Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, yesterday I voted for the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act (H.R. 3548), legislation that will provide an additional 13 weeks of extended benefits to individuals in states with unemployment above a three-month average of 8.5 percent. Because so many Americans have lost their once steady job and are struggling to find work and make ends meet during these difficult economic times, I feel that extending unemployment benefits is a necessity. I was disappointed, however, that this legislation only included an extension of benefits for 29 states by setting an 8.5 percent state unemployment rate as the threshold for those eligible under this bill. In Virginia, where unemployment stands at 6.5 percent for the month of August, those out of work who have exhausted their benefits will not be covered. Families across the country are struggling to pay their mortgage, to pay for health care expenses. They have depleted their savings and are hanging on by a thread. Those out of work in Virginia aren't struggling any less than those in Ohio, Michigan, or California, where the statewide unemployment rates are higher. I believe that this is an issue of fairness that needs to be corrected. To reach out to those who are looking for work in Virginia's 10th Congressional District, which includes some areas that reached an unemployment rate of 8 percent this summer, I am sponsoring a job fair in Frederick County in October. I held a similar event in Loudoun County in May and more than 70 employers attended to meet with more than 3,500 jobseekers. People across the country are hurting and Virginia is no exception. While I believe voting for the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act will help many who have felt the brunt of the recession, I remain disappointed that unemployed Virginians were left behind. This measure should be amended to help all those across the country, rather than using an arbitrary threshold to determine who is most deserving.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I again rise to express my deep disappointment with the Obama administration's sidelining of human rights in U.S. foreign policy. I submit for the Record an op-ed from today's Washington Post aptly titled ``A Cold Shoulder to Liberty.'' Columnist Michael Gerson writes of the administration's snub of the Dalai Lama on his upcoming visit to the nation's capital. Two years ago, the Dalai Lama received the Congressional Gold Medal in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. President Bush personally presented it to him. I was there for the occasion where this man of peace and dignity was honored for his life's work in promoting basic rights for his people. Next month, the Dalai Lama will again visit Washington, but this time he will be denied a visit with President Obama lest it ruffle feathers in Beijing in the lead up to the President's visit there in November. I am reminded of another administration which declined to meet with a dissident for fear of souring an upcoming meeting. It was 1975, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was set to visit Washington. Henry Kissinger led the charge in refusing him a meeting with President Ford, who was worried about upsetting Soviet leader Brezhnev prior to the upcoming summit. Contrast this approach with President Reagan's 1988 speech in defense of religious liberty at the ancient Danilov Monastery in Russia. In his remarks he had the courage to invoke a quote by Solzhenitsyn about the faith of the people of Russia. In so doing, he respectfully made the point that religious freedom is central to who we are as Americans, and as such our leaders will not be silenced on this score for fear of offending oppressive governments. I believe that history shows this administration could learn from that approach. Sadly, the White House's treatment of the Dalai Lama is not an isolated incident. Gerson notes, ``. . . rebuffing the Dalai Lama is part of a pattern. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has argued that pressing China on human rights `can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis . . .'' ' But this begs the question, what of the human rights crisis in China? Just yesterday, the Associated Press reported that ``China has closed Tibet to foreign tourists and deployed soldiers armed with machine guns in the streets of Beijing--part of a raft of stringent security measures ahead of the 60th anniversary of communist rule. Even kite- flying has been banned in the capital.'' This is the government we are trying to curry favor with? I'd prefer to find common cause and solidarity with the people of Tibet, with the persecuted house church and Catholic bishops, with the repressed Falun Gong. The administration's approach in China has been mirrored elsewhere at the expense of oppressed people the world over. Gerson continues, ``Overtures to repressive governments in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria and Egypt have generally ignored the struggles of dissidents and prisoners in those nations. So far, the Obama era is hardly a high point of human rights solidarity.'' It seems we could also add Burma to that list. Today's Post reports that ``For the first time in nine years, the United States allowed Burma's foreign minister to come to Washington, a sign of softening U.S. policy toward the military junta that has run that Asian nation for nearly five decades.'' The Post notes, ``Under the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, the White House needs to approve a waiver to allow Burmese officials who are attending the U.N. General Assembly to travel more than 25 miles outside of New York.'' On the reported eve of the administration's much anticipated release of a Burma policy review, the waiving of this sanction for a major general in the Burmese Army, to essentially sight-see in Washington, sends the wrong message. Earlier this week, the Post featured an article with the headline, ``U.S. Faces Doubts About Leadership on Human Rights,'' which reported, ``as the U.N. General Assembly gets underway this week, human rights activists and political analysts say the new approach has undercut U.S. leadership on human rights issues.'' I submit for the Record the entire article, which offers a grim but accurate assessment of this failed approach. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' Are we not friends of the persecuted Coptic Christian in Egypt? Are we not friends of the North Koreans enslaved in the gulag? Are we not friends of the repressed Cuban or Iranian democracy activist? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding yes, which makes this administration's deliberate sidelining of human rights that much more devastating. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 23, 2009] A Cold Shoulder to Liberty (By Michael Gerson) Two Octobers ago, the Dalai Lama received the Congressional Gold Medal, one of America's highest civilian honors, in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Speaker Nancy Pelosi talked of a ``special relationship between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the United States.'' Said Sen. Mitch McConnell: ``We have reached out in solidarity to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people, and the Chinese government needs to know that we will continue to do so.'' President George W. Bush urged Chinese leaders ``to welcome the Dalai Lama to China. They will find this good man to be a man of peace and reconciliation.'' This October, on a scheduled visit to the United States, the Dalai Lama will not be welcomed at the White House. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett was recently dispatched to Dharamsala--the Dalai Lama's place of exile in northern India--to gently deliver the message. The Tibetans took the news, as usual, nonviolently. ``A lot of nations are adopting a policy of appeasement'' toward China, observed Samdhong Rinpoche, prime minister of Tibet's government in exile. ``I understand why Obama is not meeting with the Dalai Lama before his Chinese trip. It is common sense. Obama should not irritate the Chinese leadership.'' The Obama administration has its diplomatic reasons. Since the uprisings of 2008, the Chinese government has been particularly sensitive on the topic of Tibet. Chinese President Hu Jintao is a guest in the United States this week. And administration officials hint that Obama will eventually meet with the Dalai Lama after the president's own visit to China in November. Yet between the gold medal and the cold shoulder, a large diplomatic signal is being sent. It is not that Obama is completely unwilling to anger the Chinese. This month he imposed a 35 percent tariff on tire imports from China, leading to talk of a trade war. The head of the United Steelworkers said the president was willing to ``put himself in the line of fire for the jobs of U.S. workers.'' But Obama is clearly less willing to put himself in the diplomatic line of fire for other, less tangibly political reasons. In great-power politics, morality often gets its hair mussed. Every president needs room for diplomatic maneuvering. But rebuffing the Dalai Lama is part of a pattern. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has argued that pressing China on human rights ``can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis''--a statement that left Amnesty International ``shocked and extremely disappointed.'' Support for Iranian democrats has been hesitant. Overtures to repressive governments in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria and Egypt have generally ignored the struggles of dissidents and prisoners in those nations. So far, the Obama era is hardly a high point of human rights solidarity. Those who donate to Amnesty International and put ``Free Tibet'' stickers on their Volvos often assume these commitments are served by supporting liberal politicians. But it really depends. On human rights, modern liberalism is a house divided. In a recent, brilliant essay in the New Republic, Richard Just describes the ``contradictory impulses of liberal foreign policy: the opposition to imperialism and the devotion to human rights. If liberals view anti- imperialism as their primary philosophical commitment, then they will be reluctant to meddle in the affairs of other countries, even when they are ruled by authoritarian governments . . . that abuse their own people. But if liberalism's primary commitment is to human rights, then liberals will be willing to judge, to oppose, and even to undermine such governments.'' During the Cold War, Just argues, these impulses were united in opposition to pro-American despots such as Chile's Augusto Pinochet. ``But history does not always present such convenient circumstances; and since the end of the Cold War, every time the United States has undertaken a humanitarian intervention--or, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, interventions with humanitarian implications--this fundamental split has, in one form or another, returned to the center of the liberal debate.'' This split is now evident within the Obama administration. It includes some very principled, liberal defenders of human rights such as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and National Security Council staffer Samantha Power. But it seems dominated, for the moment, by those who consider the human rights enterprise as morally arrogant and an obstacle to mature diplomacy. Which raises the question: What is left of foreign policy liberalism when a belief in liberty is removed? [From the Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2009] U.S. Faces Doubts About Leadership on Human Rights (By Colum Lynch) United Nations.--From the beginning, the Obama administration has unabashedly embraced the United Nations, pursuing a diplomatic strategy that reflects a belief that the world's sole superpower can no longer afford to go it alone. But, as the U.N. General Assembly gets underway this week, human rights activists and political analysts say the new approach has undercut U.S. leadership on human rights issues. Rights advocates have been frustrated by several episodes. They say U.S. diplomats have sent mixed messages about their intention to reward--or punish--the Sudanese government for its alleged role in genocide in Darfur. The United States rejected a U.N. proposal to compel Israel and Hamas to conduct credible investigations into war crimes in the Gaza Strip. And the administration has pursued a low-profile approach to Sri Lanka, where a military offensive against rebels is believed to have killed thousands of civilians. The administration continues to assert that ``the United States is not going to preach its values and not going to impose its values,'' said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. ``The problem is they are not American values--they are international values.'' U.S. officials assert they have shown leadership on human rights, citing the administration's decision to weigh prosecutions of CIA interrogators. They note that the administration joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, reversing the Bush administration's policy of shunning the troubled rights agency in the hopes of reforming it. A U.S. vote on the Security Council in June was crucial in ensuring continued U.N. scrutiny of Sudan's rights record. Being a Team Player But U.S. officials say that American credibility also lies in their willingness to be team players. In the past several months, the United States has pledged to sign U.N. arms control and human rights treaties, and has committed to sending U.S. officers to far-flung U.N. peacekeeping missions. Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, says cooperation with the global organization is essential for coordinating international efforts to combat terrorism, scrap nuclear weapons arsenals and fight pandemics. ``No single country, even one as powerful as our own, can deal with these challenges in isolation,'' Rice said. ``We are fundamentally living in an era when our security and our well-being are very much linked to the security and well- being of people elsewhere. That's a simple recognition of reality.'' John R. Bolton, one of the U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said the Obama administration's strategy at the United Nations resembles a religious ``act of faith.'' He questioned the wisdom of empowering the organization. The United Nations' contribution to the ``great questions of our time''--counterterrorism and nonproliferation--have been only ``marginally effective,'' Bolton said. He also has criticized U.S. support for the Human Rights Council, a body that ``spends its time attacking Israel and the United States.'' In April, the council, based in Geneva, called for an investigation into alleged abuses during the war in Gaza last winter. Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who headed the probe, insisted on expanding the investigation to examine abuses by Hamas and other Palestinian militants. His report accused both sides of committing war crimes and called on the Security Council to compel Israel and Hamas to conduct credible investigations. Human rights advocates urged the United States to back Goldstone, saying it would show that the United States is willing to hold even its closest ally to account for abuses. But Rice rejected his recommendations, saying the ``weight of the report is something like 85 percent oriented towards very specific and harsh condemnation and conclusions related to Israel. . . . In that regard it remains unbalanced, although obviously less so than it might have been.'' Troubled About Darfur Jerry Fowler, executive director of the Save Darfur Coalition, said the administration's approach to Darfur has been troubling. In recent months, Obama's special envoy, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, has pursued a more conciliatory approach toward Sudan, saying that genocide was no longer taking place in Darfur and that it was time to ease some sanctions. ``We have been pushing consistently for a balance of incentives and pressures, and so far we haven't really seen that balance,'' Fowler said. ``Publicly, there has been more of an emphasis on incentives.'' Rice said Gration's ``vitally important'' efforts to pursue a political settlement to crises in Sudan should not be interpreted to mean ``that we are any less concerned'' about Sudan's commission of atrocities ``or that we are prepared to wield carrots in advance of concerted and very significant steps on the ground. That's not the policy of the United States.'' Silence on Sri Lanka? The other major concern of human rights advocates monitoring developments at the United Nations is Sri Lanka. When the government launched its final offensive this year against the country's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), it was Mexico and Austria that first raised the alarm in the Security Council. France and Britain sent their foreign ministers to the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, to press the government to show restraint. The United States supported those efforts to draw attention to the crisis in the Security Council, which China and Russia opposed. It backed a compromise that allowed for discussion on the Sri Lanka conflict in the U.N. basement. ``The U.S. government remained relatively silent on the Sri Lankan crisis, especially in the early stages of the fighting,'' said Fabienne Hara, vice president for multilateral affairs at the International Crisis Group. Its response to Sri Lanka ``did not seem to match the commitment to preventing mass human rights abuses stated during the presidential campaign,'' she said. Rice challenged that assessment, saying ``my perception is that we spoke out very forcefully.'' She said that the United States had a strong ambassador on the ground in Sri Lanka, conveying American concerns, and that the assistant secretary of state for refugees traveled there to conduct an assessment mission. