Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I submit a piece by actress and activist Mia Farrow which ran in today's Wall Street Journal. It is appropriately titled, ``Obama Ignores Sudan's Genocide.'' The President has failed to exhibit the necessary leadership on this issue. He has barely uttered a word on Sudan or Darfur since coming to office.

Having spent extensive time in the region, Farrow points out, ``When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, hope abounded, even in Darfur's bleak refugee camps.'' Later she continues, ``Such hopes did not last long.''

Were the President to move swiftly to empower Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Rice to take the reins of the administration's languishing Sudan policy, perhaps hope could be restored.

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2010]

Obama Ignores Sudan's Genocide

(By Mia Farrow)

Last week U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration told

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that although he

remains supportive of ``international efforts'' to bring

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to justice, the Obama

administration is also pursuing ``locally owned

accountability and reconciliation mechanisms in light of the

recommendations made by the African Union's high-level panel

on Darfur.''

Mr. Bashir is indicted by the International Criminal Court

(ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the

African Union Panel on Darfur has clearly aligned itself with

Khartoum. One panel member, former Egyptian Foreign Minister

Ahmed Al Sayed, said in an interview with an Egyptian

newspaper, ``The prosecution of an African head of state

before an international tribunal is totally unacceptable. Our

goal was to find a way out.''

The African Union panel is led by former South African

President Thabo Mbeki, who in 2008 dismissed the ICC

indictment, saying that it is ``the responsibility of the

Sudanese state to act on those matters.'' Then, late last

year his panel proposed a counter initiative to the ICC in

the form of a hybrid, Sudan-based court with both Arab and

African judges to be selected by the African Union.

But all this is moot since Mr. Bashir swiftly rejected Mr.

Mbeki's proposal. Perversely, Mr. Gration has now thrown U.S.

government support to a tribunal that does not and probably

will never exist. Even if it did, the ``locally owned

accountability'' he refers to is not feasible under

prevailing political conditions, as any Sudan-based court

will be controlled by the perpetrators themselves.

For seven years, the people of Darfur have been pleading

for protection and for justice. They do not believe either

peace or justice can come while Mr. Bashir--orchestrator of

their suffering--remains president of Sudan. Nor do they

believe ``locally owned accountability'' is remotely possible

under the current regime.

When Barack Obama was elected president of the United

States, hope abounded, even in Darfur's bleak refugee camps.

Darfuris believed this son of Africa could understand their

suffering, end the violence that has taken so much from them,

and bring Mr. Bashir to justice. The refugees hoped that

``Yes we can'' was meant for them too. They believed

President Obama would bring peace and protection to Darfur

and would settle for nothing less than true justice.

I have held new babies named Obama and watched as Darfuris

began to dream again. Fatima Haroun, a 24-year-old widow and

mother, told me the day was surely near when the refugees

could leave the filth and hunger of the camps and safely

return to the ashes of their villages. First, she said, they

would honor their lost loved ones; they would search the

ashes for bones, wrap them in best cloths, and bury them with

respect. They would gather wood and tall grasses to rebuild

their homes, they would sing new songs and prepare their

fields for planting. Hunger and terror would go away. Omar

al-Bashir would rot in jail.

Such hopes did not last long.

Nearly three million souls are still waiting in wretched

camps across Darfur and eastern Chad. Sudanese government

bombs are still falling, murderers and rapists still roam

free, and the refugees have not felt safe for a very long

time. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has

expressed concern over increasing levels of violence in

Darfur.

In their darkest hours and through losses too grievous to

fathom, the world has repeatedly abandoned the people of

Darfur. Over more than seven years, two American presidents

have used the word ``genocide'' to describe what has unfolded

there, but they have done little to end it.

It is past time for us to step up and accept our moral

obligation to protect a defenseless people. The American

people should urge Mr. Gration and the Obama administration

to lead a diplomatic offensive to convince the world to

isolate Mr. Bashir as a fugitive from justice, and to

wholeheartedly support the only body offering Darfur's people

a measure of authentic justice: the International Criminal

Court.

