department as it seeks to advocate for those whose voices have been silenced around the world. However, Farr also rightly notes that ``one could easily conclude that Obama Administration officials have no intention of giving priority to religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF (International Religious Freedom) operation--the ambassador at large for international religious freedom required by the IRF act.'' I commend this piece to my colleagues. It is a sobering but realistic assessment of the diminished state of religious freedom advocacy in U.S. foreign policy. It ought to be cause of great concern for all Americans who cherish this first freedom. Obama at the Crossroads on Religious Liberty faith and foreign policy (By Thomas Farr) The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (IRF) has come down hard on the Obama administration for its failure to promote international religious liberty. ``U.S. foreign policy on religious freedom,'' said Commission chairman Leonard Leo, ``is missing the mark.'' The Commission, established by the 1998 IRF Act, is a bipartisan group of nine men and women drawn from across the American political and religious landscape, and it includes Obama supporters. To its credit, the group's annual report, released last week, is raising the right issues at the right time. The report reminds us of a primary reason the United States seeks to advance religious freedom. It recounts in disturbing detail the cruelties practiced worldwide on human beings because of their religious beliefs and practices, or those of their tormentors. A small sampling: Rape victims still languish in Pakistani prisons because religious laws require women to produce four male witnesses to the act of rape. Unable to do so, many rape victims have been accused of ``adultery,'' found guilty, and imprisoned. In March 2009 Chinese security forces literally beat to death a Tibetan Buddhist monk for passing out leaflets supporting the Dalai Lama. In China, the torture and ``disappearance'' of Buddhist monks and nuns, and of disfavored Muslims, Christians, and adherents of Falun Gong, occur with inhuman regularity. In Saudi Arabia a senior cleric recently issued a fatwa calling for the death of anyone arguing that men and women could work together professionally. Such edicts emerge from a Saudi interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism, a malevolent political theology that continues to be exported from the desert kingdom worldwide--including to the United States. In Iran, Shi'a Muslims critical of the regime's brand of Shi'ism were executed for ``waging war against God.'' Iranian Baha'is live in constant fear of imprisonment, torture and death. All this makes for dismaying reading, but the section on Iraq is particularly wrenching. In a country whose opportunity for ordered liberty has been purchased with American blood, Christians are being targeted and murdered. Thousands among this ancient but rapidly shrinking Iraqi minority have been forced to flee their homes and villages. The slow death of Christianity in Iraq is a tragedy about which most Americans know very little. Had this story gotten the attention it deserved from the mainstream press, perhaps public opinion would have brought more pressure on the Bush administration to do something about it. The Commission, long a leader in this area, has provided powerful reasons for the Obama administration to act. These and other tragic stories in the report provide a human face to the alarming trends published by the Pew Forum in its December 2009 analysis, Global Restrictions on Religion. It found that 70 percent of the world's population live in regimes where citizens are vulnerable to religious persecution. As a humanitarian matter alone, surely this is unacceptable to the American people and their elected representatives. Of course, no one supports persecution. The question is what can, and what ought, the United States do about it? Most Americans want their government to try and relieve the suffering of innocent human beings. But are there other reasons for action, reasons that might lead to U.S. IRF strategies that both reduce human suffering and further American interests? More on this below. The Commission provides a host of practical, country- specific recommendations, for example, linking the substantial U.S. economic assistance to Egypt to improvements in that country's respect for religious freedom, or taking steps to ensure that the Chinese hear a consistent message on this issue from all U.S. officials (which is not now, nor ever has been, the case). The report urges more pressure on the Saudi government to do what it has already pledged to do--reform the religiously- bigoted text books that teach Saudi children the wrong lessons, and make their ``religion and morals police'' more accountable. This is the same Wahhabi-inspired ``police'' agency that a few years ago prevented Saudi schoolgirls from fleeing a burning school building because they were not sufficiently covered. Fourteen girls perished in the flames. Importantly, the report adds to the Commission's ``watch list'' two key Muslim democracies--Indonesia and Turkey. The commissioners judge, quite accurately, that those nations, while making strides in other areas critical to democracy, are lagging in religious freedom. This matter is important to the United States, not only because we want to help the victims, but also because the success of democracy in these countries is vital to our own security. This brings us to the ``other'' reasons for advancing religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. The Commission's findings tend to confirm what scholarship in International relations and sociology are strongly suggesting: democracy in highly religious nations cannot consolidate and yield its benefits--including economic opportunity, security, low levels of religious extremism, and peace with other democracies--without religious freedom. That is a lesson our foreign policy elites must learn, not only that we may help influence the democratic consolidation of allies Turkey and Indonesia, but also to ensure that our investments of blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan succeed. Commission chairman Leonard Leo highlighted the connection between religious freedom and national security in his remarks: ``If the United States cares about