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rice said, had been personally focused on the issue. ``I think that is an instance where our stand was clear, consistent and principled,'' she said.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, the Egyptian Embassy in Washington, DC, recently sent the following e-mail to their distribution list: ``Egypt has the largest and oldest Christian community in the Middle East, and is home to 2,069 churches. ``The Coptic Orthodox Church was founded in Alexandria by the apostle Mark in AD 57, making it one of the oldest churches in the world. ``A law requiring Presidential approval for church construction was changed in 2005, transferring that duty instead to the country's governors who are obligated to process churches' requests within 30 days. ``In 2003, President Mubarak declared Coptic Christmas, celebrated on January 7, a national holiday.'' In spite of these overtures by the Egyptian government, the situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt is far from ideal. According to the State Department's 2008 International Religious Freedom Report, ``The approval process for church construction continued to be hindered by lengthy delays, often measured in years. Although government officials maintain that President Mubarak approves all requests for permits presented to him, independent critics charge that delays by the MOI and/or local authorities cause many requests to reach the President slowly or not at all. Some churches have complained that local security officials have blocked church repairs or improvements even when a permit has been issued. Others suggest unequal enforcement of the regulations pertaining to church and mosque projects. Many churches face difficulty in obtaining permits from provincial officials.'' On September 7, The Los Angeles Times reported that Egyptian authorities arrested 155 people in Aswan for publicly eating, drinking or smoking during daylight in the month of Ramadan, including non- Muslims. There is clearly much that needs to be done by the Egyptian government to ensure the preservation of the Coptic community in Egypt.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ambassador Richard Schifter--a friend and lifelong champion for human rights. His own harrowing experience as a Holocaust survivor has been foundational to his efforts on behalf of oppressed, persecuted people the world over. In the coming weeks, Ambassador Schifter will be honored by Project Interchange and the American Jewish International Relations Institute for his multi-faceted and important work in this arena. I join them in marking his life-time achievements. In his two decades of government service at the Department of State and the National Security Council, he never wavered in his support for democracy and human rights--bedrocks of the American experience which shamefully are too often relegated to the sidelines in our foreign policy establishment. As a former U.S. representative in the United Nations Human Rights Commission and former deputy U.S. representative in the U.N. Security Council, he acquired a keen understanding of how the institution works, and some of the political and ideological forces at play including those which seek to undermine the United States and delegitimize the state of Israel. He has effectively spurred congressional action to help rally friendly nations to support the U.S. position at the U.N. In a 2008 presentation at the University of Virginia Law School, he said, ``As an immigrant rather than a native of the United States, let me tell you that I believe in the concept of American Exceptionalism.'' I share this belief and would say that Ambassador Schifter is himself an exceptional American.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) of World War II. They were the first women to fly military aircraft for the United States and deserve to be commended for their bravery. From 1942 to 1944, these women flew in various non-combat missions, allowing male pilots to be deployed into combat. Their success in flying fighter, bomber, transport, and training aircraft eventually led to the integration of female pilots into the United States Armed Services. There were 1,102 female WASP trained during World War II, and 300 survive today, two of whom currently reside in Virginia's 10th Congressional District. Joan Lemley of Purcellville and Barbara Ross of Warrenton are two of these brave pilots who served their country during World War II. On July 1, President Obama signed S. 164 into law, which awards our nation's highest honor--the Congressional Gold Medal--to each of these women pioneers of World War II. They will finally receive the recognition they deserve for their wartime military service to our country. I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the House version of this measure, which was introduced by Congresswoman Ileana Ros- Lehtinen. I ask that my colleagues join me today in commending Barbara Ross, Joan Lemley and the other women pilots for serving their country in World War II.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues testimony that John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Project, gave yesterday before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health on the critical issue of U.S.-Sudan policy, specifically as it relates to implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). During the Clinton administration John was director of African Affairs at the National Security Council and special advisor at the Department of State. I respect his views given his long-time involvement in Africa and Sudan. Sudan U.S. Policy and Implementation of the CPA Thank you Congressman Payne and members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on a topic that will help determine the future of millions of people from Sudan and the surrounding region. At this subcommittee hearing, members will hear a very different message than that which will be communicated at tomorrow's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Today, this subcommittee's members will hear a bipartisan critique of the current direction of U.S. policy towards Sudan. Rich Williamson, Roger Winter and I all have negotiated extensively with the regime in Sudan, have roughly a combined six decades in working on or in Sudan, and have a very clear idea of what is required for lasting peace to have a chance in that embattled country. This hearing comes at a moment in Sudan's history fraught with danger and potential. There is no effective peace process for Darfur, but one could be built with U.S. leadership. The CPA is on the brink, but could be salvaged if U.S. engagement deepens. Next year's elections are at risk, but could become an important opportunity to strengthen opposition parties and democratic structures crucial for the referendum and for Sudan's political future. The referendum itself is doubtful, but its prospects could be enhanced with a credible international roadmap. The major unknown variable that will help determine whether the dangers or the opportunities get maximized is the unresolved internal debate over the direction of U.S. policy towards Sudan. In the absence of any agreement on the policy, U.S. diplomatic engagement has been energetic, for which Special Envoy Gration should be credited. But the substance of this robust engagement has been fraught with missteps, lack of internal coordination, and an overall aversion to pressuring the ruling National Congress Party (NCP). Sustained pressure leveraged by meaningful and focused sticks is the principal tool that has moved the NCP to change its behavior during the 20 years of its authoritarian rule. This substantial track record of empirical evidence of the value of pressure makes the direction of U.S. diplomacy all the more questionable. There is also a broader inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy when it comes to Sudan. The Obama administration has resolutely worked to craft more formidable international coalitions to isolate North Korea and Iran for important U.S. policy objectives. However, the U.S. is not doing the same for Sudan, despite the existence of a regime there that is responsible directly or indirectly for the loss of two and a half million lives in the South and Darfur. U.S. Goals in Sudan and How to Achieve Them In the context of its policy review, the U.S. should spell out clear goals: (1) U.S. leadership in constructing a more effective Darfur peace process, using as a model the process that led to the CPA involving a lead role for the U.S. and a multilateral support structure that provided international leverage, expertise, and support; (2) U.S. leadership in supporting the implementation of the CPA, continuing the trend of deeper engagement over the last few months but structuring clear penalties for non- implementation of any of the key provisions; (3) U.S. leadership in supporting the democratic transformation of Sudan by supporting the electoral process, providing institutional support to opposition parties and civil society organizations, and building the capacity of the Government of Southern Sudan; (4) U.S. leadership in preparations for the South's referendum in 2011, which will be a make-or-break process for the future of both North and South. The essential word that repeats throughout all these goals is ``leadership.'' U.S. leadership--multilaterally and when necessary unilaterally--will be an enormously influential ingredient in a successful transition to peace and democracy in Sudan. But success will require greater leverage than that which presently exists. The debate internally within the U.S. Government in part rests on the degree to which incentives or pressures ought to be favored instruments for changing the behavior of the Sudanese regime, the Darfur rebels, and the GOSS. It is the view of this panel and the activist organizations that comprise the Darfur movement that the way forward should involve deeper diplomatic engagement that is rooted in multilateral pressures and the credible threat of significant consequences for policies or actions by Sudanese parties that undermine peace efforts and lead to worsening humanitarian conditions. In the absence of these pressures, and if incentives are all that are put forward, then failure is guaranteed. Success will also require the construction of credible and effective processes that allow for the achievement of U.S. policy goals. First and foremost, the glaring lack of an effective peace process for Darfur calls out for greater U.S. leadership in constructing from the existing elements a revitalized process that has the chance of ending Darfur's war. Secondly, the U.S. should intensify its early efforts to revive the CPA and back these efforts with the construction of clear multilateral consequences for violations or non- implementation of key elements of the deal. U.S. policy must be shaped by the fact that these complex conflicts have a common core: Flawed governance by a center that exploits and marginalizes an underdeveloped periphery. Not only does the CPA provide a roadmap for resolving the longest and bloodiest of these conflicts, but it also offers a framework for the kind of democratic, structural transformation necessary to alter the root cause of Sudan's many recurring conflicts. The successful model of the CPA could and should be replicated in a revitalized Darfur peace process. The U.S. cannot afford to allow the CPA to fail, nor can it allow the continuation of an ineffective Darfur process that obstructs any real possibility of peace. Priorities for CPA Implementation The troubling reality is that Sudan's North-South peace remains precarious at best. Given the mounting tensions between the North and South and the spate of violence in the South in recent months, deeper international engagement is required. Renewed Sudanese civil war could bring wholesale violence on a terrible scale while further destabilizing the entire region. I will focus the remainder of my testimony on the key priorities for the U.S. Government in CPA implementation. I am encouraged by recent positive steps by the Obama administration to prioritize CPA implementation and to revitalize international efforts to urge the Sudanese parties to work on an array of outstanding provisions in the agreement in the remaining year and a half. These new efforts should be followed up with an approach that penalizes failure of one of both of the Sudanese parties to implement key provisions of the agreement. The hard work begins now. It is time for the administration to pursue specific priorities in order to meet the key benchmarks in the crucial final stages of CPA implementation. The U.S. must direct renewed energy and commitment toward the following strategic priorities: 1. Protect the People: Due to a worrisome upsurge in intercommunal violence, the death toll in the South this year now exceeds the number of violent deaths in Darfur in the same period, and as elections draw closer, instability may well increase. Tribal clashes are occurring among a heavily armed civilian population that the poorly disciplined southern army has proved incapable of securing. Some of the latest clashes highlight the flaws and dangers of the so- called the Joint Integrated Units, or JIUs, whose presence has often led greater violence, instability, and civilian casualties. The U.S. should take two specific measures to help improve security and decrease the risk of further violence in communities throughout the South: Work with the U.N. Security Council to ensure that the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) has the necessary capacity to fulfill its mandate and protect civilians. The United States should lead efforts within the U.N. Security Council to strengthen UNMIS' ability to support the CPA, but this support must be matched with clearer strategic vision by UNMIS on how it can best allocate its resources to operationalize its mandate amidst ongoing security threats throughout the South. Other guarantors of the CPA can support UNMIS' efforts by contributing to coordinated programs such as security sector reform within the SPLA. Encourage the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) to take leadership in promoting local peace-building initiatives to defuse tensions between communities that have taken up arms against each other. 2. Build the ``peace dividend'': Since the signing of the CPA, progress has been slow in providing basic infrastructure and services to the peripheral areas of Sudan. Insecurity and underdevelopment remain a fact of life for most Sudanese. As long as that is the case, the southern government will have difficulty consolidating the peace and holding together an ethnically divided South with competing political visions. The GoSS has also been hit hard by the financial crisis, and is in need of significant economic support, but this support should be aimed specifically at capacity building efforts that can strengthen the fledgling government. Additional investments in agriculture and microcredit would make a difference on the ground for the people of southern Sudan, more than two million of whom have returned home to very little after decades of war. 3. Defuse North-South tensions: A number of contentious issues between the North and South must be resolved in next year and a half, all of which necessitate robust support from the international community in order to keep the negotiations and processes on track. The U.S. should direct renewed energy and commitment toward the following strategic priorities: Urge meaningful reforms from the Sudanese parties before the 2010 elections. The United States and other key actors, operating on a tight timeline, need to lower their expectations for the election and develop a multilateral strategy to press the Government of National Unity--the ruling National Congress Party in particular--to enact meaningful reforms regardless of who wins in 2010, revitalize CPA implementation, and establish a framework for talks in Darfur that are consistent with the power-sharing provisions of the CPA. There also has to be a clear and unified international posture with regard to addressing the issue of Darfur, given the near-impossibility of holding a free and fair ballot there. Keep the parties on track in the dual processes of implementing the legal ruling on the boundaries of the Abyei region and demarcating the North-South border. Two crucial issues regarding contested borders between Sudan's North and South need sustained attention from the international community. The failure to establish clear international penalties for a failure to implement these key CPA provisions such as the demarcation of the disputed North-South border has been a clear drag on the CPA. However, last week's legal decision on the boundaries of Abyei--an oil-rich, contested region along the disputed North-South border within Sudan--is a crucial litmus test of the parties' will to implement the CPA moving forward. Now that the ruling on Abyei has been accepted by both parties, the U.S., the U.N., and the rest of international community must follow through on its commitments to help implement the ruling and monitor the status of the demarcation of the Abyei boundaries. Encourage negotiations between the NCP and SPLM on long- term wealth-sharing arrangements before the 2011 referendum. Track-two diplomatic efforts can get both parties to consider various scenarios for wealth sharing after the referendum and mitigate the likelihood that these discussions will short circuit into a zero-sum game leading directly to conflict after the referendum. Discussions of access to land for populations with diverse needs and livelihoods and planning for mutually beneficial development of oilfields in the contested border region could ease current tensions over border demarcation and generate momentum for further cooperation. Urge passage of the referendum law before the elections. Applying pressure on Sudan's Government of National Unity to urge the National Assembly to review and pass the law on the southern referendum before the elections could reduce tensions between the parties after the elections and enable preparations for the referendum to begin now. Once the law is passed and the Referendum Commission is created, potential disputes, such as questions over whether or not certain populations--such as southerners in Khartoum--are eligible to vote, can be addressed before tensions escalate in the immediate run-up to the referendum. 