Declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 467) declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand before Members tonight to urge their support for House Concurrent Resolution 467 which declares genocide in the Darfur region of western Sudan.

Unfortunately, there is no one among us who is unfamiliar with the word ``genocide.'' Several of us have been personally affected by genocide. The mere mention of the word evokes the horrific images of the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the mass graves of Srebrenica, and the bloodied streets of Rwanda. The atrocities committed in these areas were heinous and must not be belittled by casual usage of the word ``genocide,'' but I assure Members the decision to bring this resolution to the floor and to make such a declaration has been anything but casual.

Out of a preconflict population of 6.5 million in Darfur, an estimated 30,000 people have been killed, another 300,000 face certain death in the coming months. Up to 1 million have been internally displaced, and 130,000 others have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. Remember that this is happening in a country that has undergone the most horrific civil war for over 25 years, where 2 million people have died and 4 million people have been displaced. Against that backdrop, we now have Darfur.

Reports by refugees, internally displaced persons, and the United Nations officials detail a systematic pattern of attacks against civilians by government-supported militias who employ scorched earth tactics, murder, rape and pillage with impunity. These attacks have been conducted in a deliberate, sequenced, and systematic fashion, and according to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, ``have led to the depopulation of entire areas inhabited by the Fur, Zaghawa, Massaleit and other small groups of black African origin.''

I believe, and this resolution affirms, that these atrocities meet the definition of genocide as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, signed in Paris on December 9, 1948.

The manager's amendment before you does nothing to alter the purpose of the underlying resolution. The changes in the preamble are strictly technical and perfecting. The changes in the Resolved Clauses include clarifications in the new text which, one, make it clear that the Government of Sudan has violated the convention, and the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide; two, call for specific actions by member states of the United Nations; and three, recognize the leadership of the administration in seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis.

On April 7, 2004, the same day that world leaders were gathered in Kigali to commemorate the 10-year anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan appeared before the U.N. Commission on Human Rights stating that reports of ethnic cleansing from Darfur had left him with a ``deep sense of foreboding,'' and called for decisive action. We are still waiting to see what decisive action the United Nations will take.

I am particularly disappointed in the inaction of a few recalcitrant members of the African Union, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Conference, who seem comfortable with sitting back while tens of thousands of their African and Muslim brothers die. To this end, the manager's amendment deplores the failure of the United Nations Human Rights Commission to condemn the gross violations of human rights which have taken place in Darfur, and calls on the United Nations and the U.N. Secretary-General to assert their leadership by calling the atrocities by their rightful name, genocide.

It also calls on members of the United Nations, particularly the member states from the African Union, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to undertake effective measures to stop the genocide in Darfur.

The manager's amendment also includes language which commends the robust response of the administration. This administration has taken the lead in attempting to resolve this crisis and

deserves credit for their efforts. However, it is important to note that the protection of human rights and the prevention of genocide are not the responsibility of a few; they are the responsibility of us all. The United States cannot do this alone. The United Nations, the European Union, the African Union, the Arab League and others must step up now if we hope to prevent this genocide from escalating.

True to form, Josef Stalin once callously remarked, ``One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.'' Given his propensity for mass murder, this remark comes as no surprise. I submit, however, that those who have died, those who face death, and those who have lost their homes in Darfur are not mere statistics. To really know this tragedy is to think about the murder of the little boy and girl whose corpses lie in the sand, to imagine their last moments of stark terror, and to consider this brutal act repeated 30,000-fold.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before you tonight is the product of a truly collaborative effort and enjoys bipartisan support. If we are going to attempt to solve this problem, we must first understand that which confronts us in its totality. The first step is to acknowledge that we are dealing with genocide. The next step is to take action to stop the atrocities. Let us not look back 10 years from now, wishing we had done more, saying what we have heard said oftentimes on this floor and in halls around the world about Rwanda, ``I wish we would have done more. I wish we would have taken action.''

