Condemning the Government of the Republic of the Sudan for its attacks against innocent civilians in the impoverished Darfur region of western Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the House, Chairman Hyde and International Relations Committee for bringing H. Con. Res. 403 to the floor quickly and I urge a unanimous vote for this important resolution.

The conflict in Sudan began early last year when the Government of Sudan began arming the Janjaweed militia to suppress local rebel groups. The Janjaweed, with the support of government troops began their reign of terror on the people of Darfur.

The result--ethnic cleansing and the death of thousands of innocent civilians. One million people are now displaced. Village after village attacked, looted and burned. The survivors bear scars of mutilation and rape. Schools filled with students have been attacked and the girls raped.

Thousands of survivors walk days, weeks and sometimes months in the unrelenting sun to seek safety in Chad. They are pursued by Janjaweed and often bombed as they languish on the border.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians are trapped in camps inside Darfur. Surrounded by militia and unable to leave to seek water or firewood. Families are forced to make life or death decisions on which family member will go to gather food and risk certain death.

People are living on top of each other in crowed camps. Disease and malnutrition are rampant. USAID now estimates that by fall the world will see catastrophic mortality rates from disease and starvation.

The world has finally found its voice as reports are trickling out describing the reality of Darfur. The headlines in major U.S. newspapers have read like a horror film:

``Sudan militiamen on horses uproot a million'';

``Sudan's hellish humanitarian crisis'';

``Sudan's Darfur is calm because there are no more villages to burn''.

``Sudan starving Darfur refuges''

I would like to read an excerpt from the May 15 Economist:

Her story is typical. . . . An air raid caught her

unawares: as bombs fell, she ran around in confusion. When

the bombers had completed their return pass, the horizon

filled with dust, the ground shuddered, and a host of mounted

militiamen charged through the village, killing all the young

men they could find . . . her 18-month baby . . . killed by

shrapnel.

Two weeks later her oldest son, 15, was made to kneel in

line with other young men before being shot in the back of

the head. Her husband disappeared the same day.

But words are not enough. The international community has been reluctant to act.

Secretary General Kofi Annan should go to Darfur and stand with the persecuted.

I introduced this resolution so Members of Congress would have the opportunity to voice their support for the innocent people in Darfur.

This resolution strongly condemns the Government of Sudan and government-supported militia groups for attacks against innocent civilians, in violation of the Geneva Convention.

The Government of Sudan should immediately disarm the militia, and allow full unconditional humanitarian access to Darfur. The civilians who are languishing in camps should be provided immediate protection.

Why is the world slow to respond when atrocities are taking place before our eyes?

The world has said never again over and over again, yet when it is put to the test and charged with protecting humanity it continues to fail.

Why has the international community become content with the slaughter of innocent human beings?

When will the death of innocent human beings be too much for the world to bear?

We need to be bold and willing to condemn and shame countries that commit atrocities against their own citizens.

It is our moral responsibility to protect humanity and not sit idly by in the face of horror. Those of us in public office have the unique responsibility and the power of our voices to confront evil.

The world is a safer place when the world sides with the opposed.

Today, let our voices be raised for the innocent people of Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the full Economist story. I urge every Member to read the graphic detail of Khartoums destruction of innocent lives.

[From the Economist, May 15, 2004]

Fleeing the Horsemen Who Kill for Khartoum

Her children's bodies were rotting in the village wells,

where Arab militiamen had thrown them to poison the water

supply. But Kaltuma Hasala Adan did not flee her home.

Leaving her crops and livestock would condemn the rest of the

family to death, she reasoned. So she stayed put for four

months, despite her government's strenuous efforts to

terrorize her into flight.

Her story is typical of western Sudan's black Africans. Her

village was first attacked in January. An air raid caught her

unawares: as the bombs fell, she ran around

in confusion. When the bombers had completed their return

pass, the horizon filled with dust, the ground shuddered, and

a host of mounted militiamen charged through the village,

killing all the young men they could find. During that first

attack, Kaltuma's 18-month baby, Ali, was killed by shrapnel.

Two weeks later, her oldest son, Issa, 15, was made to kneel

in line with other young men before being shot in the back of

the head. Her husband disappeared the same day.

For four wretched months, Kaltuma lived with both ears

strained for the faint drone of bombers, poised to dash with

her three surviving children to a hiding place in a dry river

bed. Then the janjaweed--an Arab militia that kills for the

Sudanese government--rode up to finish the job. They razed

her village entirely. She fled from the embers of her hut and

trekked for four days through the desert. Across the border

in Chad, she found sanctuary in the town of Tine. Thousands

of her neighbours were already there when she arrived.

The UN's humanitarian co-ordinator for Sudan, Mukesh

Kapila, described what is going on in Darfur, an arid region

of western Sudan, as ``the worst humanitarian crisis in the

world''. Human Rights Watch, a lobby group, has accused

Sudan's Arab-dominated government of crimes against humanity.

The government is seeking to purge Darfur of black Africans,

using methods as cruel as they are effective. Perhaps a

million people have fled their homes. Officials deny ethnic

cleansing, of course, but the refugees say they lie.

As Kaltuma tells her story, a crowd gathers to corroborate

it. Osman Nurrudin Sadr says his whole family was killed.

Khadija Yacob Abdallah, a pretty 17-year-old, watched her

parents die and was then gang-raped. All the refugees offer

the same explanation. ``They want to kill us because we are

black,'' says one.