4. Prevent a return to war: The likelihood of a return to war between the North and South, or of conflict breaking out within the South, is real. An arms race between the Northern and Southern government is just one warning sign of a tenuous situation that could explode into outright conflict. Several preventive measures can mitigate the risks of violence in the run-up to the 2010 general elections and the 2011 referendum: Enhance efforts to professionalize and modernize the SPLA. The SPLA has struggled to transition from a guerilla movement to a formal army, a process complicated by attempts to integrate southern militias that opposed the SPLA during the war. To ensure that the south is stabile and the GoSS can deliver a peace dividend, the SPLA must continue to modernize through a well-supported process of security sector transformation that improves discipline, command and control, capacity, and competency. Toward this end, the Obama administration should explore the sale of an air defense system to the GoSS. Although introducing new weapons systems into a volatile military environment could be interpreted as contrary to donors' responsibility to make unity attractive, it is in the interests of lasting stability that the GoSS spend money on defense wisely. Unlike the aforementioned refurbished tanks, an air defense is non-offensive and helps level the playing field by neutralizing the north's major tactical advantage in the event of renewed hostilities. Comprehensive Peace: the Only Option in Sudan Ending genocide in Darfur and fulfilling the promise of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement requires a comprehensive approach to Sudan rather than reactive crisis management. The U.S. must lead the international community in working now to ensure that the CPA does not collapse and spark a devastating new round of conflict in Sudan. With a significant diplomatic reinvestment in the CPA that prioritizes protecting civilians, building peace in the South, and defusing tensions between the North and South, the U.S. can help prevent the catastrophic consequences of a potential collapse of the CPA.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues testimony that Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, head of the Government of Southern Sudan Mission to the United States, gave yesterday before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission regarding the importance of full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) in Sudan. His perspective is invaluable as a diplomat and Southern Sudanese leader who experienced firsthand the horrors of the twenty-plus year civil war between the North and the South which left more than 2 million dead in Southern Sudan. Testimony of Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth Head of the Government of Southern Sudan Mission to the United States Before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC) Honorable Co-Chairman Frank R. Wolf, Honorable Co-Chairman James P. McGovern, and Members of Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, thank you for organizing this Hearing at this important juncture in Sudan's history and in the quest for peace and stability through the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and thank you for inviting my testimony. Since its inception in 1983, the SPLM Vision was and continues to be that of a new Sudan built on a new basis. A Sudan unlike the old Sudan, that is based on equal citizenship regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender, where all citizens share rights to equitable political, social, economic and cultural development. A Sudan built on the historical diversity of its peoples and experiences, and one that accords its citizens the right to self-determination. This vision was and is still a vision of transformation, for after 42 years of war in a span of 54 years, the fact remains that the only way for Sudan to be at peace with itself, the region and the world, is by the democratic transformation of its systems of governance, and the steering of its political and cultural dispensation towards acceptance of its realities and the diversity of its people. This vision of transformation is in large part embodied in the 2005 accord, the CPA. The gap that exists between what was envisaged by the SPLM and what was ultimately agreed upon is mainly because of concessions made in the spirit of compromise that governs mediated negotiations of peace settlements. However, the main drive towards the democratic transformation of Sudan remains intact. Its elements are enshrined in the conditions of the implementation of the CPA and consequently in the Interim National Constitution of the Sudan and the provisions of the CPA implemented thus far. The National Congress Party/National Islamic Front (NCP/ NIF) by signing the CPA, had committed itself to: the principle of peace through the democratic transformation of the Sudanese Government and State apparatus at all levels, even through a general elections; the right of self- determination for the people of Southern Sudan and Abyei; and the right to popular consultation for the people of Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile. However, four years into the interim period, the deliberate non-compliant and obstructionist posture of the NCP with regards to some of the CPA's most transformative and significant provisions represent a great obstacle to the achievement of peace, and is a dangerous abandonment of the partnership with the SPLM that requires a shared commitment to the spirit and letter of the CPA. This is a perilous trend that makes the threat of war--an all encompassing war is likely to ignite throughout the marginalized areas of Sudan, a much more realistic possibility than that of the promise of peace through transformation. I will not attempt to list out all the unimplemented provisions of the CPA, but rather refer you to the Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Assessment and Evaluation Commission (AEC) which chronicles about 35 recommendations for the parties (the NCP and the SPLM) to be in compliance with the CPA. It is worthy to mention here, however, the AEC highlighted the following as ``critical for the sustainability of the CPA and unity arrangements''--the resolution of Abyei; the North-South Border demarcation; preparations for the 2010 elections and democratic transition; preparation for the 2011 Referendum, and Post Referendum; and Security Sector Reform, mainly Joint Integrated Units (JIUs) and Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR). Human rights abuses during the Sudanese Civil war are documented and can be summed up in mentioning the 2.5 million dead and 5 million displaced through direct bombardment and military action, and mainly through the proxy militias used by the government to kill, rape and displace civilians, and who also employed tactics such as the deliberate poisoning of water sources and burning of crops. In addition to that, there were the countless inhumane methods used by the State and its proxies to discriminate against and exploit those who are forced into displacement residing in other parts of the country, and strip them from the citizenship rights, basic human rights and dignity. It was the belief of the SPLM that human rights abuses would subside after the signing of the CPA, because of the countless measures it provides for the safeguarding of the rights of all the citizens of Sudan. However, because of the control the NCP continues to refuse to relinquish over the state apparatus, especially the national security organs, and its refusal to allow the liberalization of the National Security Act and the removal of Media Censorship, many citizens have been subjected to unlawful harassment, arrest, and/or detention for long periods of time without due process and for reasons of political suppression and disregard to freedoms of speech and assembly. Moreover, the rights of Non- Muslims in the capital city, especially Non-Muslim women who don't comply with the Muslim dress code, is continuously curtailed and abused with impunity. In Southern Sudan, there have been three incidents (of many others) I will mention here, that were in stark violation of the CPA that led to massive loss of life and countless human rights abuses; these are mainly the Malakal Incidents of 2007 and 2009 and the Abyei Incident of May 2008. Firstly, these were a result of the failure of the DDR, although completed in the South, to hold, mainly because of the continuous rearming of civilians and proxy militias by the NCP, to be deployed within the borders of Southern Sudan to create instability and conflict. Secondly, it is a result of the lack of the integration and joint training of the JIU components of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the (Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA), to become the nucleus of the future Army of a united Sudan, as envisaged by the CPA. The JIUs were to be funded by the Government of National Unity (GONU), but to date, no funding has been disbursed for that purpose. Furthermore, the SAF component of the JIUs is problematic because it is mainly made up of militias used by the NCP during the civil war, now usurped into SAF. In keeping with the dangerous trend of the destabilization of the South, and in an attempt to rally support against the conduct of the referendum, the NCP has intensified its arming of civilians and groups hostile to the Government of Southern Sudan, and especially those hostile to the SPLM to instigate conflict and create instability. There have been prevalent incidents in Southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, and surprisingly in even in Southern Kordofan, leading to confrontation with local law and order agencies, and/or armed civilians, and that leads to loss of life. In regards to Darfur, it is essential that we acknowledge the fact that since peace is indivisible, the conflict in Darfur is in contradiction to the principles of the CPA which is embedded in the Interim National Constitution of Sudan. There have been considerable human rights abuses, human loss and displacement since the recent Darfur conflict begun in 2003. The people of the United States have to be commended for raising their voices in solidarity with the people of Sudan in Darfur. However, there is a need for all to realize that the conflict in Darfur is a political problem that could only be solved with a political resolution, and the CPA provides the model that would address the root causes of the conflict in Darfur. Additionally, the CPA also provides the instruments of democratic transformation that if there is a cessation of hostilities in Darfur could begin to address the base of the problems of marginalization, i.e., the upcoming elections of 2010. There is an important link between the CPA and Darfur, the developments in and around the issues of Darfur have political implications for the CPA and the obstruction of the implementation of the CPA leaves no hope for a peaceful resolution to Darfur. The SPLM and the people of Southern Sudan are in solidarity with the cause and suffering of the Darfuri people. That is why the SPLM is committed to playing the role afforded to it by history and experience to unite the movements of Darfur to a small number that would have a consolidated position for peace in Darfur. We have made considerable progress in this endeavor and are seeking the support of the international community members who are committed to peace in Darfur. The United States of America, the Trokia (United States, United Kingdom and Norway), the Inter-governmental Agency for Development (IGAD) and other Countries witnessed, engaged in the process of negotiations of, and signed as guarantors, the CPA. The United States played a pivotal role especially in the deadlocked issue of Abyei, making it possible for the CPA to be signed. It is important that the international community and the US especially understand that peace in Sudan is of strategic interest to them, because of its regional, continental, and global importance, and because of the implications that resumed conflict would bring to the fore. Peace is indivisible, and war knows no boundaries, and so, the only way for peace to be achieved in Sudan is through the democratic transformation of the country's system of governance, which is possible only through the full implementation of the CPA. There is a need for the recommitment of the parties to the spirit and letter of the CPA, first by restoring some confidence and trust between themselves as partners by taking good faith measures to address some issue of great concern to the other party; and second by working towards fulfilling the 'making unity attractive' objective of the CPA through fostering North-South links and projects of development along the North-South Border. As it stands today, unity has not been made `attractive' for the people of Southern Sudan, and the people of Abyei. According to the National Democratic Institute's (NDI) reports on its focus group research in Southern Sudan and the three areas, it is forecasted that 90% of Southern Sudan would opt for secession, and the people of Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile in overwhelming numbers confuse the right to popular consultation with the right to self-determination. The upcoming 2010 elections will be a major indicator of the future of Sudan. It is also an opportunity for `making unity attractive. Therefore, it is crucial that the two parties commit themselves to the conduct of a free and fair general election on the dates set by the National Elections Commission; and for the National Elections commission and all of its instruments to be supported and funded to conduct all necessary preparations on a timely fashion, the GONU should fulfill its Elections financial responsibilities per the CPA, and the international community should avail the resources it had pledged for elections support. The resolution of the census dispute is of paramount importance to the conduct of elections, for which the parties with the help of the international community must work earnestly and expeditiously to reach. In conclusion, the malady of Sudan since independence is not only that it is a nation state because of a border imposed on its peoples and nations, but also because of an installed government that doesn't reflect its peoples' diversity, represent their aspirations, or serve their interests, nor did it ever attempt to do so. Alternatively, the state discriminated against its newly found citizens in policy and action and chose to suppress their valid claims to equity of political and cultural representation, and socio- economic development, by extreme force and genocidal tactics and wars. Therefore, the process of `making unity attractive' is important to the spirit of the right to Self-determination reflected in the CPA, because only then will the people of Southern Sudan have two viable choices one of a united Sudan under new basis, and the other of a separate nation-state. It is imperative that the unity that has not been made attractive in the last 4 years of the interim period of the CPA, be made attractive, otherwise, the people of Southern Sudan will have only one option, to opt for secession, choosing to build a new state that would fulfill their quest for a transformed governance system; equity of citizenship, political representation, and socio-economic development; and respect for their basic human rights. It is imperative that while a serious attempt to `make unity attractive' is undertaken, the parties to the CPA and the international community led by the United States, IGAD and the Trokia commit themselves the timely conduct of the referendum and to respecting its outcome, whatever it is. It is also important that the parties and the international community envisage the post-referendum challenges and opportunities--especially across the oil and security sectors; political issues like border access right for nomads and seasonal migrants; economic issues like national assets and debts; and international issues like treaties around the Nile water--and begin to set plans to address them. Sudan is at cross-roads; one road would lead to either a united New Sudan on a new basis, or two democratic nation- states, and another would lead to war and devastation with major regional and international implications. It is up to the two parties and the Sudanese people to decide what is to become of Sudan and the help and engagement of the international community is crucial during the next few months to come.