Ms. Farrow has visited Darfur and eastern Chad 13 times

since 2004.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate my constituent, Brigitte Lavey, a teacher at Langley High School, as the Fairfax County ``Teacher of the Year.'' She has demonstrated extraordinary leadership and character that has benefited many students.

Additionally Brigitte, who teaches advanced placement world history, world studies, and geography, also was recently honored by The Washington Post with the Agnes Meyer Outstanding Teacher Award for educational excellence. This award is presented annually to a teacher from each school division in the Washington metropolitan area.

Brigitte was hired by Fairfax County Public Schools in 1968 to teach English and history

at Frost Middle School. She moved to Langley High School in 1975, where she has taught English, history, and art history. She earned bachelor's degrees in English and history from St. Louis University.

Brigitte runs a student-centered classroom. On any given day, students might run a Socratic seminar, give a presentation, run a student-led discussion, or participate in a writing workshop. She implores students to see the significances of history on their own, modern lives; to compare their contemporary world with the times they study, and to use the knowledge they gain to carry our culture and country forward. As the sponsor of the History Honor Society, she continues the learning process by having members adopt a human rights issue and learn how history affects life today.

She is usually first in line to volunteer for training to learn new technology and software. She also organizes an annual gift certificate for Langley custodians and food service employees and dedicates time outside classes to help students who may be struggling and she can frequently be found spending one-on-one time with students in the afternoons and on Saturdays.

Her sense of humor, a commitment to scholarship, learning, empathy, flexibility, and an ability to bring her infectious passion into the classroom are what makes Brigitte Lavey such a dedicated teacher. She has also received Langley's DeBusk Award and Human Relations Award and Fairfax County's History Teacher of the Year award. She was named a Fulbright Scholar for China and has twice been a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate Brigitte Lavey for her dedication to her students and wish her continued success as she mentors and teaches our next generations.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate my constituent, Brigitte Lavey, a teacher at Langley High School, as the Fairfax County ``Teacher of the Year.'' She has demonstrated extraordinary leadership and character that has benefited many students.

Additionally Brigitte, who teaches advanced placement world history, world studies, and geography, also was recently honored by The Washington Post with the Agnes Meyer Outstanding Teacher Award for educational excellence. This award is presented annually to a teacher from each school division in the Washington metropolitan area.

Brigitte was hired by Fairfax County Public Schools in 1968 to teach English and history

at Frost Middle School. She moved to Langley High School in 1975, where she has taught English, history, and art history. She earned bachelor's degrees in English and history from St. Louis University.

Brigitte runs a student-centered classroom. On any given day, students might run a Socratic seminar, give a presentation, run a student-led discussion, or participate in a writing workshop. She implores students to see the significances of history on their own, modern lives; to compare their contemporary world with the times they study, and to use the knowledge they gain to carry our culture and country forward. As the sponsor of the History Honor Society, she continues the learning process by having members adopt a human rights issue and learn how history affects life today.

She is usually first in line to volunteer for training to learn new technology and software. She also organizes an annual gift certificate for Langley custodians and food service employees and dedicates time outside classes to help students who may be struggling and she can frequently be found spending one-on-one time with students in the afternoons and on Saturdays.

Her sense of humor, a commitment to scholarship, learning, empathy, flexibility, and an ability to bring her infectious passion into the classroom are what makes Brigitte Lavey such a dedicated teacher. She has also received Langley's DeBusk Award and Human Relations Award and Fairfax County's History Teacher of the Year award. She was named a Fulbright Scholar for China and has twice been a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate Brigitte Lavey for her dedication to her students and wish her continued success as she mentors and teaches our next generations.

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a piece by Tom Farr, former American diplomat and senior fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs which recently ran in The Washington Post.

Farr highlights several of the more alarming findings outlined in the recently released annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Whether it is the persecution endured by Tibetan Buddhist monks or the violence perpetrated against the ancient Christian community in Iraq--religious freedom is under assault around the world.

Farr points out that the commission makes a host of policy recommendations which should prove invaluable to the U.S. State Department as it seeks to advocate for those whose voices have been silenced around the world.