It is a little more complicated than that. Sudan, Africa's

largest country, is the scene of two separate but related

civil wars. One, between the north and south, pits the Arab,

Islamist government against rebels who are mostly black

African and non-Muslim. This war has been raging

intermittently for half a century, but has come tantalizingly

close to resolution in the past year: partly because of

foreign pressure, especially from America, and partly because

both sides, exhausted, wish to stop fighting and share

Sudan's new-found oil wealth.

The other war, between the government and two rebel groups

in Darfur, pits Muslim against Muslim. The divide in Darfur

is ethnic, between Arabs and black Africans. This war flared

up only last year. It was seen at first as a mere sideshow,

but is now too vast and vile to be ignored.

centuries of suffering

The south has been marginalized for centuries. Arab slavers

used it as a hunting-ground for human booty, despite Anglo-

Egyptian attempts to crush the trade in the 19th century.

When independence came in 1956, southerners demanded

autonomy. They were ignored, so they rebelled.

The war paused between 1972 and 1983, but then resumed. The

government used scorched-earth tactics against the main rebel

group, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), bombing

villages suspected of rebel sympathies, and arming and

encouraging militias to kill and pillage in rebel-held areas.

Slave raids continued, checked only by the absence of tarmac

roads in the south.

Largely because it involved Muslims enslaving Christians,

the war gripped the imagination of America's influential

Christian lobby. In fact, only a minority of southern

Sudanese are Christians; the rest are cheerfully polytheistic

or animist. Nonetheless, America took an interest, which

increased when the radical Islamist regime in Khartoum hosted

Osama bin Laden in the early 1900s. In retaliation for al-

Qaeda'a attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania

in 1998, President Bill Clinton bombed a Sudanese factory he

said was producing nerve gas, but which may have been making

aspirin. The regime was already distancing itself from its

international terrorist associates, a process swiftly

accelerated by the American invasions of Afghanistan and

Iraq.

Sudan's rulers rounded up terrorist suspects, shared

intelligence and froze Mr. bin Laden's assets in Sudan,

including a cannabis farm worked by child slaves who had

apparently been brought from a Ugandan rebel group for one

Kalashnikov each.

At the same time, the Sudanese government started to yield

to American pressure to seek peace with the south.

Negotiations have been tortuous, but Vice-President Ali Osman

Taha keeps talking to John Garang, the SPLA leader. If the

government shows bad faith, America threatens to choke it

with sanctions and to bankroll the SPLA.

Since 2001 the two sides have hammered out a series of

agreements that are supposed to culminate in a comprehensive

peace. Last September they signed a security accord, mapping

out how Khartoum will withdraw most of its troops from the

south. This year has seen a written agreement on how to split

the revenues from the oil that lies under Sudanese sand, and

verbal agreements on power-sharing and the future of three

contested areas. Some of these are on the northern side of

the line (see map), but their inhabitants consider themselves

southern.

For an interim period of six years, Sudan is to remain one

country, with Omar al-Bashir, the current president,

remaining in office, and with Mr. Garang, the rebel leader,

as his deputy. Then there is to be a referendum in which

southerners will be offered the choice of staying or

seceding.

the west burns

The trouble with this plan for a new Sudan is that it

involves only the two main belligerents. Peaceful opposition

groups have been left out. Since neither the government nor

the SPLA is remotely democratic, many Sudanese seethe at the

prospect of them divvying up the petrodollars. In Darfur,

that rage has sparked mayhem.

Darfur has seen sporadic fighting for generations. As the

desert has expanded, camel- and cattle-herding Arab nomads

have bickered with black African farmers over dwindling

supplies of water and pasture. Darfur's black tribes complain

that, since the 1980s, they have been pushed out of

government jobs in favor of Arabs. And the region has been

flooded with weapons. Khartoum first armed the janjaweed so

they could ride south and pillage SPLA territory. Arms from a

long-running conflict between Chad and Libya seeped across

the border into Darfur.

Last year, a new rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Army

(SLA) appeared in Darfur and won a string of victories. Soon

after, a second group sprang up, the Justice and Equality

Movement (JEM). The government in Kartoum felt vulnerable. It

was terrified that rebel successes in Darfur might inspire

other marginalised groups in the north and east, especially

since the SLA has links with a rebel group in the east.

The government struck back, not only against the rebels,

but also against their ethnic kin. It unleashed the

janjaweed. To swell the militia's ranks, Arab criminals were

released from jail and given horses, $100 each and carte

blanche to loot. (These ex-prisoners are labeled ta'ibeen,

``those who have repented''.)

The janjaweed have clattered into village after African

village, torching the straw roofs of conical huts, killing

young men who might join the rebels, raping women who might

feed them, and stealing everything they can carry off.

Sometimes they brand the hands of the women they rape, to

make the stigma permanent. They have also torched dozens of

mosques and torn up and defecated on copies of the Koran.

Whatever inspires them, it is not Islam.

Their victims have no doubt that the janjaweed enjoy the

state's blessing. When asked what gives them the right to

stop blacks at road blocks, the militiamen reply: ``We are

the government.'' When pillaging, they are often supported

by the air force and by the regular army. ``First the

planes come, then the janjaweed and finally government

soldiers,'' says a refugee. ``They are brothers united on

a mission to kill.''

It was a long time before the outside world took notice. At

first, both America and the UN hesitated to make a fuss about

Darfur for fear of derailing the north-south peace process.

But in March, the UN's man on the spot started making

comparisons with the Rwandan genocide of 1994. That was an

exaggeration, but it prompted Washington to lean on Khartoum

to end the ethnic cleansing. A ceasefire followed on April

8th, supposedly to help aid workers do their job, but was

quickly broken.