We do not want to be in that position again. This is the time. This is the opportunity we have to take those steps, to take that action. This is not a political issue as evidenced by the fact that there is broad bipartisan support. This is an issue of morality. It calls upon every single one of us in this room and on this planet to search our own hearts and souls and to think about what it is we can do individually to stop this tragedy. It is a calling. It is a moral calling on us all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

I would be happy to do so. I cannot do it right now because we have at least one other colleague who is on his way and I do not know how much; but whatever time we can yield, we will do so.

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

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control said time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

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

I want to just simply thank a couple of people who have worked tirelessly on this, staff people. One is Joan Condon, the Committee on International Relations professional staff, for her tireless work on this important issue. And of course someone on my staff is Molly Miller, who has been dedicated to this issue and was recently in Sudan and has a heart for this issue. I want to thank all of my colleagues for their brilliant words this evening and their heartfelt commitment to this wonderful goal.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to add my recognition, more than appreciation, but my recognition for the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who never turn their back on the issues of human rights. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who was right continuously as he, I would like to say, plugged ahead on being persistent in dealing with this question of Sudan and the direction that we should take in this Congress. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and, of course, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who has had a series of meetings that we have been participating in over a number of weeks.

Let me suggest to you that this should be a night of action. The vote on this resolution is in fact a statement that is long overdue. I might refer you to the language of this resolution and its first resolve, and that is that we declare that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, are genocide.

Let me cite to you Amnesty International, which indicates the horror that is happening in West Darfur: ``I was sleeping when the attack started. I was taken away by the attackers. They were all in uniforms. They took dozens of other girls. They made us walk for 3 hours. During the day, we were beaten and they were telling us, you the black woman, we will exterminate you. You will have no God. All night we were raped several times.''

I do not want to bring back the horrors of life that we led as slaves in this country. I simply want to say many of us have had these experiences, and when I say that, historically.

It is important for this Nation now to stand up, and I would appreciate as this resolution is passed and passed in the Senate, that our government now will stand and join us and say that genocide is occurring in Sudan.

Yes, the government did offer a 10-point manifesto. I received it. They said they were willing to deal with the Janjaweed. They were willing to disarm them. They were willing to give humanitarian aid.

Well, let me tell my colleagues, I took that piece of paper, but they did nothing. There are human rights violations going on, there are rapes, there are abductions, there are destruction of villages and property.

I would simply say this resolution lays out the road map. We declare tonight that genocide is occurring in Sudan, and I would ask the President of the United States to so declare so that we can move forward and protect lives. Let not another Rwanda occur. We are in fact our brothers' and sisters' keepers.

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this resolution. I commend my colleague Mr. Payne for his foresight and courage to put forward his bold resolution, when many in the Congress were hesitant. I also commend the Chairman and Ranking Member, Congressmen Hyde and Lantos for their leadership, in recognizing the crisis unfolding in Sudan and moving rapidly to bring this resolution to the floor before the recess.

As it moved so efficiently toward the Floor of the House, I know compromises were made on specific phrases and statements. Although I do not agree with every line, I firmly support the resolution. It is time that this Congress sends a strong message to Sudan and the world, that the United States is ready to move boldly to stop the death and destruction in Darfur.

It truly is time for an aggressive American and international response to the crisis in Darfur, Sudan. For the past year and a half, ethnic-African communities have been under strategic attack by the Arab-based Government of Sudan based in Khartoum and the Janjaweed militias. The most recent campaign, fueled by vicious ethnic rivalries and the Janjaweed's desire for territorial expansion, is having devastating results. 30,000 people have already been killed by systematic raids and deadly famine, and up to 1 million more are expected to suffer the same fate if the United States, the United Nations, and other international leaders continue to take the same dangerously passive role in addressing the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed militia forces. We must move aggressively to stop the bloodshed and suffering.

Over the past weeks, my colleague from Michigan John Conyers, has been bringing together a growing bipartisan and bicameral group of Members of Congress committed to moving aggressively toward creating peace in Sudan. I was pleased to be a part of that group. As we discussed the situation and learned from Senator Brownback and Congressman Wolf about their recent trip to Sudan, where they saw the ravages of the violence and the ongoing rape, intimidation and terrorization of the ethnic African people, it became obvious that indeed we were seeing genocide.