However, Farr also rightly notes that ``one could easily conclude that Obama Administration officials have no intention of giving priority

to religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF (International Religious Freedom) operation--the ambassador at large for international religious freedom required by the IRF act.''

I commend this piece to my colleagues. It is a sobering but realistic assessment of the diminished state of religious freedom advocacy in U.S. foreign policy. It ought to be cause of great concern for all Americans who cherish this first freedom.

Obama at the Crossroads on Religious Liberty

faith and foreign policy

(By Thomas Farr)

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

(IRF) has come down hard on the Obama administration for its

failure to promote international religious liberty. ``U.S.

foreign policy on religious freedom,'' said Commission

chairman Leonard Leo, ``is missing the mark.''

The Commission, established by the 1998 IRF Act, is a

bipartisan group of nine men and women drawn from across the

American political and religious landscape, and it includes

Obama supporters. To its credit, the group's annual report,

released last week, is raising the right issues at the right

time.

The report reminds us of a primary reason the United States

seeks to advance religious freedom. It recounts in disturbing

detail the cruelties practiced worldwide on human beings

because of their religious beliefs and practices, or those of

their tormentors. A small sampling: Rape victims still

languish in Pakistani prisons because religious laws require

women to produce four male witnesses to the act of rape.

Unable to do so, many rape victims have been accused of

``adultery,'' found guilty, and imprisoned.

In March 2009 Chinese security forces literally beat to

death a Tibetan Buddhist monk for passing out leaflets

supporting the Dalai Lama. In China, the torture and

``disappearance'' of Buddhist monks and nuns, and of

disfavored Muslims, Christians, and adherents of Falun Gong,

occur with inhuman regularity.

In Saudi Arabia a senior cleric recently issued a fatwa

calling for the death of anyone arguing that men and women

could work together professionally. Such edicts emerge from a

Saudi interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism, a malevolent

political theology that continues to be exported from the

desert kingdom worldwide--including to the United States.

In Iran, Shi'a Muslims critical of the regime's brand

of Shi'ism were executed for ``waging war against God.''

Iranian Baha'is live in constant fear of imprisonment,

torture and death.

All this makes for dismaying reading, but the section on

Iraq is particularly wrenching. In a country whose

opportunity for ordered liberty has been purchased with

American blood, Christians are being targeted and murdered.

Thousands among this ancient but rapidly shrinking Iraqi

minority have been forced to flee their homes and villages.

The slow death of Christianity in Iraq is a tragedy about

which most Americans know very little. Had this story gotten

the attention it deserved from the mainstream press, perhaps

public opinion would have brought more pressure on the Bush

administration to do something about it. The Commission, long

a leader in this area, has provided powerful reasons for the

Obama administration to act.

These and other tragic stories in the report provide a

human face to the alarming trends published by the Pew Forum

in its December 2009 analysis, Global Restrictions on

Religion. It found that 70 percent of the world's population

live in regimes where citizens are vulnerable to religious

persecution. As a humanitarian matter alone, surely this is

unacceptable to the American people and their elected

representatives.

Of course, no one supports persecution. The question is

what can, and what ought, the United States do about it? Most

Americans want their government to try and relieve the

suffering of innocent human beings. But are there other

reasons for action, reasons that might lead to U.S. IRF

strategies that both reduce human suffering and further

American interests? More on this below.

The Commission provides a host of practical, country-

specific recommendations, for example, linking the

substantial U.S. economic assistance to Egypt to improvements

in that country's respect for religious freedom, or taking

steps to ensure that the Chinese hear a consistent message on

this issue from all U.S. officials (which is not now, nor

ever has been, the case).

The report urges more pressure on the Saudi government to

do what it has already pledged to do--reform the religiously-

bigoted text books that teach Saudi children the wrong

lessons, and make their ``religion and morals police'' more

accountable. This is the same Wahhabi-inspired ``police''

agency that a few years ago prevented Saudi schoolgirls from

fleeing a burning school building because they were not

sufficiently covered. Fourteen girls perished in the flames.