Fighting and pillage continue, making it hard to feed the

displaced. The UN does not want to get too close to the

border--the janjaweed do not respect international

boundaries--so it has moved 35,000 refugees deep into Chad.

Tens of thousands remain stranded near the border. Those

unfortunate enough to wind up in camps in Darfur have been

deliberately starved by the janjaweed, according to the UN.

Brave charities such as Medecins Sans Frontieres have

ignored the occasional air raid to dole out medical supplies,

feed the hungriest and vaccinate against a meningitis

outbreak. Most refugees in Chad have depended on food and

water from the locals who, though poor, are startlingly

generous. Supplies are running out, however, and the UN

mission is short of cash.

The rainy season is almost here, when the valleys will fill

with water and it will be impossible to get the refugees into

the half-empty camps that await them. UN lorries lie stranded

because there is no money for fuel and the drivers, unpaid

for six weeks, have gone on strike.

Over 10,000 newly arrived refugees around Bahai, north of

Tine, have been dismissed as ``combatants''--though most are

women, children or old men. For the UN, admitting that they

are refugees would mean being obligated to look after them.

``I'm trying to think of something the UN has done right

here, but I'm struggling,'' says one aid worker with a sigh.

spears and ploughshares

There is more to cheer about in southern Sudan. After years

of enduring the same abuses now being lavished on Darfur, the

south is relatively calm. In Rumbek, the largest town under

SPLA control, where abandoned armoured cars rust outside

buildings gutted by shelling, hardly any shrapnel has flown

for two years.

Half-forgotten tribal traditions are being rediscovered. On

a dusty football pitch known as Freedom Square, thousands of

young Dinka men, coated with ash and clad in glamorous

calfskin skirts, gather to elect a sub-chief. Not long ago

such affairs were subdued, forced indoors by the fear of

aerial bombardment. Now they are gleefully raucous.

War has left the south shattered. Most of the young

warriors queuing behind their chosen candidates have known

nothing else. There is no electricity or running water in the

south, an area the size of France and Germany combined, and

precious few schools, either. Southern children used to join

either the rebels or government-backed militias. They grew up

knowing how to march long distances on empty stomachs, but

not how to read.

Peace, if it lasts, will offer southerners a chance to grow

less poor. In one village, your correspondent saw a group of

SPLA soldiers melting bullets to fashion spearheads for

hunting gazelles. The same men were baffled, however, by a

consignment of ploughshares, kindly donated by a western aid

agency. Unsure what these strange objects were for, they beat

them down to make stools.

Elsewhere, workers can be seen hacking through thorny

scrub. They are clearing a path for a road, heading for a

large rock in the wilderness known as Ramciel, or ``the place

where the rhinos meet''. More accurately, it should be

``where rhinos used to meet'', as they were poached out of

existence some time ago. It is here that the SPLA is thinking

of building the south's principal city. Charles Deng, the

assistant foreman, has big dreams for the place. ``First we

will finish the road,'' he says. ``Then we will build

skyscrapers and ponds, better than London or maybe even as

good as Nairobi.''

Not everyone welcomes progress. An SPLA commander in nearby

Yirol murmured into his beer that he hoped the capital would

be built elsewhere. ``If they build it here then they will

also build schools and our girls will be sent to those

schools,'' he said. ``You know what the means? Their bride

price will fall. My daughters will be worthless to me.''

The end of the war, or of Sudan?

A formal deal ending the war is expected in the next few

weeks, possibly sooner. Since President George Bush is widely

seen as the architect of peace, he is perhaps more popular in

southern Sudan than anywhere else on earth. At the Rumbek

sub-chief's election one young warrior called Thuapon leaps

frenetically in the air, proudly waving a white Barbie-doll

in a pink dress. ``This is a new wife for President Bush. May

God grant him many fertile women with firm bodies and an

election victory without problems in Florida.''

The main outstanding issue concerns the religious status of

Khartoum. The government wants it to remain under sharia

(Islamic law); the SPLA does not. Some fudge is surely

possible. Observers are confident that a deal will be signed.

``If Khartoum were to renege at this point, it would signal

that this whole process was a charade from the beginning,''

says John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, a

campaigning think-tank.

The difficulty will lie in how the deal is implemented.

Unsurprisingly, southerners do not trust the government.

``They just want time to re-arm,'' says James Thucdong, an

aspiring teacher in Rumbek. ``We know this is just a peace of

one or two years. They will never let us become

independent.'' Mr. Thucdong could well be right. There is no

provision yet for what will happen to revenues from Sudan's

oilfields, which lie mostly in the south, should voters

choose secession.

The two sides are unwilling to discuss this issue, but

Khartoum would presumably never let the south go if that

meant losing the petrodollars, too. ``When preparations begin

for the independence referendum, we are going to see major

meddling by elements in Khartoum, aimed at creating chaos in

the south and delaying [the] plebiscite,'' predicts Mr.

Prendergast.

Another worry is that southerners are squabblesome. During

the war, they spent as much time fighting each other as the

government. Mr. Garang may still be the south's key leader,

but his support for a united Sudan will irk secessionists,

who are probably a majority in the south. Other ethnic groups

resent the politically dominant Dinka people, and even the

Dinka are divided.