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, which I submit for the Record, imploring him to refile the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party that was inexplicably dismissed in May. This case was brought in January by career attorneys in the department's Civil Rights Division against the party and several of its members for deploying uniformed men to a polling station in Philadelphia on election day last November to harass and intimidate voters--one of whom brandished a nightstick to the voters. The public can view video of the incident as well as other examples of their intimidation in a January 2009 National Geographic Channel documentary that is posted on the Web at www.electionjournal.org. One of the witnesses of the election day incident, Bartle Bull--a veteran civil rights activist who served as Bobby Kennedy's New York campaign manager in 1968--has publicly called this ``the most blatant form of voter intimidation'' he has ever seen. He also reminded us that Martin Luther King did not die to have people in jackboots with billy clubs block doors of polling places. Neither did Robert Kennedy. It's an absolute disgrace. In 1981, I was the only member of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act, and I was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch. When I supported the act's reauthorization in 2006, I was again criticized by editorial pages. My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. Given my consistent support for voting rights, I was deeply troubled by a report in yesterday's Washington Times, which I also submit for the Record, indicating that improper political influence by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli led to the dismissal of this case-- over the objections of justice career attorneys on the trial team. I am troubled, but unfortunately not surprised, to learn of the existence of this guidance from the chief of the department's Appellate Division, which recommended that the department proceed with the case and obtain default judgment. Despite a congressionally directed request, the guidance was not previously shared with Members of Congress. According to a summary of the Appellate Division guidance reported in The Washington Times, ``Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment unless the department had evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by the government.'' She goes on to say many other things, which I'll submit for the Record, but she ends by saying that the complaint appeared to be sufficient to support the injunctions sought by the career employee, stating, ``The government's predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters.'' Just last week, Eric Holder declared that the department's Civil Rights Division is ``back and open for business.'' I question Eric Holder's commitment to voting rights, and I question Eric Holder's judgment. Yet where are the other Members of this Congress--Republican or Democrat--who want to even look at this issue? Given that both the department's trial team and the Appellate Division argued strongly in favor of proceeding with the case, I can only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli or other administration officials was politically motivated. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 31, 2009. Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Holder: In light of the troubling reports of political influence in the enclosed article from yesterday's Washington Times, as well as the many unanswered questions to members of Congress, I implore you to re-file the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and other defendants so that impartial judges--not political benefactors--may rule on the merits of this case. Given your declaration on July 22 that the department's Civil Rights Division is ``back and open for business,'' I would urge you to demonstrate your commitment to enforcing the law above political interests by re-filing. My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. In 1981, I was the only member--Republican or Democrat--of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, and when I supported the act's reauthorization in 2006, I was again criticized by editorial pages. Given my consistent support for voting rights throughout my public service, I hope you can understand why I am particularly troubled by the dismissal of this case. The video evidence of the defendants' behavior on Election Day, as well as a January National Geographic Channel documentary, ``Inside: The New Black Panther Party,'' should leave no question of the defendants' desire to intimidate or incite violence. The ramifications of the dismissal of this case were serious and immediate. Defendant Jerry Jackson received a new poll watcher certificate, a copy of which I have enclosed, on May 19, 2009, immediately after the case was dismissed. Mr. Jackson faced no consequences for his blatant intimidation and promptly involved himself in the next election. Is that justice served? As you will read in the enclosed memorandum of opinion from the Congressional Research Service's American Law Division, there is no legal impediment that would prevent you from re- filing this case. Unlike a criminal case, a civil case seeking an injunction against the other defendants could be brought again at any time. According to the memo provided to me, ``It appears likely that the Double Jeopardy Clause would not bar a subsequent civil action against the [New Black Panther] Party or most of its members,'' and ``second, because the United States voluntarily dismissed its suit against the Party and two of the three individual members before those defendents had filed an answer or motion to dismiss the suit, the previous action had not moved sufficiently beyond preliminary steps so as to implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause.'' I was surprised to learn from The Washington Times report of the existence of the enclosed correspondence from the chief of the department's Appellate Division recommending that the department proceed with the case and the default judgment. These opinions were never disclosed to me or other members of Congress by the department in its previous responses to questions regarding the dismissal of the case. According to the report: ``Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment unless the department had evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by the government. ``She said the complaint was aimed at preventing the `paramilitary style intimidation of voters at polling places elsewhere' and Justice could make a `reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants and probably should.' She noted that the complaint's purpose was to `prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters while leaving open `ample opportunity for political expression.' ``An accompanying memo by Appellate Section lawyer Marie K. McElderry said the charges not only included bringing the weapon to the polling place, but creating an intimidating atmosphere by the uniforms, the military-type stance and the threatening language used. She said the complaint appeared to be `sufficient to support the injunctions' sought by the career lawyers. ``The government's predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote, she said.'' Given that both the department's trial team and the Appellate Division argued strongly in favor of proceeding with the case, I can only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, or other administration officials, was politically motivated. This report further confirms my suspicions that the Department of Justice under your watch is becoming increasingly political. It is imperative that we protect all Americans right to vote. This is a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy. The career attorneys and Appellate Division within the department sought to demonstrate the federal government's commitment to protecting this right by vigorously prosecuting any individual or group that seeks to undermine this right. The only legitimate course of action is to allow the trial team to bring the case again and allow the our nation's justice system to work as it was intended--impartially and without bias. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. As a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act, I've been deeply troubled by this Department of Justice's questionable dismissal of an important voter intimidation case in Philadelphia, where I grew up, and my dad was a policeman. My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. In 1981 I was the only member, Republican or Democrat, of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act, and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch. And when I supported its reauthorization in 2006, I was again criticized by editorial pages. I have grave concerns about the Department's dismissal of this case. Congress must use its oversight to maintain the integrity of the voting system. Oversight is needed now more than ever given the disclosure today in the Washington Times that the Department's case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed over the objections of career attorneys on the trial team as well as the chief of the Department's Appellate Division. The politicization of the Justice Department by Eric Holder against career employees is absolutely wrong, and the Congress ought to get to the bottom of this. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act, I have been deeply troubled by this Department of Justice's questionable dismissal of an important voter intimidation case in Philadelphia-- where I grew up and my father was a policeman. My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. In 1981, I was the only member--Republican or Democrat--of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, and when I supported its reauthorization in 2006, I was criticized again by editorial pages. I have grave concerns about the department's dismissal of this serious case. Above all, Congress must use its oversight to maintain the integrity of our voting system. All the documents surrounding this case need to be made public and all the questions asked in my July 22 letter to Attorney General Holder should be answered. The American people deserve nothing less than full transparency. Oversight is needed now more than ever given the disclosures in today's Washington Times that the department's voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed over the objections of career attorneys on the trial team--as well as the chief of the department's Appellate Division. The politicization of the Justice Department by Eric Holder against career employees is absolutely wrong and the Congress ought to get to the bottom of this. Sources within the department stated that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, a political appointee, overruled career attorneys in dismissing the case. According to the Appellate Division memos first disclosed in the Times article, Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said that ``the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment'' and that Justice had made a ``reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants.'' Flynn's opinion was shared by a second Appellate Division official, Marie K. McElderry, who stated, ``The government's predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote.'' Given these troubling disclosures, I call on the attorney general to re-file this civil suit and allow a ruling from the judge based on the merits of the case--not political expediency. It is imperative that we protect all Americans' right to vote, which I consider a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy. The career attorneys and Appellate Division within the department sought to demonstrate the federal government's commitment to protecting this right by vigorously prosecuting any individual or group that seeks to undermine this right. I hope that the political leadership will follow their example and allow this case to go forward again. [From the Richmond Times Dispatch--Editorial, October 15, 1981] A More Offensive Law A recent news story from Washington reported that Tenth District Republican Rep. Frank Wolf ``didn't want to talk about'' his vote in favor of extending the odious federal Voting Rights Act. No wonder. There is absolutely no way that he can justify his endorsement of a measure that officially brands Virginia a second-class state and denies Virginians some of their most precious political rights. Mr. Wolf was the only Virginia congressman to support the bill when it moved through the House of Representatives last week. Grossly unfair in its present form, the Voting Rights Act would be made even more offensive by changes the House approved. The despicable pre-clearance provision, which now is subject to periodic reconsideration, would become a permanent feature of the law. Under this provision, covered states and localities must obtain federal approval of any law, action or decision that might affect the voting rights or strength of minorities, especially blacks. The House's new version outlines a procedure by which a state might, theoretically, purify itself and gain exemption from the act, but the process is so cumbersome and vague that it is likely to prove to be worthless. One important aspect of the act that would remain unchanged in the House version is its inequitable selectivity. The law's harsh impact would continue to fall mainly on the South. Efforts to persuade the House to apply the act uniformly throughout the nation were unsuccessful. Indeed, the House was unwilling to make even the slightest gesture toward fairness. As the bill had emerged from the House Judiciary Committee, it provided that any state or locality seeking to obtain exemption from its coverage would have to get the approval of the United States District Court in Washington. Sixth District Republican Rep. M. Caldwell Butler, one of the principal leaders of the valiant but vain fight against the act offered an eminently sensible amendment that would have permitted states and localities to sue for relief in a local federal district court. The necessity to go to Washington, he argued, would be so costly and cumbersome that many communities would be discouraged from even attempting to qualify for exemption. But the House, unmoved, rejected his proposal. Not in many years has Virginia followed the kinds of restrictive voting practices that originally inspired the Voting Rights Act. Not in many years has Virginia attempted to abridge the right of its black citizens to vote. Yet if the House bill prevails Virginia, and most of the South, will continue to be treated as wards of the federal government and denied political rights that the rest of the nation freely exercises, and Mr. Wolf will be partly to blame. Fortunately, the House bill faces considerable opposition in the Senate. And Virginia's two representatives in that body--Senators Harry F. Byrd Jr. and John Warner--can be counted on to support, enthusiastically and aggressively, efforts to transform the Voting Rights Act from a selectively punitive measure into a fair and reasonable law.