Importantly, the report adds to the Commission's ``watch

list'' two key Muslim democracies--Indonesia and Turkey. The

commissioners judge, quite accurately, that those nations,

while making strides in other areas critical to democracy,

are lagging in religious freedom. This matter is important to

the United States, not only because we want to help the

victims, but also because the success of democracy in these

countries is vital to our own security.

This brings us to the ``other'' reasons for advancing

religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. The Commission's

findings tend to confirm what scholarship in International

relations and sociology are strongly suggesting: democracy in

highly religious nations cannot consolidate and yield its

benefits--including economic opportunity, security, low

levels of religious extremism, and peace with other

democracies--without religious freedom. That is a lesson our

foreign policy elites must learn, not only that we may help

influence the democratic consolidation of allies Turkey and

Indonesia, but also to ensure that our investments of

blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan succeed.

Commission chairman Leonard Leo highlighted the connection

between religious freedom and national security in his

remarks: ``If the United States cares about human rights, if

we value international stability, if we are concerned about

countering extremism, freedom of religion . . . must be a

critical component of our nation's diplomacy, national

security and economic development objectives.''

The Obama administration should pay close attention to

these words as it decides how to position its own religious

freedom policy. Whether it will do so or not is still

unclear. The report acknowledges that some good things are

beginning to happen inside the State Department. But it also

points to signs that IRF policy is being sidelined and may

assume an even lesser role than it has in previous

administrations.

Decisions over the next several weeks will likely tell us

which path this President will take. Will he and Secretary

Hillary Clinton decide to retool and upgrade an IRF policy

that was neglected by prior administrations of both parties?

With proper leadership and training, U.S. religious freedom

strategies will not only help alleviate human suffering far

more effectively than they have to date, but they can also

help achieve the national security goals emphasized by

Chairman Leo.

On the plus side, there are a few reasons for hope. Within

Foggy Bottom, a handful of officials are working hard to

convince skeptical senior Department leaders of what ought to

be obvious: the global resurgence of religion warrants

systemic training for foreign service officers in religions

and religious freedom. Our embassies abroad need expertise in

this area, just as they possess expertise in politics,

economics, or military affairs. This case has recently been

made by, among others, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs

in a series of recommendations to the administration.

Unfortunately, as the Commission's report makes clear, many

within the administration are resisting the obvious. One

could easily conclude that Obama officials have no intention

of given priority to religious freedom in U.S. foreign

policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme

lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF

operation--the ambassador at large for international

religious freedom required by the IRF Act. Sixteen months

into the Obama presidency, with a bevy of envoys on issues

from outreach to Muslim communities to the closure of

Guantanamo long in place, the administration has not seen fit

to move on the IRF position.

What the report does not mention is that the White House is

said to be on the verge of announcing the President's nominee

for ambassador at large. That person is reported to be a

pastor rather than a diplomat, and someone with no experience

in either foreign policy or religious freedom. Would the

President nominate someone to head his programs on Muslim

outreach, women's rights, disabilities, energy policy,

climate change, or any of the other issues that are

represented by senior envoys under his administration, if he

or she were not a seasoned expert in the field? Why would he

do so in the field of religious freedom?

If this were not enough, the Commission also notes reports

that when the new IRF ambassador shows up for work, she will

have even less authority and less support than is the norm at

Foggy Bottom, and less than is required by the IRF Act

itself. Other ambassadors at large, such as the official in

charge of Global Women's Issues, work directly under

Secretary Clinton. The IRF ambassador, on the other hand,

will reportedly have four other officials between her and the

Secretary. And the office that has for 12 years served the

IRF ambassador (as required by the IRF Act) will now report

to someone else.

Is the Democratic-controlled Congress paying attention?

Does it care that a law it passed unanimously under one

Democratic President is apparently being set aside by

another?

One final point. The Commission report worries, correctly

in my view, that both the President and the Secretary of

State have taken to speaking publicly of ``freedom of

worship'' rather than ``religious freedom.'' Why should that

matter? Because ``worship'' is essentially a private

activity, far less threatening to authoritarian governments

or powerful majority religious communities than is religious

freedom. The latter encompasses both private worship and

public practice. It means protection for all religious

communities on an equal basis, including the right to engage

in the political life of a nation.