Once a peace deal is signed, many of the 4m southerners

living in squatter camps around the main cities of the north

will probably decide to pick their way through minefields and

make the long journey home. Tension over scarce natural

resources seems likely. As if to confound the optimists,

there has been a serious outbreak of fighting in the

ancient Shilluk kingdom since March. At least 70,000

people have been driven from their homes after battles

between militias loyal to Khartoum and the SPLA. As usual

in Sudan, most of the casualties were civilians.

many voices, many fears

In Khartoum, the mood is apprehensive. The political elite

is genuinely alarmed at what capitulation to southern demands

might encourage. Says Ghazi Attabani, a former presidential

adviser: ``If the south were to secede, it would be

catastrophic both for Sudan and for Africa. Secession would

not be peaceful. Internal differences in the south would

cause rifts which would make Rwanda seem like a picnic.''

Because of stringent censorship and the physical difficulty

of visiting Sudan's more troubled areas, ordinary northerners

have only a rough idea of what is going on in their own

country. Some are optimistic. ``Of course the people can live

together,'' says Ahmed Omar Othman, a shopkeeper. ``Just look

around Khartoum, we do already. Here, you will find a church

next to a mosque--surely that [proves it]? The real problem

is whether the politicians can work together.''

The record of Sudanese politicians in this are is not good.

Their preferred technique for holding this huge and

multifarious country together--barbaric force--has been shown

not to work. In Darfur, as Mr. Attabani admits, ``There is no

military solution.'' Arming gangsters such as the Janjaweek

is easy; reining them in again may prove much harder. Says

Sharif Harir, chief negotiator for the SLA rebels: ``Even if

Khartoum had the will to stop them, it probably doesnt' have

the power.''

Mr. Speaker, everyone should read Mark Lacey's piece in today's New York Times titled, ``In Sudan, Militiamen on Horses Uproot a Million.'' The article says, ``The men on horses killed my parents,'' referring to the militia who have been armed by the Government of Sudan. ``Then the planes came,'' referring to aerial bombardment by the Government of Sudan. Marc Lacey writes, ``Human rights groups and international officials charge that the militia has been used as a tool of the government to pursue a radical policy resembling ethnic cleansing.''

The militia knows no rules of war. ``They ride camels and horses and use automatic weapons against those they come across. They ride into the villages en masse and shoot anyone in sight. As the militiamen torch and loot, the villagers grab what they can and run.''

One young woman did not have time to get away. She was in bed when the Janjaweed moved in. Two men entered her hut, and raped her in front of her family. Raping, then branding the survivors is common practice in this forgotten land. Refugee after refugee tells the same story. Men on horseback, air raids, soldiers sweep into villages. As this crisis rages on, 1 million people are now internally displaced, and 100,000 refugees were forced into Chad. Unknown numbers have been murdered, and the world does little.

With the rainy season just weeks away, the window for getting humanitarian assistance is closing. The international community has 6 weeks left. USAID has warned that by fall, the mortality rate will be 5 times the threshold for a major catastrophic event.

Why is the aid not getting there? The Government of Sudan continues to stall in the issuing visas for aid workers and is preventing full humanitarian access to the region. The international community has just 6 weeks to act on their behalf.

Where are the voices of outrage? Remember Rwanda 10 years ago? Remember all of the celebrations with regard to remember Rwanda and never let it happen again. Where are the voices? Is the international community going to fail the people of Darfur, Sudan? What will the world tell those who survive? Why is the United Nations and the international community not doing more?

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Bush administration and the United States for taking the lead on this issue. Ambassador Richard Williamson gave a moving presentation in Geneva at the 60th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights 2 weeks ago. He laid out the facts that show that ethnic cleansing is occurring in Sudan, and what did the United Nations Commission on Human Rights do, the lone body responsible? Zero, zip. Other than the United States, very few people would even speak out on this issue.

The world must do more. We must speak out. I call on this Congress to speak out. Members who care about human rights should do all they can to help the people of Darfur in Sudan. This week the House Committee on International Relations will mark up H. Con. Res. 403, condemning the Government of Sudan for their complicity for what is happening in Darfur, and calling the international community to do the same, and urging immediate humanitarian access to the region.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, The New York Times writes about rape, pillaging, and murder on its front page. We cannot say we did not know it is happening. If we fail to act, in another 10 years Darfur will be today's Rwanda and some Member of Congress will be standing here on the floor asking those in the body at that time to remember the genocide that took place in Darfur. Is that what this world wants?

In Sudan, Militiamen on Horses Uproot a Million

(By Marc Lacey)

Nyala, Sudan, May 2.--Hawa Muhammad, 15, lost just about

everything when the men on horseback came. They took her

family's horses, donkeys and small herd of goats and sheep.

They took her cooking pots and her clothing. They took her

mother and her father, too.

``The men on horses killed my parents,'' she said,

referring to the Janjaweed, loose bands of Arab fighters.

``Then the planes came.''

Now it is she to whom her six younger sisters turn when

their bellies rumble. She recounted her tale as if in a

trance.

Hawa left her village on the run and settled with thousands

of others at the camp in Kalma, outside Nyala, part of a tide

of a million people that the United Nations and others say

has been displaced in this vast region of western Sudan. The

government in Khartoum has closed the region to outsiders for

much of the last year.

Hawa's account of how the attack unfolded is the same as

those heard in camp after camp across Darfur, as well as the

settlements across the border in the desert of eastern Chad,

where the United Nations estimates another 100,000 villagers

have streamed.

Many were driven away by the Janjaweed, a few thousand

uniformed militia men who have worked with government

soldiers and aerial bombardments to purge villages of their

darker-skinned black African inhabitants.