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues testimony that Roger Winter, former U.S. State Department special representative on Sudan, gave today before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health on the critical issue of U.S. Sudan policy, specifically as it relates to implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). I deeply respect Roger's viewpoint as a consummate Sudan expert and plan to submit the testimony of the other highly qualified witnesses from today's hearing, in the days ahead. Chairman Payne, Ranking member Smith and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be here with you today. And to you, Mr. Payne, your consistent and persistent leadership on Sudan has honestly made you one of my heroes. I mean that sincerely. To paraphrase one of my favorite authors, I often wonder with awe at the willingness of good people, especially Americans, to suspend all their protective instincts and to accept some of the worst killers in the human race into their midst. I remembered that thought when seeing photos of the Khartoum delegation that arrived recently to discuss Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Perhaps I have seen too much in the Sudan over these last 28 years and have become jaundiced. Still, a necrology of three million dead civilians in Sudan, targeted victims of the policies and actions of the National Congress Party (or National Islamic Front) since its coup in 1989, has got to be noteworthy, especially as the leadership of the NCP have as yet never been held accountable for their crimes. Surely three million is unambiguously a Holocaustic number. The gentleman who headed the NCP delegation to Washington recently and received substantial public exposure (e.g. in the Washington Times) has one of the worst track records of all. Surely three million deaths is unambiguously a Holocaustic number, a reality for which he makes no apology whatsoever. Not only has the NCP not paid a price for that body count, its leadership now controls much of Sudan's economy; its indicted President is politically protected by the morally- challenged leadership of the African Union and the Arab League; and it continues to undermine both the CPA itself and also the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement, its ``Partner'' in the National Unity government established by the CPA. The NCP has a 100% perfect record. It NEVER ever keeps the agreements it signs with its opponents. The pattern is clear. Take, for example, the issue of the volatile town of Abyei. President Bashir's three-year-long refusal to implement the Abyei Protocol of the CPA after signing it on multiple occasions was followed by his Sudan Armed Forces 31st Brigade's destruction of Abyei town in May of last year. Again, he and his Party have paid no price. In fact, he's essentially been rewarded and now is now threatening to undermine the CPA's promised Referendum on Abyei's future. Just one month ago, President Bashir celebrated his twentieth anniversary as President. He came to power by coup and, ever since, he and his Party have been at war with the Sudanese people, North, South, East and West. The National Islamic Front/NCP leadership team has been the same since it took power. Since then that able and well-experienced team has confronted a revolving door of U.S. diplomats and ``special envoys'' who do their best to end Khartoum's destructive behavior. Often they think that Khartoum can be successfully appealed to ``to do the right thing'' on behalf of the marginalized people of Sudan. It's just not so. Khartoum reads us very well. Personally, I have changed my perspective on Sudan. As someone who worked for our Government on the CPA, I believed in the vision of ``New Sudan''. I believed the ``democratic transformation'' of Sudan had a chance to succeed. I believed that ``maybe'' there was a faint chance the NCP ``might be'' willing to ``make unity attractive'' and so sustain a unified state of Sudan. But Khartoum has killed all that. Those goals are not in any way achievable any longer. In my view there are only two general directions that are supportable by the people of South Sudan at this point: (1) The South will vote overwhelmingly for separation in the Referendum provided for by the CPA or (2) The South will be forced into unilaterally declaring its independence because its CPA-mandated Referendum is frustrated by Khartoum's actions and/or the hollow commitments of the International Community. The International Community's wishy-washy approach to the CPA has helped assure that either option will be messy. However, delay or abandonment of the Referendum would be the worst-possible outcome. I believe, in such a case, return to war would be essentially guaranteed. Because I believe the Referendum must happen timely and in at least reasonably good form in order for there to be any viable chance for peace and development in the region, I believe it is mandatory that the U.S. fully embrace the people of the South and Abyei, and that we escalate our efforts to achieve a soft-landing as the result of a successfully-held Referendum. The U.S. must be clear and upfront that we will support and protect the outcome of that Referendum; many people died to achieve that right. It is no secret that South Sudan and Abyei are plagued with serious problems but, under the circumstances, they have come a long way against incredible odds. For twenty years I was the CEO of a non-profit which was then was called the U.S. Committee for Refugees. In that role I was personally exposed to virtually every human rights and humanitarian disaster in the world. I can assert with great confidence my view that, before the CPA, South Sudan and Abyei were the most destroyed places in the entire world. For more than 80% of the time Sudan has been an independent state Khartoum has fostered war in South Sudan and Abyei. Khartoum has not been a genuine government but has generally functioned partisanly on behalf of a narrow range of Arab interests. As a clear result, calling the South ``marginalized'' became an understatement. It is amazing what forty-seven years of war can do to people. I would visit Abyei which was essentially denuded of its population and overgrown by bush. I would travel during the war throughout the South seeing the unspeakable conditions, but survivors had to live in it. I'll not focus on it except to say it wasn't only infrastructure that was destroyed, it was much of humanity and human society. At the time the CPA was signed, there was great optimism about the future. The international community made many promises. Khartoum was playing charades and winning. The SPLM and the newly created Government of Southern Sudan were hopeful. The problems they faced were overwhelming and mostly man-made. Because the South had become quiet and Darfuris were being exterminated in growing numbers by Khartoum forces, attention shifted away from the implementation of the CPA and the delivery of an adequate peace dividend for the South's war-affected civilians. Khartoum, despite signing the CPA, has consistently undermined it. Supporting violence in the South, destroying Abyei in May 2008, regularly withholding funds due the South and Abyei to cripple the functioning of governance, and activating its friends and `fellow travelers' in the South to foster civil unrest have all been part of Khartoum's pattern of behavior. Despite Khartoum, the South has come a very long way and has received substantial international assistance, including major support from the U.S. The South has a functional government, substantial growth in education, health services, roads, and other critical services, all in fifty-five months since the CPA was signed. Candidly, however, the South's progress is also being undermined by internal forces, especially in terms of some civil violence, some official corruption, and some serious weaknesses in governance. My use of the word `some' here, is to be fair. These problems are serious, especially as they erode popular confidence, but they do not eclipse the progress that has been made, given where they started from and the constant undermining by Khartoum. Let me mention one example of how Khartoum routinely works: Abyei. Khartoum signed the CPA, including the Abyei Protocol, on January 9, 2005. Khartoum never implemented the Protocol. That meant there was NO government in Abyei and no government services for three years. In May 2008, Khartoum forces completely burned to the ground the market place and all residential areas. One hundred percent of the population, who were all returned displaced people, were again displaced. Subsequently Khartoum forces blew up the SPLM facilities in Abyei. Forced by international neglect of these developments in Abyei, the SPLM agreed to international arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague. While the PCA was moving forward, an Abyei administration was finally created. That administration was intended to provide services to the population funded by a percentage of oil revenues as specified in the CPA. The Abyei administration's budget was to begin October 1, 2008; it never happened. After much pressure, the Abyei administration got only a small ``advance'' in February 2009 and another in April. Effectively Abyei administration personnel have not been paid since last January; there is little money for services; the hospital is basically empty. There is still no approved budget for Abyei for the fiscal year now almost over. This is how Khartoum implements the CPA in the single most volatile location in Sudan, with clear intention to undermine stability. This is also typical of how Khartoum has dealt with every important issue in the CPA. To top it off, many of the officers of the 31st Brigade (now renamed) and related militias that destroyed Abyei in May 2008 were promoted, and today hundreds of those men, commanded by thugs like Lt. Col. Thomas Thiel Malual Awak, Major Moyak Mobil Ajak and Captain Joseph Garang Nyoul, among others, are just a short distance north of Abyei town waiting for the next instruction from President Bashir to do their evil deeds. And, in my view, he is preparing to do just that. He has already announced in a very threatening way how he will try to torpedo the Abyei Referendum in 2011. This is how Khartoum behaves across the board on every important issue. This is the Government our Administration is seeking to ``make nice'' with. Comparing the problems of the GOSS with those of Khartoum, which really is the failed state? Is it Khartoum, the one rolling in cash, thoroughly corrupt, a killer regime whom WE have accused rightly of genocide, the `government' that undermines all the marginalized populations in Sudan and never keeps its agreements? Or is it the four-and-a-half year old GOSS, struggling to reconstruct a war-devastated South with an almost 100% war-traumatized population of survivors minus several million that didn't survive? Morally, by any assessment, the South wins hands down. And morally, that's where America's heart should be. Why? I believe that with all their shortcomings, the SPLM and the GOSS politically are fundamentally democrats and genuinely want to provide development for all the populations for which they have governing responsibility. In my view it is in advancing precisely those commitments that U.S. national interests are ultimately located. To me that requires a U.S. surge in coming along side in a full-blown partnership with the struggling GOSS to improve its performance in terms of governance quality so it can deliver services to and inspire the hopes of the people of South Sudan and Abyei. While I cannot be comprehensively prescriptive on specific programmatic solutions, there are some that are obvious: improved financial management, establishment of corruption detection and prosecution mechanisms, preparation for managing the South's petroleum sector, enhancing their public information capacity so the public is well-informed, increased training of police, and capacity-building in reducing inter-community violence. For the remaining timeline of the CPA and for sometime thereafter, the U.S. should stimulate capacity transfer by an infusion of capable American, Indian and other nationality expertise to work along side their Sudanese counterparts. It also means Washington confronting Khartoum when in big or little ways they obstruct CPA requirements and undermine GOSS capacity. To me this is an approach of which the American people ultimately will be proud. It will free the people of Abyei and the South and will also best secure our own fundamental interests.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, in Monday's Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Geithner co- authored an opinion piece outlining the issues to be discussed in the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. No mention of human rights. No mention of the Chinese Government's suppression of journalists. No mention of the dozens of human rights lawyers across China who have been stripped of their licenses, no mention of the 35 Catholic bishops that languish in Chinese prisons and slave labor camps, no mention of the Chinese Government's crackdown on the ethnic Uyghurs, no mention of how China continues to repatriate North Korean refugees, no mention of human rights. Human rights simply cannot be separated from economic policy. The Obama administration has missed yet another opportunity to make human rights a fundamental component of U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise to share with our colleagues today the recent passing of John Thomas ``Jack'' White II. He died on June 7, 2009, at the age of 84. Jack had a long history of service to the Virginia congressional delegation, starting out as a legislative assistant to my Republican predecessor in the 10th District, Congressman Joel Broyhill. He later worked for Congressmen Richard Poff and Stan Parris, and Senators William Scott, Harry Byrd, Sr., and John Warner, all of Virginia. I would like to share an obituary for Jack that ran in the Alexandria Gazette Packet on June 18: [From the Alexandria Gazette Packet, June 18, 2009] John Thomas White, II, 84, Dies John Thomas ``Jack'' White, II, 84, a longtime senior congressional aide, died June 7, 2009 in the early morning hours at his home in Alexandria. He had congestive heart failure. Mr. White was born in New Orleans and grew up in Baltimore, Port Townsend, Wash., Norfolk, Va., and Staten Island, N.Y., traveling around the country with his father, Dr. Harry F. White, a physician in the United States Public Health Service. His family roots in this area are deep, going back to the 1600s in both Virginia and Maryland's Eastern Shore, both of which he was deeply fond. He graduated from Curtis High School, on Staten Island, in 1942 and enrolled at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville. He enlisted in the Navy V-12 officer training program there and under an accelerated wartime curriculum, was able to complete one year of medical school before being assigned to midshipmen's school at Princeton and Columbia Universities and being commissioned as an ensign, USNR, in 1945. He trained in destroyers and was en route to his ship in the Pacific when World War II ended. Completing his Navy service in 1946, Mr. White returned to the University of Virginia, receiving his bachelor's degree in 1947. He then took a position as a detailer with Schenley Pharmaceuticals, working in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The family has lived in Alexandria near Mt. Vernon since 1947. In 1959, he became legislative assistant to Congressman Joel T. Broyhill, representing the 10th Congressional District in Northern Virginia, commencing a career on Capitol Hill that would last for some 40 years. Mr. White would become a legislative and/or administrative assistant to Congressmen Richard H. Poff, and Hon. Stan Parris as well as to Senators William Scott, Harry Flood Byrd, Sr. and Sen. John Warner, successively, all respected members of the Virginia delegation. After leaving the Hill on Jan 31, 2000, he worked for Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock, Newport News, Va., then a subsidiary of Tenneco, Inc. now Northrop Grumman. Among other accomplishments, helped that firm acquire major contracts for submarines and a nuclear aircraft carrier. Mr. White was a passionate historian, antique collector and saved several antebellum properties by restoring them-- several in Church Hill Richmond Va., and one in Milton Del. Mr. White is survived by his wife, Betty Parker White, of Alexandria and Milton Del.; four children, Ann Wallis White of Annapolis, Md., Elizabeth Parker White of Alexandria, John Thomas. White, III of Arlington, Va. and Mathews County, Va., Margaret Sewell White of Halifax, Nova Scotia; a brother, Col. William V.H. White, USMC (Ret) of Nokesville, Va.; four grand-children; and his loyal companion Labrador retriever, ``Scout.'' In lieu of flowers, the family requests donations be made to Labrador Retriever Rescue--www.Lab-Rescue.com or www.LabMed.org or an animal welfare organization of their choice. He took great pleasure in his grandchildren and the Labradors in his life. There will be a private memorial at Christ Church in Old Town Alexandria, and a ceremony at the family plot in Norfolk, Va.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the national debt has topped $11 trillion, unemployment has reached a 26-year high of 9.5 percent in June, and some believe it may go to 11 percent; $56 trillion in unfunded obligations. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia are buying up America and the future of our children; a $1.84 trillion deficit this year and it may actually go to $2 trillion; and Standard & Poor's said we may lose our AAA bond rating by 2012. Now the House Democratic health care reform bill moving through the committee at lightning speed does not include, as CBO said, ``the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary'' to reduce the skyrocketing cost of health care spending under Medicare. This is not going to create jobs; this is going to kill jobs.