If the Obama administration wanted to downgrade U.S.

international religious freedom policy, it might prepare the

way by rhetorical shift such as this.

Is that what the administration is doing? It is too soon to

tell, but there are reasons to be concerned. In a follow-up

post I will explore why the President and Secretary of State

might in fact be acting to move IRF to the obscure margins of

U.S. foreign policy, and, if they are, why their actions

would reduce our nation's capacity to undermine religious

persecution, and harm the interests of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a piece by Tom Farr, former American diplomat and senior fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs which recently ran in The Washington Post.

Farr highlights several of the more alarming findings outlined in the recently released annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Whether it is the persecution endured by Tibetan Buddhist monks or the violence perpetrated against the ancient Christian community in Iraq--religious freedom is under assault around the world.

Farr points out that the commission makes a host of policy recommendations which should prove invaluable to the U.S. State Department as it seeks to advocate for those whose voices have been silenced around the world.

However, Farr also rightly notes that ``one could easily conclude that Obama Administration officials have no intention of giving priority

to religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF (International Religious Freedom) operation--the ambassador at large for international religious freedom required by the IRF act.''

I commend this piece to my colleagues. It is a sobering but realistic assessment of the diminished state of religious freedom advocacy in U.S. foreign policy. It ought to be cause of great concern for all Americans who cherish this first freedom.

Obama at the Crossroads on Religious Liberty

faith and foreign policy

(By Thomas Farr)

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

(IRF) has come down hard on the Obama administration for its

failure to promote international religious liberty. ``U.S.

foreign policy on religious freedom,'' said Commission

chairman Leonard Leo, ``is missing the mark.''

The Commission, established by the 1998 IRF Act, is a

bipartisan group of nine men and women drawn from across the

American political and religious landscape, and it includes

Obama supporters. To its credit, the group's annual report,

released last week, is raising the right issues at the right

time.

The report reminds us of a primary reason the United States

seeks to advance religious freedom. It recounts in disturbing

detail the cruelties practiced worldwide on human beings

because of their religious beliefs and practices, or those of

their tormentors. A small sampling: Rape victims still

languish in Pakistani prisons because religious laws require

women to produce four male witnesses to the act of rape.

Unable to do so, many rape victims have been accused of

``adultery,'' found guilty, and imprisoned.

In March 2009 Chinese security forces literally beat to

death a Tibetan Buddhist monk for passing out leaflets

supporting the Dalai Lama. In China, the torture and

``disappearance'' of Buddhist monks and nuns, and of

disfavored Muslims, Christians, and adherents of Falun Gong,

occur with inhuman regularity.

In Saudi Arabia a senior cleric recently issued a fatwa

calling for the death of anyone arguing that men and women

could work together professionally. Such edicts emerge from a

Saudi interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism, a malevolent

political theology that continues to be exported from the

desert kingdom worldwide--including to the United States.

In Iran, Shi'a Muslims critical of the regime's brand

of Shi'ism were executed for ``waging war against God.''

Iranian Baha'is live in constant fear of imprisonment,

torture and death.

All this makes for dismaying reading, but the section on

Iraq is particularly wrenching. In a country whose

opportunity for ordered liberty has been purchased with

American blood, Christians are being targeted and murdered.

Thousands among this ancient but rapidly shrinking Iraqi

minority have been forced to flee their homes and villages.

The slow death of Christianity in Iraq is a tragedy about

which most Americans know very little. Had this story gotten

the attention it deserved from the mainstream press, perhaps

public opinion would have brought more pressure on the Bush

administration to do something about it. The Commission, long

a leader in this area, has provided powerful reasons for the

Obama administration to act.

These and other tragic stories in the report provide a

human face to the alarming trends published by the Pew Forum

in its December 2009 analysis, Global Restrictions on

Religion. It found that 70 percent of the world's population

live in regimes where citizens are vulnerable to religious

persecution. As a humanitarian matter alone, surely this is

unacceptable to the American people and their elected

representatives.