Formally labeling a situation as genocide, should trigger actions and commitments that will protect potential victims, and punish perpetrators of this war crime. We will need a strong collaborative effort between the legislative and executive branches, to put the force of the U.S. government to work to help the people of Darfur.

We must be committed to pushing through normal election-year political barriers, and working together to save lives. This will only be possible if the executive and legislative branches of our government work in concert, to increase humanitarian relief, to galvanize international support and coordination, and explore all possible options to end the bloodshed in Darfur. We have a small window of opportunity to help the men, women, and children in mortal peril in Sudan. Ongoing Janjaweed violence combined with the upcoming rainy season, may soon make relief impossible. If ever there were a case for swift action to liberate a suffering people, it is now in Darfur.

A group of thirty of us in the House, from both sides of the aisle, sent a letter yesterday to President Bush, asking him to meet with us, to discuss how we can work together, put politics aside, and move swiftly to rescue the people of Darfur. I hope the President will heed our call to meet, to push for a stronger U.N. resolution that acknowledges that this is genocide in Darfur, and to gather and lead a true multi-lateral coalition to help make peace and then keep peace in Darfur as necessary.

As we look toward forging that multi-lateral coalition, I must say that I am concerned that the tone of parts of this resolution may not be helpful in reaching out to the partners that we will ultimately need in Sudan. I think using the word ``deplore'' in referring to the failure of the Human Rights Commission to act appropriately in Darfur, is unnecessary. Just as we are putting aside politics to work together to save lives, I hope we can put aside our international grudges in order to better lead an international collaboration. I am not arguing whether each statement is true or false, just questioning whether it each is helpful in achieving the result we are hoping for in Sudan. We are still trying to undo the damage done by some of our rhetoric in the march to war in Iraq. I hope we do not repeat that error. We should reserve such language for our enemies, rather than casting it at our potential friends.

Regardless, the most important part of this resolution is acknowledging that this indeed is genocide in Sudan, and agreeing that it is time that the United States and the international community start dealing with Sudan and the Janjaweed as such. I am pleased that this action is being taken. I hope we can continue to work together so effectively as we shape the actions of this nation to save lives in Darfur in the days to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all of those who have shown leadership on this issue.

I have been told that the only way that evil can triumph is that good people do nothing. I believe it was Dante who suggested that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who declare neutrality and do nothing in times of great moral crisis.

We have all heard the atrocities that are continuously being heaped upon the people in the Sudan. It is time for us to act, and to act convincingly.

We have to ask ourselves the question, if not us, then who? If not now, then when?

I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and all of those who have demonstrated great leadership on this issue.

We are here tonight to sound the alarm, once again, on genocide in Sudan. There is no room for neutrality in the face of the crimes being committed there each day.

Amnesty International has renewed its charge that the international community is not doing enough to protect women in the Darfur region and the refugee camps in Chad where mass rape is being used as a weapon.

Since 1983, more than two million Black civilians have died during the Civil War in the south of Sudan. That struggle was especially brutal for the civilian population: slave raids resulting in the enslavement of women and children, gang rape, ethnic cleansing, and the imposition of famine conditions for hundreds of thousands.

On October 21, 2002, the President signed the Sudan Peace Act which stated, in part:

``The acts of the Government of Sudan constitute genocide as defined by the [United Nations] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).''

That bill requires President Bush to certify, every six months, that the government in Khartoum is negotiating in good faith for an end to that Civil War. According to some sources, we may be close to a framework for peace in that region.

On May 12th The New York Times carried this report:

``A team of U.S. diplomats led by Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Charles Snyder is on its way to Kenya to help put the final touches on an agreement to end Sudan's 21-year civil war, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday.''

However, at the same time, Khartoum has launched a massive ethnic cleansing of Black Africans in Darfur, in the western region of Sudan. The same article in the New York Times reported:

``He said Snyder also would discuss with Sudanese officials the situation in the western Darfur region where human rights groups charge the Khartoum government and allied Arab militia are carrying out a campaign of `ethnic cleansing' against Black African tribes, forcing some 1 million people to flee their homes.''