human rights, if we value international stability, if we are concerned about countering extremism, freedom of religion . . . must be a critical component of our nation's diplomacy, national security and economic development objectives.'' The Obama administration should pay close attention to these words as it decides how to position its own religious freedom policy. Whether it will do so or not is still unclear. The report acknowledges that some good things are beginning to happen inside the State Department. But it also points to signs that IRF policy is being sidelined and may assume an even lesser role than it has in previous administrations. Decisions over the next several weeks will likely tell us which path this President will take. Will he and Secretary Hillary Clinton decide to retool and upgrade an IRF policy that was neglected by prior administrations of both parties? With proper leadership and training, U.S. religious freedom strategies will not only help alleviate human suffering far more effectively than they have to date, but they can also help achieve the national security goals emphasized by Chairman Leo. On the plus side, there are a few reasons for hope. Within Foggy Bottom, a handful of officials are working hard to convince skeptical senior Department leaders of what ought to be obvious: the global resurgence of religion warrants systemic training for foreign service officers in religions and religious freedom. Our embassies abroad need expertise in this area, just as they possess expertise in politics, economics, or military affairs. This case has recently been made by, among others, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in a series of recommendations to the administration. Unfortunately, as the Commission's report makes clear, many within the administration are resisting the obvious. One could easily conclude that Obama officials have no intention of given priority to religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF operation--the ambassador at large for international religious freedom required by the IRF Act. Sixteen months into the Obama presidency, with a bevy of envoys on issues from outreach to Muslim communities to the closure of Guantanamo long in place, the administration has not seen fit to move on the IRF position. What the report does not mention is that the White House is said to be on the verge of announcing the President's nominee for ambassador at large. That person is reported to be a pastor rather than a diplomat, and someone with no experience in either foreign policy or religious freedom. Would the President nominate someone to head his programs on Muslim outreach, women's rights, disabilities, energy policy, climate change, or any of the other issues that are represented by senior envoys under his administration, if he or she were not a seasoned expert in the field? Why would he do so in the field of religious freedom? If this were not enough, the Commission also notes reports that when the new IRF ambassador shows up for work, she will have even less authority and less support than is the norm at Foggy Bottom, and less than is required by the IRF Act itself. Other ambassadors at large, such as the official in charge of Global Women's Issues, work directly under Secretary Clinton. The IRF ambassador, on the other hand, will reportedly have four other officials between her and the Secretary. And the office that has for 12 years served the IRF ambassador (as required by the IRF Act) will now report to someone else. Is the Democratic-controlled Congress paying attention? Does it care that a law it passed unanimously under one Democratic President is apparently being set aside by another? One final point. The Commission report worries, correctly in my view, that both the President and the Secretary of State have taken to speaking publicly of ``freedom of worship'' rather than ``religious freedom.'' Why should that matter? Because ``worship'' is essentially a private activity, far less threatening to authoritarian governments or powerful majority religious communities than is religious freedom. The latter encompasses both private worship and public practice. It means protection for all religious communities on an equal basis, including the right to engage in the political life of a nation. If the Obama administration wanted to downgrade U.S. international religious freedom policy, it might prepare the way by rhetorical shift such as this. Is that what the administration is doing? It is too soon to tell, but there are reasons to be concerned. In a follow-up post I will explore why the President and Secretary of State might in fact be acting to move IRF to the obscure margins of U.S. foreign policy, and, if they are, why their actions would reduce our nation's capacity to undermine religious persecution, and harm the interests of the American people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a piece by Tom Farr, former American diplomat and senior fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs which recently ran in The Washington Post. Farr highlights several of the more alarming findings outlined in the recently released annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Whether it is the persecution endured by Tibetan Buddhist monks or the violence perpetrated against the ancient Christian community in Iraq--religious freedom is under assault around the world. Farr points out that the commission makes a host of policy recommendations which should prove invaluable to the U.S. State Department as it seeks to advocate for those whose voices have been silenced around the world. However, Farr also rightly notes that ``one could easily conclude that Obama Administration officials have no intention of giving priority to religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF (International Religious Freedom) operation--the ambassador at large for international religious freedom required by the IRF act.'' I commend this piece to my colleagues. It is a sobering but realistic assessment of the diminished state of religious freedom advocacy in U.S. foreign policy. It ought to be cause of great concern for all Americans who cherish this first freedom. Obama at the Crossroads on Religious Liberty faith and foreign policy (By Thomas Farr) The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (IRF) has come down hard on the Obama administration