Of course, no one supports persecution. The question is

what can, and what ought, the United States do about it? Most

Americans want their government to try and relieve the

suffering of innocent human beings. But are there other

reasons for action, reasons that might lead to U.S. IRF

strategies that both reduce human suffering and further

American interests? More on this below.

The Commission provides a host of practical, country-

specific recommendations, for example, linking the

substantial U.S. economic assistance to Egypt to improvements

in that country's respect for religious freedom, or taking

steps to ensure that the Chinese hear a consistent message on

this issue from all U.S. officials (which is not now, nor

ever has been, the case).

The report urges more pressure on the Saudi government to

do what it has already pledged to do--reform the religiously-

bigoted text books that teach Saudi children the wrong

lessons, and make their ``religion and morals police'' more

accountable. This is the same Wahhabi-inspired ``police''

agency that a few years ago prevented Saudi schoolgirls from

fleeing a burning school building because they were not

sufficiently covered. Fourteen girls perished in the flames.

Importantly, the report adds to the Commission's ``watch

list'' two key Muslim democracies--Indonesia and Turkey. The

commissioners judge, quite accurately, that those nations,

while making strides in other areas critical to democracy,

are lagging in religious freedom. This matter is important to

the United States, not only because we want to help the

victims, but also because the success of democracy in these

countries is vital to our own security.

This brings us to the ``other'' reasons for advancing

religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. The Commission's

findings tend to confirm what scholarship in International

relations and sociology are strongly suggesting: democracy in

highly religious nations cannot consolidate and yield its

benefits--including economic opportunity, security, low

levels of religious extremism, and peace with other

democracies--without religious freedom. That is a lesson our

foreign policy elites must learn, not only that we may help

influence the democratic consolidation of allies Turkey and

Indonesia, but also to ensure that our investments of

blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan succeed.

Commission chairman Leonard Leo highlighted the connection

between religious freedom and national security in his

remarks: ``If the United States cares about human rights, if

we value international stability, if we are concerned about

countering extremism, freedom of religion . . . must be a

critical component of our nation's diplomacy, national

security and economic development objectives.''

The Obama administration should pay close attention to

these words as it decides how to position its own religious

freedom policy. Whether it will do so or not is still

unclear. The report acknowledges that some good things are

beginning to happen inside the State Department. But it also

points to signs that IRF policy is being sidelined and may

assume an even lesser role than it has in previous

administrations.

Decisions over the next several weeks will likely tell us

which path this President will take. Will he and Secretary

Hillary Clinton decide to retool and upgrade an IRF policy

that was neglected by prior administrations of both parties?

With proper leadership and training, U.S. religious freedom

strategies will not only help alleviate human suffering far

more effectively than they have to date, but they can also

help achieve the national security goals emphasized by

Chairman Leo.

On the plus side, there are a few reasons for hope. Within

Foggy Bottom, a handful of officials are working hard to

convince skeptical senior Department leaders of what ought to

be obvious: the global resurgence of religion warrants

systemic training for foreign service officers in religions

and religious freedom. Our embassies abroad need expertise in

this area, just as they possess expertise in politics,

economics, or military affairs. This case has recently been

made by, among others, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs

in a series of recommendations to the administration.

Unfortunately, as the Commission's report makes clear, many

within the administration are resisting the obvious. One

could easily conclude that Obama officials have no intention

of given priority to religious freedom in U.S. foreign

policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme

lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF

operation--the ambassador at large for international

religious freedom required by the IRF Act. Sixteen months

into the Obama presidency, with a bevy of envoys on issues

from outreach to Muslim communities to the closure of

Guantanamo long in place, the administration has not seen fit

to move on the IRF position.

What the report does not mention is that the White House is

said to be on the verge of announcing the President's nominee

for ambassador at large. That person is reported to be a

pastor rather than a diplomat, and someone with no experience

in either foreign policy or religious freedom. Would the

President nominate someone to head his programs on Muslim

outreach, women's rights, disabilities, energy policy,

climate change, or any of the other issues that are

represented by senior envoys under his administration, if he

or she were not a seasoned expert in the field? Why would he

do so in the field of religious freedom?