The government denies any relationship to the Janjaweed,

but ousted villagers say the links are strong, and their

accounts are backed by numerous aid workers and outside

experts.

Human rights groups and international officials charge that

the Janjaweed have been used as a tool of the government to

pursue a radical policy resembling ethnic cleansing.

The conflict has pitted Arab nomads and herders against

settled black African farmers. The tensions have been

worsened by droughts in the north and the slow creep of the

desert southward.

For 20 years rebels in southern Sudan have sought to topple

the Arab-dominated government in the north. Two million

people died in that larger conflict, and a peace agreement is

considered near.

But since early 2003 two rebel groups in Darfur, the Sudan

Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement,

initiated a separate rebellion, complaining that the region's

people, especially the black Africans, were being

marginalized.

Sudan's decades-old civil war was much about religion--the

north is mostly Muslim, the south animist and Christian.

Darfur's conflict is over ethnicity and resources; it pits

Muslim against Muslim.

The rebels here scored some early victories, and the

government responded with a fury, angering countries that

thought it was finally taking the country toward peace after

decades of civil war.

The army has used helicopter gunships and old Russian-made

Antonov plane, loaded with bombs. But the Arab-African

rivalry has long festered here, and the most ruthless weapon

has been the mounted Janjaweed fighters, who know no rules of

war.

The Janjaweed ride camels and horses and use automatic

weapons against those they come across. They ride into

villages en masse and shoot anyone in sight. As the

militiamen torch and loot, the villagers grab what they can

and run.

An empty village is an eerie place. There are no babies

crying, no goats bleating, no women pounding grain into mush.

The only sound comes from the wind as it whips over the huts

that used to house families but now lie toppled and torched.

Today there are many such villages in the vast Darfur

region. Eleven ghost villages line the main road just

northwest of here. Each stands frozen, just as it was when it

was overrun.

Some were cleared months ago. Others were attacked as

recently as last week. In each it is clear that life came to

a sudden halt. Beds are overturned, and pots lie on their

sides. In front of one hut is a child's sandal, but no child

anywhere.

Fatima Ishag Sulieman, 25, did not have time to get away.

She was in bed when the Janjaweed moved in. Two men entered

her hut. They hit her, then they raped her in front of her

family.

``I screamed, and they ran away,'' she said in Arabic.

Ms. Sulieman and others uprooted from their homes end up in

camps, some of them organized settlements and others squalid

outposts. She now lives under a tree at a secondary school

in Kas, in southern Darfur. All

around the schoolyard are other villagers, most of them

women and children. Many of them, she says, experienced

what she did.

Others suffer in different ways.

Adam Hassan, a weathered man in an equally weathered robe,

described a dual attack. First it was Arab men on horseback,

he said, who swooped down on his village, outside Kaliek.

Then, he said, soldiers moved in.

In Mr. Hassan's case it was his two sons, ages 7 and 10,

who were killed.

Mr. Hassan now stays with his wife and two surviving

daughters at the Kas schoolyard. He wants desperately to

return to his land and pick up again where he left off.

Like so many of the uprooted villagers, Mr. Hassan is a

farmer. He relies on the heavy rains that come in June and

add some life to the dusty earth. His sorghum and ground nuts

keep his family alive.

But he and hundreds of thousands of other farmers in Darfur

will miss this year's planning season. It is too unsafe for

them to farm. That reality has aid agencies gearing up for

what will be more and more hunger in the days ahead.

``I may have to stay here forever,'' he said at his

campsite, looking glum. ``There are too many Janjaweed.''

The United Nations, which conducted its own tour of Darfur

last week, said the crisis in western Sudan would last

another 18 months--if the government managed to disarm the

men on horseback soon.

But it remains to be seen whether the lawlessness will be

tamed. On one recent day, men on camelback still lurked on

the outskirts of an empty village outside Kas. They took off

when visitors arrived.

Farther down a dirt track, a man on the back of a donkey

approached another destroyed village, an assault weapon

balanced on his lap.

His name was Ismael Abbakar, and he said he knew how the

village had been emptied--he took, part, in fact--although he

claimed to be protecting the villagers, not driving them

away.

Last year, when the chaos in Drafur began spinning out of

control, he was raising cattle for a living. Now, though, he

is a government soldier who patrols alone with his

government-issued weapon. He pulled out an identification to

prove his affiliation.

In Darfur the distinction between soldier and outlaw has

grown murky.

Ahmed Angabo Ahmed, the commissioner of the Kas region,

acknowledged enlisting some armed robbers in the police and

army to hunt down the rebels. He said his new recruits were

on the side of the law now and were not Janjaweed.

``The Janjaweed are outlaws,'' he said.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 137) calling for the suspension of Sudan's membership on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In April of 2004, Mr. Speaker, at the same time as world leaders were gathered in Kigali, Rwanda, to remember the Rwandan genocide of 10 years earlier, a humanitarian cease-fire was signed between the government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, and the Sudan Justice and Equality Movement to end the atrocities and reverse the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The agreement was facilitated by the U.S., European Union, the African Union and the United Nations. All parties agreed to take immediate steps to stop the violence and atrocities being perpetrated by the Janjaweed militias.

Sadly, the agreement was not worth the paper it was written on, and the violence continued. The U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan later said, ``The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved.'' President Bush confirmed this conclusion on September 9 by declaring ``The United States is appalled by the violence in Darfur, Sudan. The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than 1 million people.''