Human Rights Watch and investigators for the United Nations have documented widespread ethnic cleansing and have characterized the situation there as ``crimes against humanity.'' More than 100,000 have fled the region and are now refugees in neighboring Chad.

As the seasonal rains begin to set in, it is becoming more and more difficult to move refugees to relative safety and to provide even minimal subsistence. Malnutrition is at acute levels in the camps especially among children.

So, while our diplomats expressed their ``grave concern'' to the UN Human Rights Commission response to the murder, rape and forced removals in western Sudan, the President gave his certification that Khartoum was negotiating in ``good faith'' to end the decades old struggle in the south.

If the President had chosen to withhold that certification, it would have instituted a program of significant economic sanction against Sudan.

How, one might ask, can the government of Sudan negotiate in ``good faith'' to end genocide in one region, and openly engage in genocide in another region?

And how, it is reasonable to ask, can our own government accept the notion of negotiating in ``good faith'' in one region of the Sudan, while conducting a ruthless genocide in another?

Mr. Speaker, only a short time ago we paused here to mark the tenth anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. More than 800,000 died while the world watched, and did nothing. Once again genocide is unfolding before us. Those who have taken note have expressed their horror at what they have seen. But where is the public outcry? Where are the front page pictures? Where is the response of our government on behalf of the American people?

The ominous sign is that our government is willing to turn its eyes away from genocide in the West of the Sudan in favor of resuming oil production in the oil rich Southern region.

The genocide in the South was characterized by both racial and religious differences. The genocide in the Western region pits Muslim against Muslim but retains the racial character of the genocide in the South.

Mr. Speaker. In the name of fighting terrorism we have begun a campaign under the rubric of the Global Peace Operations. Even though President Bush has not formally announced the initiative, U.S. troops are now active from Djibouti on the Gulf of Aden to the Atlantic including Mali, Mauritania, Chad and Niger.

The question we now confront is this: is the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, even millions of Africans, terrorism? If our struggle against terrorism is truly global, can we be truly engaged in a global war on terrorism, and not engage genocide in Africa?

Mr. Speaker, funding for State Department programs in Africa such as the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program and the Enhanced International Peacekeeping Capacities have languished for years.

If we are to engage in a new anti-terrorism initiative in Africa, I would hope the President would consult with the Congress and with the Congressional Black Caucus as to how the struggle against terrorism will be shaped so as to protect the people of Africa as well as the peoples of the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia.

Mr. Speaker, on June 24 the U.S. Holocaust Museum here in Washington took the dramatic step of closing access to its main exhibitions to call attention to the horror underway in Darfur.

Around that same time U.N. Secretary General Koffi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell paid a visit to the western Sudan. Secretary Powell expressed his deep concern over what he saw with his own eyes as an humanitarian crisis. But he failed to place the events in the Sudan in their proper historical context: the world is once again facing the onslaught of genocide.

When asked, Secretary Powell, speaking on behalf of this administration, was asked if this was genocide responded, ``Let's not put a label on things.''

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that is exactly what we need to do. Our failure to acknowledge genocide in the Sudan led directly to the abdication of the G-8 leaders in their responsibilities to intervene to save the lives of tens of thousands of African men, women and children as called for by the International Genocide Convention.

Mr. Speaker, if America cannot remember the great lessons of history, cannot confront genocide, or if we do not count the deaths of tens of thousands of Africans as genocide then the days ahead are sure to be some of the saddest and most difficult we have ever confronted.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2781, the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act. The bill is a result of weeks of negotiations between House and Senate cosponsors. First of all, this would have been impossible without the cooperation of the leadership of both the House and the Senate, and I would certainly like to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, who has not said no to any request that we have made as relates to Sudan. There could not have been any more cooperation from a chairman of a committee in such a bipartisan manner than we have seen from the gentleman from Illinois. I would certainly like to commend him at this time.

Of course, the driving interest and support from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) who saw the effects of genocide decades ago when the

Holocaust was going on and the world looked the other way. His passion for issues that are right certainly shows clearly in his overwhelming support for action against the Government of Sudan and alleviating the situation of the people of Sudan.