If this were not enough, the Commission also notes reports

that when the new IRF ambassador shows up for work, she will

have even less authority and less support than is the norm at

Foggy Bottom, and less than is required by the IRF Act

itself. Other ambassadors at large, such as the official in

charge of Global Women's Issues, work directly under

Secretary Clinton. The IRF ambassador, on the other hand,

will reportedly have four other officials between her and the

Secretary. And the office that has for 12 years served the

IRF ambassador (as required by the IRF Act) will now report

to someone else.

Is the Democratic-controlled Congress paying attention?

Does it care that a law it passed unanimously under one

Democratic President is apparently being set aside by

another?

One final point. The Commission report worries, correctly

in my view, that both the President and the Secretary of

State have taken to speaking publicly of ``freedom of

worship'' rather than ``religious freedom.'' Why should that

matter? Because ``worship'' is essentially a private

activity, far less threatening to authoritarian governments

or powerful majority religious communities than is religious

freedom. The latter encompasses both private worship and

public practice. It means protection for all religious

communities on an equal basis, including the right to engage

in the political life of a nation.

If the Obama administration wanted to downgrade U.S.

international religious freedom policy, it might prepare the

way by rhetorical shift such as this.

Is that what the administration is doing? It is too soon to

tell, but there are reasons to be concerned. In a follow-up

post I will explore why the President and Secretary of State

might in fact be acting to move IRF to the obscure margins of

U.S. foreign policy, and, if they are, why their actions

would reduce our nation's capacity to undermine religious

persecution, and harm the interests of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the following letter I sent to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asking that the Millennium Challenge Corporation compact with Morocco be suspended in light of Morocco's deportation of Americans and other foreign nationals without due process.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.

Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State,

Washington DC.

Dear Secretary Clinton: I write today to express my grave

concern regarding the recent deportation of approximately 40

American citizens from Morocco without due process, which I

believe calls into question the continuance of Morocco's

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) funding.

In September 2008, the clock started for the official five-

year period for project implementation under the MCC Compact

with Morocco. The United States has pledged $697.5 million in

assistance to the Kingdom of Morocco through this Compact. As

a precondition to receiving MCC funds, the government of

Morocco was evaluated on 17 key indicators of eligibility,

six of which fall under the category of ``ruling justly.'' I

submit, however, that these recent events raise valid

questions regarding the Moroccan government's willingness to

abide by the principles outlined in the MCC indicators.

In early March, the Moroccan government deported

approximately 40 U.S. citizens and scores of other foreign

nationals for allegedly proselytizing, which is against

Moroccan law. However, authorities presented no evidence or

explanation of the proselytizing allegations. Among the

individuals who were deported or denied reentry were

businessmen, educators, and humanitarian and social workers.

Many of these individuals have resided in Morocco for over a

decade in full compliance with Moroccan law.

Additionally, those deported were forced to leave the

country within two hours of being questioned by authorities,

leaving all their belongings behind. The manner in which

these expulsions were carried out and the Moroccan

government's refusal to grant those affected with a hearing

flies in the face of the principles of due process.

Furthermore, the manner in which authorities expelled these

individuals violates not only the general principles of

international law but Moroccan law, as well.

The mandate of the MCC is based on the assumption that

``aid is most effective when it reinforces good governance.''

Rather than making strides toward accountable and democratic

governance since receiving the MCC grant, Morocco has

regressed. Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World Report

noted backsliding in Morocco ``due to the increased

concentration of power in the hands of political elites

aligned with the monarchy'' over the course of the last year.

At a time when the United States owes more in debts and

commitments than the total combined net worth of all

Americans, it is unacceptable to provide $697.5 million in

taxpayer dollars to a nation which blatantly disregards the

rights of American citizens residing in Morocco and forcibly

expels American citizens without due process of law.

The decision to suspend a MCC Compact due to a significant

deterioration in good governance is not unprecedented. At my

urging, the Board chose to suspend the MCC Compact with

Nicaragua due to the violence and blatant thuggery exhibited

by the regime of President Daniel Ortega surrounding the

November 2008 elections.