Mr. Speaker, despite the best efforts of the U.S. Government, including the extraordinary efforts of Ambassador Williamson at the U.N. Conference in Geneva, and I was there and I saw it up close and personal, he did an extraordinary job; Sudan was given nothing more than a half-hearted slap on the wrist during the sixtieth session of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights which concluded its work in May. Like I said, I was there in Geneva, and I was appalled when Sudan was reelected to serve on the commission for another 2 years. The hypocrisy of the election of Sudan, one of the worst violators of human rights on the planet, to serve on the U.N. Commission For Human Rights should not be lost on anyone. It is utterly outrageous.

Sudan now, as it has in the past, uses its clout on the Human Rights Panel to thwart scrutiny of its policies and to water down resolutions of condemnation. Sudan uses its seat on the committee to network and to collude with other rogue nations to run interference for the dictatorships. And again, I saw that firsthand as they were walking the halls in Geneva and working the room to try to water down resolutions.

Finally, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, the atrocities committed in Darfur have all been well documented. An estimated 50,000 people have been killed and another 300,000 face imminent death in the coming months. Over a million have been displaced, and some 200,000 others have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. This atrocity must come to an end. This resolution again puts us on record in trying to mitigate and, hopefully, end this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, in April 2004, at the same time as world leaders were gathered in Kigali, Rwanda to remember the Rwandan genocide of 10 years earlier, a humanitarian cease-fire was signed between the government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, and the Sudan Justice and Equality Movement to end the atrocities and reverse the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The agreement was facilitated by the United States Government, the European Union, the African Union, and the United Nations. All parties agreed to take immediate steps to stop the violence and atrocities being perpetrated by the Janjaweed militias.

Sadly, the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on and the violence continued. The U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan later said, ``The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved.'' President Bush affirmed this conclusion on September 9 by declaring, ``The United States is appalled by the violence in Darfur, Sudan . . . The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than one million people.''

Despite the best efforts by the United States Government, including the extraordinary efforts of Ambassador Williamson, Sudan was given nothing more than a half-hearted slap on the wrist during the 60th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which concluded its work in May. I was there in Geneva and was appalled when Sudan was reelected to serve on the Commission for another two years. The hyprocacy of the election of Sudan--one of the worst violators of human rights on the planet--to serve on the U.N. Commission for Human Rights should not been lost on anyone. It is utterly outrageous.

Sudan uses its clout on the Human Rights Panel to thwart scrutiny of its policies and to water down resolutions of condemnation. Sudan uses its seat on the Committee to network and collude with other rogue nations to run interference for dictatorships.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in the past 4 months that this House has considered resolutions which have shed light on the crisis in the Darfur region. The first resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 403, condemned the Government of Sudan for its attacks against civilians in Darfur. The second, House Concurrent Resolution 467, declared that the atrocities taking place in Darfur constitute genocide. This declaration of genocide was affirmed by President Bush and Secretary of State Powell. Senate Concurrent Resolution 137, which lies before you now, represents a logical next step.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 137 endorses the Secretary of State's call for an investigation into violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law that have occurred in Darfur, and calls for Sudan's suspension from the Commission on Human Rights until that investigation has been completed. Should the investigation lead to a determination by the United Nations that genocide has occurred or is occurring in Darfur, the resolution calls for the removal of Sudan from the Human Rights Commission. Finally, the resolution calls upon the Member States of the Human Rights commission to convene an immediate special session to consider suspension of Sudan's membership.

The atrocities committed in Darfur have been well documented. An estimated 50,000 people have been killed, another 300,000 face certain death in the coming months, over a million have been internally displaced and some 200,000 others have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. Attacks show a systematic pattern and include murder, rape, gender-based violence, and other scorched earth tactics. Despite the existence of a cease-fire, African Union monitors have confirmed government support for and participation in attacks against civilians in Darfur as recently as August 26, 2004. Human Rights Watch reports that the Sudanese Government has allowed the Janjaweed to maintain military camps in all Darfur states--several of which they share with the Sudanese Army--and that many Janjaweed have been incorporated into the army or police.

On July 22, 2004 the House voted unanimously to declare that the atrocities in Sudan constituted genocide. On September 9, 2004, the State Department followed suit, releasing a report which outlines these atrocities and concludes that the Sudanese Government has ``promoted systematic killings based on race and ethnic origin,'' and that these acts constitute genocide.

It is unconscionable that a government which has perpetrated genocide would be welcome to sit on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights--the very body charged with the protection of human rights around the globe. Sudan should be in the dock--being held accountable for crimes against humanity. Sudan's flagrant disregard for the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes a mockery of the Human Rights Commission's work, and tangibly undermines that work. Its continued presence on that Commission degrades the United Nations system as a whole.

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights places great importance on each member country having a common understanding of human rights and freedoms. One must wonder if the Government of Sudan, which has demonstrated such a flagrant disregard for these principles, has ever read that document. If they have, surely they have not taken it to heart.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the recent adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1565, which establishes the International Commission of Inquiry called for by both this body and by President Bush. But in light of the evidence already before us, I believe it would be extraordinarily difficult to make an argument against suspending Sudan's membership from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. This resolution is timely, it is logical, and I urge your support.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) control the remaining time on our side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I too want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). As the gentleman knows, I have been a member of this Congress since 1992; and it seems like ever since I have been a member of this Congress, we have been hearing about Sudan. We first heard about Sudan when the Secretary of State declared Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism and determined that they had been since 1993.