Let me thank Senator Biden and, of course, our chair of the Subcommittee on Africa whose tireless effort has also been extraordinary in bipartisanship. I think that if the Congress could put a prototype of the Subcommittee on Africa and then see if it could spread towards the total Congress, much more positive legislation would be passed. And so I commend the gentleman from Orange County, the chairman of our subcommittee, and also the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) who has been a real asset to our work. His first CODEL was a trip to southern Sudan. And so the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) who even before any of us came was fighting the fight and he continues to fight the good fight.

The world has witnessed genocide before but never as we have seen it again here before in Darfur, but the difference is we have declared genocide and that is something that the world has not done before. The world usually watched, said it is terrible, that sort of something should be done, and after it has been done, maybe a decade or two later, will do a study. And after the study is concluded, they will say indeed genocide occurred. The fact that in 1948 the world body said that there should be a law, there should be a responsibility to step in to prevent genocide, but it has not happened 10 years after Rwanda.

A film is coming out now that I wish everyone would be able to see about a person who saved 1,200 lives at the Mille Collines Hotel, where he simply kept 1,200 people, Tutsis and moderate Hutus, alive. And so as we see what has happened before, it is so important that we have stepped up, but to declare it is not enough. We see the brutal killings and unnecessary deaths due to cholera, diarrhea, and starvation.

We know the facts. Over 70,000 innocent men, women and children have been killed in this genocide conceived, sponsored, and carried out by the Government of Sudan. Government troops and the Janjaweed militias they have recruited and armed have internally displaced close to 1.6 million people and forced 200,000 people into Chad. They have raped countless women and children. What kind of world are we living in today in the new millennium where this can occur while the international community still looks on and debates the issue?

S. 2781 is our response to genocide, and it contains asset freezes on government officials as well as travel bans. It provides $200 million in fiscal year 2005 to the Darfur humanitarian relief and the African Union mission as well as $100 million to development in the southern Sudan. It says to the Government of Sudan that the United States is watching and will punish them for this genocide, despite any agreement that they may reach with the SPLM.

Let us not get ourselves confused. For 40 years the North and South have been at war and finally the Sudanese government has agreed to now another 30 or 45 days. They were supposed to sign it with the Security Council being in Nairobi, Kenya, but they said, well, give us until December 31. But let us not make any mistake about the fact that if the North-South agreement goes on, that we cannot turn a blind eye and give concessions to the Government of Sudan as they continue genocide in the West. We will not stand for that. It is unacceptable.

It is unconscionable that a government attacks its own people, yet the Government of Sudan has a history of doing this. In southern Sudan for years they practiced a scorched-Earth campaign of aerial bombardment that has killed over 2 million people and displaced another 5 million over the course of the last 3 decades.

Today in Nairobi, Kenya, the Security Council is meeting to discuss the North-South peace process, as I indicated earlier. It is key that we do not forget Darfur while we are pushing for peace in the North and the South.

I also urge my colleagues in the Congress to condemn the apparent shift of policy by the administration to reward the genocidaire Government of Sudan with debt relief and reconstruction if they sign an agreement by the end of the year instead of punishing them.

I think that this is a very key point. For decades and decades and decades the Government of Sudan has done the wrong thing. They allowed Osama bin Laden to live in Sudan. In those 4 or 5 years, Osama bin Laden, who had not developed an international organization, did not have the comfort to develop and strategize because he was even expelled from Saudi Arabia, the Government of Sudan, the same people who are in power, the same ministers, the same directors of programs, the same police officers, the same generals allowed Osama bin Laden to plan and to strengthen his organization, to develop a worldwide network in the United States, throughout Asia, throughout Africa, throughout the Middle East, and plan the bombings in Dar es Salaam and in Nairobi, which killed hundreds of Americans and Tanzanians and Kenyans.

And finally, after tremendous pressure, Sudan allowed him to leave, but the damage was done. Had that government not allowed Osama bin Laden to stay under their protection, the government issued visas to people who carried the bombs into those countries and we have reports of that. They supplied the ammunition needed to set off the bombs, this same government, who now have attacked the West. We say that it will be wrong. The North-South agreement is something that should not even have had to be signed because there should not have been the North atrocities on the South for the last 20 or 30 years.