for its failure to promote international religious liberty. ``U.S. foreign policy on religious freedom,'' said Commission chairman Leonard Leo, ``is missing the mark.'' The Commission, established by the 1998 IRF Act, is a bipartisan group of nine men and women drawn from across the American political and religious landscape, and it includes Obama supporters. To its credit, the group's annual report, released last week, is raising the right issues at the right time. The report reminds us of a primary reason the United States seeks to advance religious freedom. It recounts in disturbing detail the cruelties practiced worldwide on human beings because of their religious beliefs and practices, or those of their tormentors. A small sampling: Rape victims still languish in Pakistani prisons because religious laws require women to produce four male witnesses to the act of rape. Unable to do so, many rape victims have been accused of ``adultery,'' found guilty, and imprisoned. In March 2009 Chinese security forces literally beat to death a Tibetan Buddhist monk for passing out leaflets supporting the Dalai Lama. In China, the torture and ``disappearance'' of Buddhist monks and nuns, and of disfavored Muslims, Christians, and adherents of Falun Gong, occur with inhuman regularity. In Saudi Arabia a senior cleric recently issued a fatwa calling for the death of anyone arguing that men and women could work together professionally. Such edicts emerge from a Saudi interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism, a malevolent political theology that continues to be exported from the desert kingdom worldwide--including to the United States. In Iran, Shi'a Muslims critical of the regime's brand of Shi'ism were executed for ``waging war against God.'' Iranian Baha'is live in constant fear of imprisonment, torture and death. All this makes for dismaying reading, but the section on Iraq is particularly wrenching. In a country whose opportunity for ordered liberty has been purchased with American blood, Christians are being targeted and murdered. Thousands among this ancient but rapidly shrinking Iraqi minority have been forced to flee their homes and villages. The slow death of Christianity in Iraq is a tragedy about which most Americans know very little. Had this story gotten the attention it deserved from the mainstream press, perhaps public opinion would have brought more pressure on the Bush administration to do something about it. The Commission, long a leader in this area, has provided powerful reasons for the Obama administration to act. These and other tragic stories in the report provide a human face to the alarming trends published by the Pew Forum in its December 2009 analysis, Global Restrictions on Religion. It found that 70 percent of the world's population live in regimes where citizens are vulnerable to religious persecution. As a humanitarian matter alone, surely this is unacceptable to the American people and their elected representatives. Of course, no one supports persecution. The question is what can, and what ought, the United States do about it? Most Americans want their government to try and relieve the suffering of innocent human beings. But are there other reasons for action, reasons that might lead to U.S. IRF strategies that both reduce human suffering and further American interests? More on this below. The Commission provides a host of practical, country- specific recommendations, for example, linking the substantial U.S. economic assistance to Egypt to improvements in that country's respect for religious freedom, or taking steps to ensure that the Chinese hear a consistent message on this issue from all U.S. officials (which is not now, nor ever has been, the case). The report urges more pressure on the Saudi government to do what it has already pledged to do--reform the religiously- bigoted text books that teach Saudi children the wrong lessons, and make their ``religion and morals police'' more accountable. This is the same Wahhabi-inspired ``police'' agency that a few years ago prevented Saudi schoolgirls from fleeing a burning school building because they were not sufficiently covered. Fourteen girls perished in the flames. Importantly, the report adds to the Commission's ``watch list'' two key Muslim democracies--Indonesia and Turkey. The commissioners judge, quite accurately, that those nations, while making strides in other areas critical to democracy, are lagging in religious freedom. This matter is important to the United States, not only because we want to help the victims, but also because the success of democracy in these countries is vital to our own security. This brings us to the ``other'' reasons for advancing religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. The Commission's findings tend to confirm what scholarship in International relations and sociology are strongly suggesting: democracy in highly religious nations cannot consolidate and yield its benefits--including economic opportunity, security, low levels of religious extremism, and peace with other democracies--without religious freedom. That is a lesson our foreign policy elites must learn, not only that we may help influence the democratic consolidation of allies Turkey and Indonesia, but also to ensure that our investments of blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan succeed. Commission chairman Leonard Leo highlighted the connection between religious freedom and national security in his remarks: ``If the United States cares about human rights, if we value international stability, if we are concerned about countering extremism, freedom of religion . . . must be a critical component of our nation's diplomacy, national security and economic development objectives.'' The Obama administration should pay close attention to these words as it decides how to position its own religious freedom policy. Whether it will do so or not is still unclear. The report acknowledges that some good things are beginning to happen inside the State Department. But it also points to signs that IRF policy is being sidelined and may assume an even lesser role than it has in previous administrations. Decisions over the next several weeks will likely tell us which path this President will take. Will he and Secretary Hillary Clinton decide to retool and upgrade an IRF policy that was neglected by prior administrations of