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 159, recognizing the fifth anniversary of the declaration of genocide in Darfur. An August 2008 New Republic piece said the following about Darfur: ``No genocide has ever been so thoroughly documented while it was taking place . . . in the case of the genocide in Darfur, ignorance has never been possible.'' Sobering words as we consider this resolution. I have visited Sudan five times, most recently in July 2004 when I led the first congressional delegation with Senator Sam Brownback to Darfur. I witnessed the nightmare with my own eyes. Over 300,000 Darfuris have died and nearly 3 million have been displaced. We saw the same scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year civil war with the South. Five years ago this month Congress was the first to call the atrocities in Darfur by their rightful name, genocide. But this is not a tragedy relegated to the history books--rather Sudan today demands attention and action. China has been complicit in this tragedy as Sudan's largest foreign investor and yet China has failed to use its influence. According to the Congressional Research Service, China reportedly imports an estimated 64 percent of Sudan's oil and China's National Petroleum Corporation is the largest shareholder (47 percent) in the two biggest oil consortiums in Sudan, Petrodar and the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC). China also supplies weapons to the Government of Sudan. Some human rights groups accuse the Chinese government of being the principal supplier of weapons in violation of the U.N. weapons embargo on Sudan. And yet Sudan only earned a passing reference in President Obama's remarks this week at the Strategic Economic Dialogue between the United States and China. But perhaps most importantly, and most timely, almost six months into the Obama administration, the State Department is still conducting a ``comprehensive review'' of U.S.-Sudan policy. Virtually nothing concrete has emerged. The little that has leaked out in press reports reveals an administration that appears divided at the highest levels over whether genocide is still taking place in Darfur. On an issue of this magnitude such confusion sends the wrong message. On this, the five-year anniversary of the declaration of genocide in Darfur, I ask, what is the Obama administration's policy on Darfur?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: The Hon. Frank R. Wolf Provision: Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Address of Requesting Entity: 1 Aviation Circle, MA-14, Washington, D.C., 20001 Description of Request: Provide $85 million for the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project. A full funding grant agreement (FFGA) was signed by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the project sponsor, for this project in March 2009. The FFGA commits federal funding from the New Starts account to the project, which first received federal appropriations in FY 1999. This request reflects the amount designated in the FFGA funding schedule for FY 2010. Metrorail service in the corridor will benefit all corridor users by: improving mobility to serve population and employment growth and increased travel demand; improving access to major activity centers such as Tysons Corner, Reston/Herndon, and Dulles International Airport; supporting air quality and energy conservation goals, and preserving the area's quality of life. Requesting Member: The Hon. Frank R. Wolf Provision: Main Street and Maple Avenue Intersection Improvements Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Town of Purcellville Address of Requesting Entity: 130 East Main Street, Purcellville, VA, 20132 Description of Request: Provides $500,000 for needed updates to the intersection of Main Street and Maple Avenue in Purcellville, Virginia. Located in Loudoun County, Purcellville has experienced an 88 percent rate of growth from 2000 to 2007. Increased population and traffic volume has rendered this intersection undersized for its current and projected use. The project would add turn lanes to each leg of the intersection, reduce conflict points, upgrade crosswalks, add pedestrian countdown signals, provide new ADA compliant sidewalks, improve through lanes, upgrade traffic signals, and add bicycle access and landscaping. This project is also part of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Six-Year Improvement Program.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, Monday's Washington Post featured a comprehensive piece by veteran reporter Blaine Harden headlined, ``N. Korea's Hard-Labor Camps: On the Diplomatic Back Burner,'' documenting the horrific nature of North Korea's gulag system, and the failure of this administration to raise this issue with the North Korean regime. I submit the article for the record. We have known for some time about the true nature of the cruel and inhuman system of labor camps maintained by the totalitarian regime in North Korea. And yet somehow, almost inexplicably, these horrific camps have failed to inspire collective outrage on the part of the West, and have been sidelined to the point of irrelevance in successive U.S. administrations' dealings with North Korea. The U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea published a report in 2003--six years ago--about these camps. It was written by David Hawk, quoted in Monday's article, and called The Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea's Prison Camps. It contains a full description of the camps, the worst of which are called kwan-li-so, which is translated as ``political penal-labor colonies,'' and where, according to the Committee's report, scores of thousands of political prisoners--along with up to three generations of their family members--are banished without any judicial process and imprisoned, typically for life-time sentences of slave labor. The report also contains prisoners' testimonies and satellite photographs of the camps, whose very existence continues to be denied by the North Korean government, which is why the committee described the gulags as ``hidden.'' Defector testimony, satellite images and in depth reporting have left no doubt about the camps' existence and the horrors of life there. The real question is what do we do about this abomination? What do we do about the regime that sustains and perpetuates this evil? Because North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and threatens not only to use them against neighboring countries but also to share nuclear weapons technology with such rogue states as Burma and Syria, the international community, the U.S. included, has tended to 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. But nothing has been achieved by these negotiations and North Korea has formally withdrawn from the six-party process. And so while efforts continue, the diplomatic process on the nuclear front appears to have reached an impasse. Frankly, I don't expect much to come from these efforts. The possession of nuclear weapons is simply too important to the North Korean regime, if only to deflect attention from its cruel and oppressive system of camps and the famine that it has brought upon its people at an estimated cost of anywhere from one to three million lives. Human rights activist and 2008 Seoul Peace Prize Laureate Suzanne Scholte recently wrote in the Korea Times that both the Clinton and Bush administrations ``intentionally sidelined human rights concerns, making them secondary to addressing North Korea's nuclear ambitions.'' The young Obama administration appears to be in status quo mode, adopting the same failed approach. This approach hasn't succeeded in curbing North Korea's nuclear ambitions. And it hasn't brought relief to the thousands that languish in unimaginable conditions. A new North Korea framework is long overdue. Ignoring or downplaying the human rights situation for one more day is unconscionable. Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union to reduce nuclear weapons throughout the 1980s, but that did not stop him from speaking about human rights, calling upon the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall, and predicting that communism would end up on the ash heap of history. His outspoken support for human rights had an effect, accelerating the demise of communism and, in the process, making it easier to resolve nuclear and security issues, since the main cause of Soviet aggressiveness was the communist system it was intended to defend and extend. Further it reminded those living behind the Iron Curtain that America was a friend, not an enemy, despite Soviet propaganda to the contrary. We should be doing the same thing with North Korea today. Just last week my good friend Carl Gershman, the president of the National Endowment for Democracy, spoke at the Korean Embassy's KORUS House in Washington about North Korea. His talk was titled, ``Contending with the North Korean Dictatorship: A Perspective from the National Endowment for Democracy.'' Mr. Gershman acknowledged the diplomatic impasse with North Korea, but he didn't stop there. He said that in his view the North Korean totalitarian system was undergoing an inexorable process of erosion, marked by a sharply reduced ability to impose a complete information blockade on its population, increased traffic across the border with China, the growth of an exile population of defectors that has now reached 16,000 from almost zero less than a decade ago, and even local uprisings as the regime has tried to suppress informal markets that have emerged as a way to cope with the famine and economic hardship. He pointed out that what makes the North Korean system especially vulnerable is the existence just across the southern border of a free, successful and affluent South Korean society. For decades now the regime in Pyongyang has told its population that the people of South Korea live in hell while they live in a communist paradise. As the population learns that the truth is exactly the opposite, they will become increasingly restive, resentful, and rebellious, he noted. In his talk Mr. Gershman quoted from a report by a senior researcher for the Korea Institute for National Unification which spoke of the dormant reality of ``cracking the myth of permanent stability in North Korea'' and pointed to the ``danger of minor clashes to play a role of a primer for mass protest against excess of governmental indiscretion.'' Mr. Gershman said that the NED, with the support of the U.S. Congress, would continue to support organizations in South Korea set up by North Korean defectors to reach back into North Korea by providing information to the people. He urged the U.S., in the absence of a six- party process, to convene the other members of those talks (South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia) to discuss with them not just the security situation, but to prepare for a possible collapse in North Korea by considering now what would need to be done to aid the reconstruction of the country. I agree that this would be a good starting point for the administration as would appointing a special envoy on North Korea human rights as is mandated by Congress. Further, any future talks with the North Koreans, be it the six-party process or some other forum, must include human rights on the agenda. Additionally, the administration ought to be pursuing a policy which places a high priority on working with other countries in the region to champion the rights of North Korean refugees. China is among the biggest obstacles. Its current policy of repatriating North Korean refugees violates China's international treaty obligations. A grim fate awaits those who are returned to North Korea. Similarly, if North Korea continues to refuse U.S. food aid, the administration should urge those countries that do provide aid, which again includes China, to press for International Red Cross access to the camps and monitors from the World Food Programme to ensure that the aid goes to its intended recipients. Ultimately, we need to look forward. The North Korean regime will not be there forever to oppress its people. Just like the gulags and the regimes in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, that preceded it, this evil empire, too, will fall. In the meantime we must champion the rights of the people who wither under this regime. I'll close with the words of Anne Applebaum in the hope that they inspire the administration's approach to North Korea moving forward. She writes in the introduction of The Hidden Gulag, ``This is not to say that words can make a dictatorship collapse overnight. But words can certainly make a dictatorship collapse over time, as experience during the last two decades has shown. Totalitarian regimes are built on lies and can be damaged, even destroyed, when those lies are exposed.'' [From the Washington Post, July 20, 2009] N. Korea's Hard-Labor Camps: On the Diplomatic Back Burner (By Blaine Harden) Seoul.--Images and accounts of the North Korean gulag become sharper, more harrowing and more accessible with each passing year. A distillation of testimony from survivors and former guards, newly published by the Korean Bar Association, details the daily lives of 200,000 political prisoners estimated to be in the camps: Eating a diet of mostly corn and salt, they lose their teeth, their gums turn black, their bones weaken and, as they age, they hunch over at the waist. Most work 12- to 15-hour days until they die of malnutrition- related illnesses, usually around the age of 50. Allowed just one set of clothes, they live and die in rags, without soap, socks, underclothes or sanitary napkins. The camps have never been visited by outsiders, so these accounts cannot be independently verified. But high- resolution satellite photographs, now accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, reveal vast labor camps in the mountains of North Korea. The photographs corroborate survivors' stories, showing entrances to mines where former prisoners said they worked as slaves, in-camp detention centers where former guards said uncooperative prisoners were tortured to death and parade grounds where former prisoners said they were forced to watch executions. Guard towers and electrified fences surround the camps, photographs show. ``We have this system of slavery right under our nose,'' said An Myeong Chul, a camp guard who defected to South Korea. ``Human rights groups can't stop it. South Korea can't stop it. The United States will have to take up this issue at the negotiating table.'' But the camps have not been discussed in meetings between U.S. diplomats and North Korean officials. By exploding nuclear bombs, launching missiles and cultivating a reputation for hair-trigger belligerence, the government of Kim Jong II has created a permanent security flash point on the Korean Peninsula--and effectively shoved the issue of human rights off the negotiating table. ``Talking to them about the camps is something that has not been possible,'' said David Straub, a senior official in the State Department's office of Korean affairs during the Bush and Clinton years. There have been no such meetings since President Obama took office. ``They go nuts when you talk about it,'' said Straub, who is now associate director of Korean studies at Stanford University. Nor have the camps become much of an issue for the American public, even though annotated images of them can be quickly called up on Google Earth and even though they have existed for half a century, 12 times as long as the Nazi concentration camps and twice as long as the Soviet Gulag. Although precise numbers are impossible to obtain, Western governments and human groups estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the North Korean camps. North Korea officially says the camps do not exist. It restricts movements of the few foreigners it allows into the country and severely punishes those who sneak in. U.S. reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee were sentenced last month to 12 years of hard labor, after being convicted in a closed trial on charges of entering the country illegally. North Korea's gulag also lacks the bright light of celebrity attention. No high-profile, internationally recognized figure has emerged to coax Americans into understanding or investing emotionally in the issue, said Suzanne Scholte, a Washington-based activist who brings camp survivors to the United States for speeches and marches. ``Tibetans have the Dalai Lama and Richard Gere, Burmese have Aung San Suu Kyi, Darfurians have Mia Farrow and George Clooney,'' she said. ``North Koreans have no one like that.'' Executions as Lessons Before guards shoot prisoners who have tried to escape, they turn each execution into a teachable moment, according to interviews with five North Koreans who said they have witnessed such killings. Prisoners older than 16 are required to attend, and they are forced to stand as close as 15 feet to the condemned, according to the interviews. A prison official usually gives a lecture, explaining how the Dear Leader, as Kim Jong Il is known, had offered a ``chance at redemption'' through hard labor. The condemned are hooded, and their mouths are stuffed with pebbles. Three guards fire three times each, as onlookers see blood spray and bodies crumple, those interviewed said. ``We almost experience the executions ourselves,'' said Jung Gwang II, 47, adding that he witnessed two executions as an inmate at Camp 15. After three years there, Jung said, he was allowed to leave in 2003. He fled to China and now lives in Seoul. Like several former prisoners, Jung said the most arduous part of his imprisonment was his pre-camp interrogation at the hands of the Bowibu, the National Security Agency. After eight years in a government office that handled trade with China, a