That is good that there is finally becoming an agreement. But let us not allow that to blind us in saying that the government is doing the right thing. They are doing something that they should not have done before and let us have Darfur to make sure that the genocide ends there.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that no two people in this House have worked harder to keep partisanship or any other illegitimate consideration out of this issue than have the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). They have proceeded in tandem to try to produce concrete, as opposed to theoretical, results for the military families in this country who are deserving of a decent place to live.

But what we are being faced with is this: my mentor in this House, when I first came, was Dick Bolling from Missouri who for many years served this House in spectacular fashion on the Committee on Rules, and he often told me that the greatest enemy to true legislative progress was what he called ``dung hill politics.'' By that he meant Members being more interested in preserving the jurisdiction of their committee or the narrow interest that was associated with a committee or subcommittee, rather than focusing on the broader interests of the American people who we are supposed to serve.

It seems to me that this discussion tonight is an example of what Dick Bolling was worried about because what we have going here, as I said yesterday, is a charade.

The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Texas have brought to the floor a bill which provides concrete assurances that at least 24,000 more military families will receive decent housing; but apparently the Committee on the Budget is unhappy, at least the chairman of the Committee on the Budget is unhappy, with the way the committee has gone about this; and so he intends, as I understand it, shortly to exercise a point of order which will strike from this bill the Congress' ability to deliver that housing to those military families.

In order to create an impression that these families are not being hurt, it appears that what the House will now hide behind is a motion taken yesterday to try to increase the authorization for this program, which would have the result, if the bill was enacted into law, of accomplishing the very same thing that is being accomplished by this bill. The problem is the way this Congress works, there is absolutely no assurance that a freestanding, independent authorization bill will go anywhere in the other body; and that is why, if you want to preserve that housing for those members, it is essential to keep this language in this bill.

That is what the gentleman from Michigan has been trying to do. That is what the gentleman from Texas has been trying to do on a bipartisan basis, and we ought to be supporting that effort rather than finding technicalities as reasons to deep-six the very fine work that they have attempted to do.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to respect the rules of the House, but sometimes the rules give Members powers to do things that they ought not do. Just because we have the power to do something does not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do it. Sometimes it is important to exercise restraint. I think this is one of those cases.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) correctly points out that an hour ago we waived all points of order on a huge spending bill, many times more dollars than we have in this bill. There were many points of order that could have been lodged against this bill when it came from the Committee on Rules, but the House leadership chose to expose only one item in the bill to a point of order, and that is the item that would have delivered decent housing to 24,000 military families.

What the House did or what the majority did by adopting that rule is to say in effect that peace in the family was more important than the sure delivery of decent housing to 24,000 military families.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that the majority leadership has dictated to the House that it must allow this one provision to be eliminated, but there is not much we can do about it and I also unfortunately have to concede the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Unless the motion is adopted, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Mr. Speaker, what this amendment attempts to do is to restore the language just stricken by the gentleman. If the gentleman insists on his point of order, then obviously once again the House will have missed an opportunity to provide housing for these 24,000 military families.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a subsequent motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is the last opportunity the House will have to do the right thing for 24,000 military families.

This motion to recommit instructs the Committee on Appropriations to report the bill back with the cap lifted by $500 million for a total of $1.35 billion. This does not incur any additional costs. It simply allows existing funds and other assets to be used for privatization.

The problem seems to be, as Members have pointed out, that CBO wants to charge these privately raised funds against the budget allocation, which does not make any sense to anyone who lives in the real world. Any Member who has visited a military base and seen family housing knows this is a real need. Raising the cap enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle and the White House.