both parties? With proper leadership and training, U.S. religious freedom strategies will not only help alleviate human suffering far more effectively than they have to date, but they can also help achieve the national security goals emphasized by Chairman Leo. On the plus side, there are a few reasons for hope. Within Foggy Bottom, a handful of officials are working hard to convince skeptical senior Department leaders of what ought to be obvious: the global resurgence of religion warrants systemic training for foreign service officers in religions and religious freedom. Our embassies abroad need expertise in this area, just as they possess expertise in politics, economics, or military affairs. This case has recently been made by, among others, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in a series of recommendations to the administration. Unfortunately, as the Commission's report makes clear, many within the administration are resisting the obvious. One could easily conclude that Obama officials have no intention of given priority to religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF operation--the ambassador at large for international religious freedom required by the IRF Act. Sixteen months into the Obama presidency, with a bevy of envoys on issues from outreach to Muslim communities to the closure of Guantanamo long in place, the administration has not seen fit to move on the IRF position. What the report does not mention is that the White House is said to be on the verge of announcing the President's nominee for ambassador at large. That person is reported to be a pastor rather than a diplomat, and someone with no experience in either foreign policy or religious freedom. Would the President nominate someone to head his programs on Muslim outreach, women's rights, disabilities, energy policy, climate change, or any of the other issues that are represented by senior envoys under his administration, if he or she were not a seasoned expert in the field? Why would he do so in the field of religious freedom? If this were not enough, the Commission also notes reports that when the new IRF ambassador shows up for work, she will have even less authority and less support than is the norm at Foggy Bottom, and less than is required by the IRF Act itself. Other ambassadors at large, such as the official in charge of Global Women's Issues, work directly under Secretary Clinton. The IRF ambassador, on the other hand, will reportedly have four other officials between her and the Secretary. And the office that has for 12 years served the IRF ambassador (as required by the IRF Act) will now report to someone else. Is the Democratic-controlled Congress paying attention? Does it care that a law it passed unanimously under one Democratic President is apparently being set aside by another? One final point. The Commission report worries, correctly in my view, that both the President and the Secretary of State have taken to speaking publicly of ``freedom of worship'' rather than ``religious freedom.'' Why should that matter? Because ``worship'' is essentially a private activity, far less threatening to authoritarian governments or powerful majority religious communities than is religious freedom. The latter encompasses both private worship and public practice. It means protection for all religious communities on an equal basis, including the right to engage in the political life of a nation. If the Obama administration wanted to downgrade U.S. international religious freedom policy, it might prepare the way by rhetorical shift such as this. Is that what the administration is doing? It is too soon to tell, but there are reasons to be concerned. In a follow-up post I will explore why the President and Secretary of State might in fact be acting to move IRF to the obscure margins of U.S. foreign policy, and, if they are, why their actions would reduce our nation's capacity to undermine religious persecution, and harm the interests of the American people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate my constituent, Brigitte Lavey, a teacher at Langley High School, as the Fairfax County ``Teacher of the Year.'' She has demonstrated extraordinary leadership and character that has benefited many students. Additionally Brigitte, who teaches advanced placement world history, world studies, and geography, also was recently honored by The Washington Post with the Agnes Meyer Outstanding Teacher Award for educational excellence. This award is presented annually to a teacher from each school division in the Washington metropolitan area. Brigitte was hired by Fairfax County Public Schools in 1968 to teach English and history at Frost Middle School. She moved to Langley High School in 1975, where she has taught English, history, and art history. She earned bachelor's degrees in English and history from St. Louis University. Brigitte runs a student-centered classroom. On any given day, students might run a Socratic seminar, give a presentation, run a student-led discussion, or participate in a writing workshop. She implores students to see the significances of history on their own, modern lives; to compare their contemporary world with the times they study, and to use the knowledge they gain to carry our culture and country forward. As the sponsor of the History Honor Society, she continues the learning process by having members adopt a human rights issue and learn how history affects life today. She is usually first in line to volunteer for training to learn new technology and software. She also organizes an annual gift certificate for Langley custodians and food service employees and dedicates time outside classes to help students who may be struggling and she can frequently be found spending one-on-one time with students in the afternoons and on Saturdays. Her sense of humor, a commitment to scholarship, learning, empathy, flexibility, and an ability to bring her infectious passion into the classroom are what makes Brigitte Lavey such a dedicated teacher. She has also received Langley's DeBusk Award and Human Relations Award and Fairfax County's History Teacher of the Year award. She was named a Fulbright Scholar for China and has twice been a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Brigitte Lavey for her dedication to her students and wish her continued success as she mentors and teaches our next generations.