fellow worker accused him of being a South Korean agent. ``They wanted me to admit to being a spy,'' Jung said. ``They knocked out my front teeth with a baseball bat. They fractured my skull a couple of times. I was not a spy, but I admitted to being a spy after nine months of torture.'' When he was arrested, Jung said, he weighed 167 pounds. When his interrogation was finished, he said, he weighed 80 pounds. ``When I finally got to the camp, I actually gained weight,'' said Jung, who worked summers in cornfields and spent winters in the mountains felling trees. ``Most people die of malnutrition, accidents at work, and during interrogation,'' said Jung, who has become a human rights advocate in Seoul. ``It is people with perseverance who survive. The ones who think about food all the time go crazy. I worked hard, so guards selected me to be a leader in my barracks. Then I didn't have to expend so much energy, and I could get by on corn.'' Defectors' Accounts Human rights groups, lawyers committees and South Korean- funded think tanks have detailed what goes on in the camps based on in-depth interviews with survivors and former guards who trickle out of North Korea into China and find their way to South Korea. The motives and credibility of North Korean defectors in the South are not without question. They are desperate to make a living. Many refuse to talk unless they are paid. South Korean psychologists who debrief defectors describe them as angry, distrustful and confused. But in hundreds of separate interviews conducted over two decades, defectors have told similar stories that paint a consistent portrait of life, work, torment and death in the camps. The number of camps has been consolidated from 14 to about five large sites, according to former officials who worked in the camps. Camp 22, near the Chinese border, is 31 miles long and 25 miles wide, an area larger than the city of Los Angeles. As many as 50,000 prisoners are held there, a former guard said. There is a broad consensus among researchers about how the camps are run: Most North Koreans are sent there without any judicial process. Many inmates die in the camps unaware of the charges against them. Guilt by association is legal under North Korean law, and up to three generations of a wrongdoer's family are sometimes imprisoned, following a rule from North Korea's founding dictator, Kim Il Sung: ``Enemies of class, whoever they are, their seed must be eliminated through three generations.'' Crimes that warrant punishment in political prison camps include real or suspected opposition to the government. ``The camp system in its entirety can be perceived as a massive and elaborate system of persecution on political grounds,'' writes human rights investigator David Hawk, who has studied the camps extensively. Common criminals serve time elsewhere. Prisoners are denied any contact with the outside world, according to the Korean Bar Association's 2008 white paper on human rights in North Korea. The report also found that suicide is punished with longer prison terms for surviving relatives; guards can beat, rape and kill prisoners with impunity; when female prisoners become pregnant without permission, their babies are killed. Most of the political camps are ``complete control districts,'' which means that inmates work there until death. There is, however, a ``revolutionizing district'' at Camp 15, where prisoners can receive remedial indoctrination in socialism. After several years, if they memorize the writings of Kim Jong Il, they are released but remain monitored by security officials. South's Changing Response Since it offers a safe haven to defectors, South Korea is home to scores of camp survivors. All of them have been debriefed by the South Korean intelligence service, which presumably knows more about the camps than any agency outside of Pyongyang. But for nearly a decade, despite revelations in scholarly reports, TV documentaries and memoirs, South Korea avoided public criticism of the North's gulag. It abstained from voting on U.N. resolutions that criticized North Korea's record on human rights and did not mention the camps during leadership summits in 2000 or 2007. Meanwhile, under a ``sunshine policy'' of peaceful engagement, South Korea made major economic investments in the North and gave huge, unconditional annual gifts of food and fertilizer. The public, too, has been largely silent. ``South Koreans, who publicly cherish the virtue of brotherly love, have been inexplicably stuck in a deep quagmire of indifference,'' according to the Korean Bar Association, which says it publishes reports on human rights in North Korea to ``break the stalemate.'' Government policy changed last year under President Lee Myung-bak, who has halted unconditional aid, backed U.N. resolutions that criticize the North and tried to put human rights on the table in dealing with Pyongyang. In response, North Korea has called Lee a ``traitor,'' squeezed inter- Korean trade and threatened war. An Enforcer's View An Myeong Chul was allowed to work as a guard and driver in political prison camps because, he said, he came from a trustworthy family. His father was a North Korean intelligence agent, as were the parents of many of his fellow guards. In his training to work in the camps, An said, he was ordered, under penalty of becoming a prisoner himself, never to show pity. It was permissible, he said, for bored guards to beat or kill prisoners. ``We were taught to look at inmates as pigs,'' said An, 41, adding that he worked in the camps for seven years before escaping to China in 1994. He now works in a bank in Seoul. The rules he enforced were simple. ``If you do not meet your work quota, you do not eat much,'' he said. ``You are not allowed to sleep until you finish your work. If you still do not finish your work, you are sent to a little prison inside the camp. After three months, you leave that prison dead.'' An said the camps play a crucial role in the maintenance of totalitarian rule. ``All high-ranking officials underneath Kim Jong Il know that one misstep means you go to the camps, along with your family,'' he said. Partly to assuage his guilt, An has become an activist and has been talking about the camps for more than a decade. He was among the first to help investigators identify camp buildings using satellite images. Still, he said, nothing will change in camp operations without sustained diplomatic pressure, especially from the United States. Inconsistent U.S. Approach The U.S. government has been a fickle advocate. In the Clinton years, high-level diplomatic contacts between Washington and Pyongyang focused almost exclusively on preventing the North from developing nuclear weapons and expanding its ballistic missile capability. President George W. Bush's administration took a radically different approach. It famously labeled North Korea as part of an ``axis of evil,'' along with Iran and Iraq. Bush met with camp survivors. For five years, U.S. diplomats refused to have direct negotiations with North Korea. After North Korea detonated a nuclear device in 2006, the Bush administration decided to talk. The negotiations, however, focused exclusively on dismantling Pyongyang's expanded nuclear program. In recent months, North Korea has reneged on its promise to abandon nuclear weapons, kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, exploded a second nuclear device and created a major security crisis in Northeast Asia. Containing that crisis has monopolized the Obama administration's dealings with North Korea. The camps, for the time being, are a non-issue. ``Unfortunately, until we get a handle on the security threat, we can't afford to deal with human rights,'' said Peter Beck, a former executive director of the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. A Family's Tribulations Kim Young Soon, once a dancer in Pyongyang, said she spent eight years in Camp 15 during the 1970s. Under the guilt-by- association rule, she said, her four children and her parents were also sentenced to hard labor there. At the camp, she said, her parents starved to death and her eldest son drowned. Around the time of her arrest, her husband was shot for trying to flee the country, as was her youngest son after his release from the camp. It was not until 1989, more than a decade after her release, that she found out why she had been imprisoned. A security official told her then that she was punished because she had been a friend of Kim Jong Il's first wife and that she would ``never be forgiven again'' if the state suspected that she had gossiped about the Dear Leader. She escaped to China in 2000 and now lives in Seoul. At 73, she said she is furious that the outside world doesn't take more interest in the camps. ``I had a friend who loved Kim Jong Il and for that the government killed my family,'' she said. ``How can it be justified?''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I offered a bipartisan commission amendment to the stimulus bill when it came before the Appropriations Committee and it failed. Had that amendment passed, we could have helped create jobs, deal with the debt and deal with the deficit. Now 6 months later, we have unemployment rates at a 26-year high, and some say it will go to 11 percent, and some even say 12 and 13 percent. We have piled another $787 billion on top of our children and our grandchildren. Social Security is in trouble. Medicare is in trouble. Medicaid is in trouble. Let's pass this bipartisan amendment so we can get control of the debt, get control of the deficit, create a renaissance in this country and create new jobs.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my House colleagues in support of this resolution expressing sympathy to the victims of the Metrorail accident on June 22. I want to share my heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of those that lost their lives in this tragic accident. The Washington metropolitan area congressional delegation has pledged to work together to ensure that Metro has the funding it needs to address safety issues and to adequately maintain the system. Again, I express my deepest sympathies to those affected by this horrible accident.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution of inquiry directing the attorney general to transmit to the House information in his possession relating to the attempted transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay into the United States. Congress has a well-established and essential obligation to provide robust oversight of executive branch agencies. When agency officials obstruct congressional efforts to conduct this oversight, the resolution of inquiry provides members of the House a tool to compel consideration of this request for information. I have respectfully asked Attorney General Holder on three occasions--March 13, April 23, and May 13--for specific information about his intentions with regard to the transfer of detainees to the U.S. and how he would protect communities surrounding detainees held in the U.S. I do not believe that these were unreasonable requests. As ranking member of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee--which funds the Department of Justice--this information is particularly relevant given the subcommittee's jurisdiction over the department's spending. However, when it came to my attention that Mr. Holder attempted to orchestrate a secret transfer of Uyghur detainees to northern Virginia for release earlier this spring, it became clear that he had no intention of informing Congress of his intentions. According to Newsweek magazine, ``As part of their efforts to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Obama Administration officials were poised in late April to make a bold, stealthy move: they instructed the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare an aircraft and a Special Ops group to fly two Chinese Uighurs, and up to five more on subsequent flights, from Gitmo to northern Virginia for resettlement. In a conference call overseen by the National Security Council, Justice and Pentagon officials had been warned that any public statements about Gitmo transfers would inflame congressional Republicans, according to a law-enforcement official who asked not to be named discussing internal deliberations.'' The article reported that efforts to transfer and release these detainees in the U.S. were scrapped when members of Congress became aware of the operation. Once it became clear that the Justice Department's intended modus operandi were clandestine transfers, I began speaking out publicly on the House floor about my serious. I also offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations to prohibit the transfer of any detainees into the U.S. during the current fiscal year--allowing Congress the time needed to get additional information from Mr. Holder about his intentions. Still I continued to wait for answers to very basic questions from my three letters. After waiting 118 days for a response, I received only a cursory letter from the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs last Thursday that failed to answer a single question. Worse, the information included was nothing more than summary and rehash of old DOJ press releases. I can come to no other conclusion than the attorney general intends to continue to stonewall the American people. This is unacceptable. During his May 21 speech at the National Archives, President Obama stated, ``I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. . . In this system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers.'' The attorney general's failure to respond to legitimate congressional inquiries is a disservice to this president and the American people. This resolution would hold the attorney general to the president's public commitment to transparency and accountability. I urge my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to move quickly to consider this resolution and direct the attorney general to furnish this important information. Madam Speaker, I also submit a copy of my resolution. H. Res.-- Resolved, That the Attorney General is directed to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, memo, or correspondance of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations and United States Marshal Service, or any portion of any such document, memo, or correspondance, that refers or relates to-- (1) any guidance, recommendations, or logistical preparations made since January 20, 2009, for the transfer or release of the detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States; (2) the identities of any detainees that have been cleared for release into the United States and as any information about the capture, detention, and threat assessment of such detainees; (3) the countries that have been contacted by Government officials to request their acceptance of detainees currently held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and (4) the legal guidance regarding the transfer, detention or release of detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great concern regarding the recent violence and loss of life in Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region. While much is still unknown about the events which transpired over the past week, due to the Chinese Government's strict control and monitoring of foreign journalists, the situation devolved into an explosion of anger between Han Chinese and Uyghur citizens. President Hu and senior Chinese officials have vowed to severely punish individuals connected to the protests, including through the use of the death penalty. The Chinese Government's long-standing persecution and repression of the Uyghur people is well documented, including by our own Department of State, as is the government's history of covering up abuses and reacting violently in the face of peaceful protests. The Chinese Government must allow an independent, international investigation into the events surrounding the week's past violence. I have urged the State Department to work toward that end. The Chinese Government has blamed the unrest on Nobel Peace Prize nominee and human rights activist Rebiya Kadeer. This is eerily reminiscent of the Chinese Government blaming last year's protests in Tibet on the Dalai Lama. Both the Dalai Lama and Rebiya Kadeer have been made scapegoats by the Chinese communist government, and both are champions for their people. Rebiya Kadeer suffered in prison for 5 years before she was released to come to the United States. After her release, two of her sons were arrested and remain today languishing in jail for crimes they did not commit. Amazingly, the reach of the Chinese Government does not stop at its borders. In 2006, Rebiya Kadeer called my office seeking assistance because she noticed a suspicious vehicle outside her home in northern Virginia. After checking with the FBI, we learned that the vehicle had been rented by individuals connected with the Chinese Government. In a recent opinion piece she wrote for the Wall Street Journal, Rebiya Kadeer condemned the use of violence on both sides and called on the United States to speak out against oppression in China and monitor daily human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese Government. Today, I sent a letter to President Obama asking that senior officials of the National Security Council and the State Department immediately meet with Ms. Kadeer to discuss the events in Xinjiang and the U.S. response. President Obama is a father and Secretary Clinton is a mother, so they can understand well the anguish that Rebiya Kadeer feels as she considers the fate of her own children and grandchildren, particularly in light of this most recent violence and unrest. Failure to meet with Rebiya Kadeer would be reminiscent of 1975 when famed Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn visited Washington, D.C. and the city's foreign policy establishment sought to obstruct him at every turn. He was refused a meeting with President Ford, who declined to meet with him fearing it would sour an upcoming meeting with Soviet leader Brezhnev. I sincerely hope this administration does not repeat this mistake.