I urge Members to join in support of this motion to recommit and give military families the decent housing they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, to those who would cite the action taken by the House yesterday on the authorization bill, I would simply say that was not a substantive fix. That was a political fix, which is going nowhere because there is no assurance whatsoever that that bill will pass. This bill is a must-pass vehicle. That is why this provision ought to be attached to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Let me simply point out to the gentleman from Iowa that the bill that the gentleman from Iowa is suggesting that we focus on is the bill that is going nowhere for the next 6 weeks either. The only difference between this bill and the bill that the gentleman is now purportedly supporting is that this bill will after the summer recess go somewhere. The bill the gentleman supported yesterday is going nowhere. That is a big difference to military families.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, 57 years ago, nations stunned by the Nazi systematic acts of genocide declared, ``Never again.'' Ten years ago, confronted with the death toll of the Rwandan genocide, leaders of the same nations again declared, ``Never again.'' Today, tens of thousands of women, men, and children have been murdered and hundreds of thousands continue to suffer. Today, again, people are being targeted and killed because of their ethnic identity only 1,000 miles north of Rwanda in Darfur, Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, 800,000 innocent people lost their lives in Rwanda. We hesitated, and nearly a million people died for our hesitation. On the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide this April, world leaders again expressed their determination to prevent future humanitarian catastrophes. Tragically, only a few short months later, we find ourselves standing by again, unwilling to take the necessary steps to end the crisis in Darfur. Ten years ago, we failed the people of Rwanda. We must not fail again.

I join my colleagues in calling upon the administration to apply sustained pressure on the government in Khartoum. I call upon the President to speak out against the atrocities in Darfur, to use both economic and political leverage. Every day we delay, every day we think, every day we consider the best course of action and the most appropriate definition for the crisis is another day innocent people are being killed, tortured, and watching their families lose their lives.

International cooperation and support of the United Nations is essential, but the most direct path to limiting the threat is increased pressure from the United States. Experience has shown that we must not delay in classifying the loss of life in Darfur as genocide. Otherwise, by the time we have prepared our definitions, it will be too late. The facts on the ground and in the ground will have removed all doubt, and we will be left to murmur, without confidence or conviction, ``Never again.''

Mr. Speaker, 57 years ago, nations stunned by the Nazi's systematic acts of genocide declared ``Never Again''. Ten years ago, confronted with the death toll of the Rwandan genocide, leaders of the same nations again declared ``Never Again''. Today, tens of thousands of women, men, and children have been murdered and hundreds of thousands continue to suffer. Today, again, people are being targeted and killed because of their ethnic identity, only 1,000 miles north of Rwanda in Darfur, Sudan.

Eight hundred thousand innocent people were murdered in Rwanda. We hesitated and nearly 1 million people died for our hesitation. On the 10-year anniversary of the Rwandan genocide this April, world leaders expressed their determination to prevent future humanitarian catastrophes. Tragically, only a few short months later, we find ourselves standing by again, unwilling to take the necessary steps to end the crisis in Darfur. Ten years ago, we failed the people of Rwanda. We must not fail again. Ten years ago we were preoccupied with our mission in Bosnia, Somalia was fresh in our minds, and we were wary of getting involved in Rwanda. Today we are preoccupied with the aftermath of the conflict in Iraq and, again, we are wary of committing American resources to end the bloodshed in Sudan.

As we have hesitated, some 30,000 people have already been murdered in Darfur and another million have been displaced from their villages and farms. Hundreds of thousands of individuals are caged in concentration camps where women are systematically raped and men are killed for scavenging food. Government-sponsored Arab militias continue to systematically terrorize the African Muslim inhabitants of the region--destroying villages, raping and murdering civilians, and poisoning precious wells with the bodies of the dead. Although the administration has taken some important first steps to confront the crimes being committed in Darfur, much remains to be done.

The administration has rightly called for humanitarian access to the region and for the deployment of international cease-fire monitors. The administration has denounced the atrocities in Darfur. Still, a catastrophe of these proportions requires a deeper commitment to action; we must treat the problems at the root of this crisis. The thousands of people who have been displaced from their homes and land must be given safe and voluntary passage to return. More cease-fire monitors must be deployed to the region. The government in Khartoum must be persuaded to stop blocking international humanitarian assistance to the 2.2 million people of Darfur in desperate need of food and medicine. President Al-Bashir must be required to control the Janjaweed militiamen who, even now, continue their campaign of terror against the innocent people of Darfur. It is intolerable that these militias have not yet been disarmed and demobilized.