We may recall that Osama bin Laden, who many of us were unaware of who he was and what he was until 9/11, but he in fact had his base of operations in Sudan. He was sponsored by the government of Khartoum. It is the same Sudan that we are here today talking about. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), Senator Brownback, many have traveled to Sudan. We have talked to refugees. We have talked to survivors from Southern Sudan, people who have witnessed their families being killed.

At that time we suspected that religion may be the root cause because many of those in Southern Sudan were Christians. The Khartoum government was a Muslim government. All was a factor. But whatever the factors, we spoke out and as this House sponsored a sanction, a similar sanction to what the U.N. is considering now against the oil. The Sudanese government duly pulled back at that time, and we passed with only two dissenting votes. It was a strong sanction. It went over to the Senate, and it died there.

Since that time, the one difference in the sanctions that are being considered now and the sanctions that were being considered then is that 2 million Sudanese have died. Action is too late for them. Their bones have long since been buried in Sudan where there are too many graves.

This latest action by Sudan, and all this time they were members of a select group, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, a country where we have witnessed the worst human rights violations and the worst humanitarian violations known to the world, has sat this entire time on the U.N. body that is designed to take action against. What a travesty. What an embarrassment. What a blight on our international community and on the U.N.

This resolution is a start; but, I would say, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I had thought maybe he might do it today, he introduced back on September 9 ``Documenting Atrocities in Darfur.'' And what we are now witnessing in Western Sudan, for a while in Southern Sudan it was hidden, and there were explanations given by the Sudanese government. There is no explanation. There is no justification. There is no, there are simply no grounds for what is happening in Western Sudan today.

It follows a pattern. And the Sudanese government says we cannot control these Arab militia, Janjaweed. We cannot control them. They say this is a historic thing between nomadic Arab tribesmen and black farmers, and it is just something that has gone on for hundreds of years.

What has gone on for hundreds of years is they have lived peacefully together for hundreds of years. What is going on today is not an Arab militia out of control. It is, in fact, the government of Khartoum.

Thirteen hundred survivors were interviewed, and 25 percent of them said it was not Arab militia. It was government bombers and aircraft and helicopters who flew over our villages, strafed our villages, killed our people. It was not Arab militia because the Arab militia did not have aircraft. They did not have helicopters. This was the government of Khartoum.

Of those interviewed, half of the survivors say that government troops participated in these raids and in these attacks. Read, if you will, what some of these refugees said. Here is what one said. He said, ``Slaves run. Leave the country. You don't belong here. Why are you not leaving this area? This area is for Arab cattle to go graze, not yours.''

A Sudanese tribesman was told by a man in a brown uniform and a hundred of his followers, ``This place belongs to Arab tribes. Blacks must leave.''

Look, if you will. I would ask every Member to read ``Documenting Atrocities in Darfur.'' It is only five pages long.

First, the government aircraft comes in and strafes the village, and then the Janjaweed or government soldiers come in. They burn the village. They kill the livestock, they drop them down the wells to poison the wells, but then they began shouting racial epithets at the survivors. They rape women in front of their husbands and children. They kill any young man that is of military age between the ages of 18 and 25 and then they drive the rest off.

Today, as a result of all this, what do we find? We find that 1.25 million Sudanese are living in refugee camps. Those are the fortunate ones that have survived, but they are not fortunate by any other terms because they are at this time permanently displaced.

Let me say this. This is what we should always be mindful of. We need a permanent solution. What the Sudanese Government has done is, they have allowed humanitarian aid to come in on occasion to feed these people in these refugee camps. They have talked to some of the leaders of the opposition. They have engaged in talks, and they have allowed government troops from other areas to come in and protect the refugee camps. But all of this time, they have not gone after the Arab militia.

They have not controlled them. They are continuing to arm them, and they go out in the villages and destroy villages, this month, last month. And their design is to never let these people return home, never to let them go home, to allow them to stay in these refugee camps, a permanently displaced population of millions of people, and let international forces feed those people. That simply will not do.

Those people need to return to their villages. They need to be protected. These Arab militia and their leaders need to be brought to justice, and we can at least start this process.

The last time we voted sanctions on Sudan, 3 years ago and a million deaths ago, two Members of this body voted against it. Today, I hope, as God is our witness, that this is a unanimous vote and that it is not the end of things, it is only the beginning of things.

I second everything that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said about the United Nations. This is genocide in every sense of the word. It is ethnic cleansing in every sense of the word. And for it to be permitted, sanctioned by the United Nations is a travesty and an atrocity in and of itself.

Analysis of the refugee interviews points to a pattern of

abuse against members of Darfur's non-Arab communities,

including murder, rape, beatings, ethnic humiliation, and

destruction of property and basic necessities. Many of the

reports detailing attacks on villages refer to government and

militia forces, preceded by aerial bombardment, acting

together to commit atrocities. Respondents said government

and militia forces wore khaki or brown military uniforms.

Roughly one-half of the respondents noted GOS forces had

joined Jingaweit irregulars in attacking their villages.

Approximately one-quarter of the respondents said GOS forces

had acted alone; another 14 percent said the Jingaweit has

acted alone. Two-thirds of the respondents reported aerial

bombings against their villages; four-fifths said they had

witnessed the complete destruction of their villages. Sixty-

one percent reported witnessing the killing of a family

member. About one-third of the respondents reported hearing

racial epithets while under attack; one-quarter witnessed

beatings. Large numbers reported the looting of personal

property (47 percent) and the theft of livestock (80

percent).

Most reports followed a similar pattern:

1. GOS aircraft or helicopters bomb villages.

2. GOS soldiers arrive in trucks, followed closely by

Jingaweit militia riding horses or camels.