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution of inquiry directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House information in his possession relating to the attempted transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay into the United States. I have respectfully asked Attorney General Holder on three occasions--March 13, April 23, and May 13--for specific information about his intentions with regard to the transfer of detainees to the U.S. and how he would protect the communities surrounding detainees held in the U.S. I do not believe these were unusual, unreasonable requests. After waiting 118 days for a response, I received only a cursory letter from the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs last Thursday that failed to address a single question. Worse, the information included was nothing more than a summary of press releases. The Attorney General's failure to respond to legitimate congressional inquiries is a disservice to the President and the American people. This resolution would hold the Attorney General to the President's public commitment to transparency and accountability.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, a May 5 Washington Post article opened with these words: ``The Obama administration has backed away from overt expressions of support for human rights and democracy in favor of a more subtle approach, worrying advocates who say that the issues are being given short shrift as President Obama seeks to rebuild relations with allies and reach out to adversaries.'' I join the ranks of those who are deeply troubled by the trajectory of this administration on human rights. In a February visit to Asia, Secretary of State Clinton plainly indicated that human rights would not be a priority in her engagement with China. She said, ``We pretty much know what they [the Chinese government] are going to say'' on human rights issues. With that logic, the administration will rarely find it advisable to raise human rights concerns with any country, particularly the worst offenders. Clinton went on, ``We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.'' Human rights organizations were 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.'' Following Secretary Clinton's Asia comments and subsequent remarks during a visit to the Middle East where she indicated that Egypt's abuses would not negatively affect our bilateral relations, the Washington Post editorialized on March 11, ``Ms. Clinton is doing a disservice to her own department--and sending the wrong message to rulers around the world that their abuses won't be taken seriously by this U.S. administration.'' Against this backdrop, President Obama in April moved to lift restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans absent any commitment by the Castro brothers to release even one of the hundreds of political prisoners who languish in jails. Frank Calzon of the Center for a Free Cuba cautioned, ``Lifting the travel ban means the most hostile elements of the Cuban government will get an injection of our currency . . . The tourist industry is controlled and staffed by the Cuban government. If Washington wants to transfer dollars to the Cuban military, that's one way of doing it.'' Cuba is still characterized by our own State Department as a ``totalitarian state.'' This year's National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) annual Democracy Award recently went to five courageous leaders of Cuba's pro-democracy movement. The Washington Post editorial page on June 25 pointed out that in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, NED awardees were given either an audience with the president or a statement of support. Not so this year. According to the Post, the White House issued a ``hastily drafted statement'' only after the paper inquired about the president's silence. These brave Cuban democracy activists are, in the words of the Post's editorial page, ``hoping that the American president will focus his policy on supporting them. Yet for now, Mr. Obama's diplomacy is clearly centered on their oppressors.'' Or consider Sudan. During the campaign, when asked about Darfur, Barack Obama said, ``We can't say 'never again' and then allow it to happen again. And, as President of the United States, I don't intend to . . . turn a blind eye to slaughter.'' He also spoke of ``ratcheting up sanctions.'' Now, almost six months into the administration, the State Department is still conducting a much vaunted ``comprehensive review'' of U.S.- Sudan policy. Nothing concrete has emerged. The little that has leaked out in press reports is disturbing. The administration appears divided at the highest levels over whether genocide is even still taking place in Darfur. Furthermore, they are making overtures to Khartoum which are, at best, naive. As recently as June 18, The Post reported that Special Envoy Gration ``has advocated easing some American sanctions and upgrading U.S. diplomatic relations with Sudan's government to induce cooperation.'' And more recently on the Iranian elections, while the president's tone has toughened a bit in the face of increased pressure and bloodshed, his initial response was painfully muted. Asked about whether there was ``any red line'' his administration wouldn't cross where the ``offer [to talk to Iran's leaders] will be shut off,'' the president simply replied, ``We're waiting to see how it plays itself out.'' A July 6 National Review Online posting on the plight of seven imprisoned Baha'i leaders set to go on trial later this week, pointed out that a ``restrained approach'' to human rights advocacy ``may not work for the seven imprisoned Baha'i in Iran, who face trial on July 11. The Iranian regime needs to understand that such blatant religious persecution has consequences. Silence may convince the Iranian leadership that they can get away with murder.'' The Baha'is are not the only minority faith in the region under duress. In the president's much anticipated Cairo speech, he only made fleeting reference to Egypt's Coptic Christians, saying that ``religious diversity must be upheld.'' But far more than diversity is at stake. A June 26 press release by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom following recent reported attacks on Egyptian Copts describes the pattern of persecution endured by this community. The commission indicated that ``initial reports say that state security services did little to prevent the violence from occurring. This repeats the established pattern that security services do not adequately protect Christian citizens in many localities. For all Christians in Egypt, government permission is required to build a new church or repair an existing one, and the approval process for church construction is time-consuming and inflexible. Even some permits that have been approved cannot be acted upon because of interference by the state security services at both the local and national levels.'' A May 7 Washington Post editorial described the Obama administration as rushing to ``embrace Egypt's 81-year-old strongman,'' in reference to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The editorial went on to say that the administration is retreating from raising human rights abuses and that ``the pullback is not only rhetorical.'' Funding for democracy promotion in Egypt, reportedly at the request of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, was initially cut from $50 million to $20 million this year. That number has since been bumped by $5 million as the funding bill has moved through the committee process--but even with that increase, the funding amounts to half of the previous year's figure. Given that millions of dollars in unconditioned foreign aid has gone to the Egyptian government in the years following the Camp David accords, this slash in civil society funding is an embarrassment. One of the darkest places on the globe is North Korea. More than 200,000 North Koreans--including children--are being held in political prison camps. It is estimated that between 400,000 and one million people have died in these camps, having been worked to death or starved to death. A June 16 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.'' Even in the face of North Korea's nuclear ambitions it is inexcusable for their abhorrent human rights record to not just be relegated to the back burner, but seemingly removed from the agenda altogether. Unlike past administrations, this administration had nothing to say, no public statement, acknowledging North Korea Human Rights Week this April, and Secretary Clinton, who was in town, could not find time in her schedule to meet with any of the 30 brave North Korean defectors in the nation's capital to mark the occasion. Or consider Vietnam. In its 2009 annual report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom found that, ``Individuals continue to be imprisoned or detained for reasons related to their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy; police and government officials are not held fully accountable for abuses; independent religious activity remains illegal; and legal protections for government-approved religious organizations are both vague and subject to arbitrary or discriminatory interpretations based on political factors.'' The commission recommended that Vietnam be placed back on the State Department's Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) list, a list reserved for the world's worst offenders of religious freedom. But a June 25 Washington Times article reported that ``U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Michael W. Michalak recently rejected calls by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to put Vietnam back on the CPC watch list. He cited that there was not enough evidence of religious persecution.'' This is the same ambassador who recently gave a 4th of July speech in which he cited the timeless words of our own Declaration of Independence, but then had nothing to say about the oppression and lack of freedom in Vietnam. It is worth noting that Ambassador Michalak is a career foreign service officer who has been in his current position since the last years of the Bush administration. He is well acquainted with my concerns regarding his apparent disregard for human rights in Vietnam and his failure to make the U.S. embassy an island of freedom. I was quick to criticize the Bush administration when it seemed that they were missing opportunities to be a voice for the voiceless. Too often in the previous administration the public rhetoric failed to match action. But in this new, young administration, even the rhetoric is absent. Reports of the President's trip to Russia quote a top National Security Council adviser as saying the Obama administration ``came to the conclusion that us waving our fingers around the world is a strategy that hasn't worked very well in the past.'' This same adviser later conceded to Politico that human rights were never raised in Obama's meeting with Russian President Putin. It seems this administration could learn a lesson from history . . . from another Russian in fact. The year was 1975. Famed Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was set to visit Washington. The city's foreign policy establishment, among them Henry Kissinger, sought to obstruct him at every turn. He was refused a meeting with President Ford, who declined to meet with him fearing it would sour an upcoming meeting with Soviet leader Brezhnev. When Solzhenitsyn delivered a major speech at the AFL-CIO, State Department employees were forbidden from attending. Ronald Reagan, former governor of California, was angered at the snub and wrote a column which appeared in papers across the country exposing the White House's motives for refusing an audience with this renowned dissident, author of Gulag Archipelago. Reagan wrote, ``the real reason for the snub surfaced: a visit with Solzhenitsyn would violate the 'spirit of detente.'' Fast forward eight years. Now president, Mr. Reagan delivers an electrifying speech where he refers to the Soviet Union as the ``evil empire.'' Another Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky, wrote in his book of how word of that speech penetrated the gulag. ``Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's `provocation' quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally the leader of the free world had spoken the truth--a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.'' Nearly 30 years later, much has changed, but much remains the same. Speaking truth to power will always place America on the right side of history. Speaking out for those who have no voice will always be a source of hope for people in the darkest corners of the globe. This President and this Secretary of State need to remember that the surest way to accomplish their stated goal of bolstering America's standing in the world is to find common cause not with oppressors, but with those they repress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, May 14 marked the one-year anniversary of the imprisonment of the seven-member national committee of the Iranian Baha'is. They have been unjustly held for over a year without formal charges or access to their attorneys. According to The New York Times, the seven Baha'is are scheduled to face trial this Saturday, July 11. They will reportedly be charged with ``espionage for Israel,'' a crime which is punishable by death. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom recently released their 2009 report which recommends that the State Department designate Iran a country of particular concern due to its gross violations of religious freedom. Such violations include the execution of over 200 Baha'i leaders since 1979, the desecration of Baha'i cemeteries and places of worship and the violent arrest and harassment of members of the Baha'i faith. As the administration seeks diplomatic engagement with Iran, I urge them to make human rights and religious freedom, including the persecuted Baha'is, an integral part of the dialogue. Human dignity and freedom must not be relegated to the sidelines.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, our economic house is crumbling. We are being bought piece by piece by China and Saudi Arabia. We owe these and other countries billions. And in a few years, because of this crushing debt and our huge mandated entitlement programs, we will have no money for research to find cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, autism, or other diseases. No money for science advances or for education. This Congress cannot abandon the American people and leave our children and grandchildren to shoulder these awful burdens. There is a way to solve this dilemma. We can pass the bipartisan Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission bill to save America's future economy. This Congress, this Congress that we serve in now, is failing, is failing the American people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, our country has always been the world's innovation leader, and I believe innovation and not taxation must be the answer to the energy challenges we face. That's why I support the Forbes amendment which would substitute this bill with a new Manhattan project for energy independence, bringing together the best and brightest minds of a new generation of scientists, engineers and researchers in a unified national challenge just as we did with the original Manhattan project in World War II. Like the first project, which was launched to ensure the security of our country, today our national security depends on our ability to produce reliable, cost-effective and environmentally friendly sources of energy to fuel our economy. This project would award significant cash prizes to the first person or entity to achieve set energy goals, such as doubling car fuel efficiency to 70 mpg while keeping vehicles affordable, cutting home and business energy usage in half, making solar power work at the same cost as coal, making the production of biofuels cost-competitive with gasoline, safely and cheaply storing carbon emissions from coal-powered plants, safely storing or neutralizing nuclear waste, and producing usable electricity from a nuclear fusion reaction. Just like the challenge of the space program to put a man on the moon in a decade, I believe by working together, a new Manhattan project could transform our nation's energy security. But the ``cap-and-trade'' plan the House considered is the wrong solution at the wrong time. We can do better and I think this alternative is a better solution.