I join my colleagues in calling upon the administration to apply sustained pressure on the government in Khartoum. I call upon the President to speak out against the atrocities in Darfur and to use both economic and political leverage to elicit cooperation from the Sudanese government. Every day that we delay, every day that we think, every day that we consider the best course of action and the appropriate definition for the crisis in Darfur is another day that innocent people are being killed, are being tortured, and are watching their families being killed and tortured before their very eyes.

International cooperation and support from the United Nations will be essential to the long-term resolution of the Sudanese situation. Yet the most direct path to eliminating the threat to African Muslims in Darfur is increased pressure from the United States. Experience has shown us that we must not delay in classifying the loss of life in Darfur as genocide--otherwise, by the time we have prepared our definitions, it will be too late--the facts on the ground, and in the ground, will have removed all doubt. And we will be left to murmur without confidence or conviction--never again.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to discuss Fort Hunter Liggett with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I would reply to the gentleman that,

yes, I am aware of this language and that it tracks with the gentleman's desire to see the land preserved and conserved for future open, natural space by giving the U.S. Forest Service the right of first refusal for Fort Hunter Liggett lands at such time as the Army deems them surplus.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield again, I am aware of the gentleman's deep interest in this issue and appreciate his flexibility in finding ways to address this issue.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I assure the gentleman that I will be more than happy to work with him in conference on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. It is my understanding that the Army has accelerated this project and will be in a position to award a contract in October 2005.

The Army estimates the project will cost approximately $17 million. I do not know how long it will take to complete the facility, but the actions taken so far suggest to me that they will move it forward in an expeditious fashion.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Washington Headquarters Service is working with the Army to move this project forward and is prepared to provide the additional funding needed to expand the original project scope at Fort Myer to accommodate the children the gentleman speaks of from the Pentagon facility.

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to work with the gentleman to ensure the Department proceeds with this project as soon as possible. I just want to say I appreciate the discussions we have had and the gentleman's interest in bringing a resolution to this that will satisfy all of us. I commend the gentleman for this.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on this point of order.

I understand the gentleman is reserving a point of order because the provision in question is legislation, and therefore prohibited on an appropriations bill under clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House. However, I would like to point out to the gentleman the reason why this provision is in the bill.

As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services stated earlier, this provision is supported by the authorizing committee and it is not in a defense authorization bill because of an objection by the Committee on the Budget. So with the support of the authorizing committee, the Committee on Appropriations voted to include this provision in the military construction bill, and thus made a value judgment to address military families' lives and welfare.

Now I believe the gentleman agrees with this policy because yesterday he introduced a bill and it passed almost unanimously. However, that bill may not go anywhere and I do not think that we should be playing with people's livelihoods with promises that we cannot keep.

I would also point out that under the Armey protocol, A-R-M-E-Y, this provision should not have been left exposed if the chairman of the authorizing committee does not object to the inclusion of this legislative provision in an appropriations bill. Only a piece of the language, which is directed at scorekeeping, is within the purview of the Committee on the Budget.

It is further regrettable that this provision is going to be stricken even though it is strongly supported by the administration and the House. It does not break the bank, as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget purports, or he would not have introduced a bill that does exactly the same thing yesterday.

I concede it is legislation and I concede it is subject to a point of order, but I also concede it is the right thing to do for our military families, and I believe the majority of the American people will agree with me.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to think about all of this before he insists on his point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JY04.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JY04.008

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, very reluctantly.

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the substance of what he is saying because we have been down that road so many times and had those discussions. The problem is I do not want to stop this bill from moving forward, and that is exactly what we would be doing as much as taking on a risk that we are not clear about what the resolution will be.

This motion would require the bill to go back to committee and would slow down the many important programs that we are trying to help. For this reason alone I must oppose this motion.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman said. I also take it from what he just said that he is going to be a player in this process as we go forward.

Mr. Speaker, could we come to the conclusion that it would resolve the problem and also eliminate the cap?

Mr. Speaker, let us make every effort to do just that.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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