3. GOS soldiers and militia surround and then enter

villages, under cover of gunfire.

4. Fleeing villagers are targets in aerial bombing.

5. The Jingaweit and GOS soldiers loot the village after

most citizens have fled, often using trucks to remove

belongings.

6. Villages often experience multiple attacks over a

prolonged period before they are destroyed by burning or

bombing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend our colleagues in the Senate for passing this critically important resolution. The passage was in the spirit of a bipartisan, bicameral coalition that has worked together over the last few years and few months, in particular, on the problem in Darfur, to bring peace and justice there. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on his statement and all of those who have worked so diligently, including the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) of the Black Caucus, who have all come together to support the terrible actions of the government of Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, this past May, the United Nations Economic and Social Council voted on candidate states for 14 open seats on the Human Rights Commission, the monitoring watchdog of the United Nations. To the dismay of the international community, Sudan was nominated from the Africa group.

Just one month later, the commission censured Sudan over its severe human rights violations in the country's western Darfur region. Sudan was charged with systematically destroying whole villages, executing civilians, raping women and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. I went to that region, to Chad and went 30 miles from the border of Sudan and talked to the refugees there and heard firsthand the horrible stories that they told us about rapes and beatings of children, boys being forced into huts and the huts being burned, just horrible, horrible stories.

Mr. Speaker, this is the same government that gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996, allowing him to build his terror network worldwide. In fact, I would argue that al Qaeda was conceived and created in Sudan in the early 1990s. Other terrorist acts also link current officials directly to a number of the terrorist acts, and they still sit in the government of Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, in the north-south conflict, more than 2 million people perished, and an estimated 5 million people have been displaced over the last decade. It is the same government that terrorized, enslaved and killed innocent civilians in southern Sudan and the Nuba that is now yet again engaged in the terror campaign that we see in Darfur in western Sudan. We cannot stand idly by, silent and allow Sudan a seat on that body while it is responsible for the ongoing genocide against the people of Darfur.

Before the House and Senate adjourned for summer recess, both chambers took a historic step in passing a resolution declaring that genocide is occurring in Darfur. The Congress has never declared genocide while it was occurring. So this was a giant step forward.

Finally, the administration came to the same conclusion following its own independent investigation, that the Sudanese government was sponsoring genocide by the Janjaweed militia against the ethnic Africans in Darfur.

This past Saturday, the U.N. Security Council approved a U.S.- sponsored resolution asking U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan to set up an investigative commission. This Commission would determine whether the violence in Darfur amounts to genocide. The resolution also threatens oil and other targeted sanctions against Sudan if atrocities continue in Darfur.

We were disappointed by the weak nature of this resolution and for its limited effects. The reaction from Khartoum that ``it could have been a lot worse'' shows us how far we are from a strong resolution on Darfur. While it passed by 11 votes, I must express extreme disappointment with China, Algeria, Russia and Pakistan, the four nations that abstained from supporting this resolution. As a matter of fact, China had declared that it may veto it, and therefore, the resolution was really diluted, and they still abstained.

We, as the United States, need to rethink our relationships with these nations. One suggestion could be that we revoke Normal Trade Relations status with the People's Republic of China. How would they like it if we said, no longer do you have normal trade relations or, as we used to call it, preferential treatment. I think it would perhaps make them sit up and listen.

Pakistan, called a friend by the administration for its partnership in the war on terrorism, is promoting the terrorist government of Sudan by abstaining on the vote. In a statement today, Khartoum called these nations its ``true friends.''

While the government of Sudan grudgingly accepted the resolution, as we speak its surrogate militias continue their gruesome assault on innocent men, women, and children in Darfur. Further, in response for calls to international civilian protection forces, Khartoum's leaders threatened to open the ``five gates of hell'' against such protection.

In a cynical attempt to pretend it has taken action to protect its civilians, Khartoum has recycled Janjaweed militia killers to the Sudan police force and is now using them to guard the camps for the displaced.

Mr. Speaker, how can we expect killers to protect those who they seek to kill? It is an unconceivable notion. How can we stand by and allow this murderous regime to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission?

Mr. Speaker, with more than as many as 50,000 civilians slaughtered and over 1 million driven off their lands into unprotected camps, we cannot allow Khartoum to degrade the purposes of the Human Rights Commission by its presence. It is incumbent that the United States Government continue to lead the world on this matter of genocide and do everything possible to have Sudan suspended from the Commission.

The African Union should be recognized for what they are doing in sending 300 monitors to Darfur, but this is definitely not enough. The AU has been sponsoring negotiations between the parties in Abuja, Nigeria, since August 23. The combination of international pressure and facilitation by the AU hopefully will help move Darfur out of this crisis and on to the road of peace.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Secretary of State Colin Powell for finally calling the Darfur genocide by its rightful name. I also want to say that we must, as Secretary Powell has stated, support the AU. It is our responsibility as members of the international community and the United States in particular, as the world's wealthiest Nation, to work along with the African Union and not leave the formidable Darfur crisis to fall on their shoulders alone. They need our support.

So, therefore, I would like to also urge all of our colleagues in the House to support H.R. 5061, introduced by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and myself to provide assistance for the current crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and to facilitate a comprehensive peace plan in Sudan. I urge my colleagues to support S. Con. Res. 137.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman who has really done an outstanding job in this area for a decade, and I certainly would like to associate myself with his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I thank the gentleman from Alabama for his very passionate remarks and all of his support for

many years, even in the capital market sanctions. I really commend him for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

(Mr. MEEKS of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.