The United States must send a message to the Moroccan

government that it is unacceptable to expel American citizens

without due process under the law. I ask that you withhold

Morocco's MCC funding until the government of Morocco

demonstrates that it is willing to follow its own laws thus

ensure that those expelled receive a fair trial and work

toward a mutually acceptable solution to this matter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look

forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I want to share the following letter that I have sent to President Obama urging him to implement several bipartisan proposals that would strengthen our national security. These proposals include bringing back the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission for a 6- month period to review the implementation of the commission's recommendations and creating a ``Team B'' of experts outside of government to review our counterterrorism strategy.

In light of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report of the 14 ``points of failure'' with regard to the attempted Christmas Day bombing, it is disappointing that the administration has not adopted these proposals that would make our country safer.

House of Representatives,

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President, The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: Yesterday, the Senate Select Committee

on Intelligence (SSCI) released an unclassified summary of

its report on the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas

Day. In reviewing the report's conclusions, including the 14

specific ``points of failure'' in U.S. intelligence prior to

the attack, it occurred to me that many of these ``points of

failure'' could have been prevented through greater outside

review of our national counterterrorism operations and

strategy.

As you know, over the last five months I have repeatedly

urged your administration to adopt four bipartisan proposals

that would strengthen our national security. These ideas

include bringing back the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission

for a six-month review, making the Transportation Security

Administration (TSA) administrator a set 10-year term to

bring greater stability and expertise to the agency,

collocating the new High Value Detainee Interrogation Group

(HIG) at the National Counterterrorism Center, and creating a

``Team B'' of outside counterterrorism experts to review and

challenge our strategy and assumptions across the

intelligence community.

In reviewing the 14 ``points of failure'' identified in the

SSCI report, I believe many of the operational missteps could

have been prevented if the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission--

former Rep. Lee Hamilton and former Gov. Thomas Kean--had

been able to conduct a 6-month review of the implementation

of the commission's original recommendations. Specifically, I

believe that points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and

13, listed in the enclosed report could have been mitigated

by a follow-up review of the 9/11 Commission's

recommendations.

Additionally, I believe that points 7 and 14,

``Intelligence Analysts Were Primarily Focused on Al-Qaeda in

the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) Threats to U.S. Interests in

Yemen, Rather than on Potential AQAP Threats to the U.S.

Homeland,'' could have been mitigated if a ``Team B'' of

outside experts had been able to challenge institutionalized

assumptions throughout the intelligence community. The team

would represent a ``new approach to counterterrorism'' which

focuses not just on connecting the dots of intelligence, but

which seeks to stay a step ahead in understanding how to

break the radicalization and recruitment cycle that sustains

our enemy, how to disrupt their network globally and how to

strategically isolate them.

Last month, I wrote you to share a recent article from

respected Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman, who

endorses the ``Team B'' approach. He said, ``One important

yet currently languishing congressional initiative that would

help counter this strategy is Representative Frank Wolf's

proposal to institutionalize a `red team' or `Team B'

counterterrorist capability as an essential element of our

efforts to combat terrorism and in the war against al-

Qaeda.'' I believe that, in light of the SSCI report, such an

approach is needed now more than ever.

Although we now have the benefit of hindsight, it is

critical that we take the lessons from the failed attack and

implement measures to further review our counterterrorism

processes and strategy. It is inexcusable that we would not

draw on these valuable outside experts' wisdom to strengthen

our homeland and ensure that these mistakes are not repeated.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the precarious situation of Christians and other religious minorities in Morocco. In March, Moroccan authorities deported approximately 40 U.S. citizens and scores of our foreign nationals. The individuals deported

were charged with proselytism, which is against the law in Morocco. However, Moroccan authorities have refused to turn over any evidence or offer any explanation of the charges.

Among the individuals who were deported or denied reentry were businessmen, educators, humanitarian and social workers, many of whom had resided in Morocco for over a decade in full compliance with the law. Those deported were reportedly forced to leave the country within 2 hours of being questioned by authorities, leaving all of their belongings behind.

As a result, a number of organizations which were run by foreign nationals and provided vital community services have been shuttered. One organization which has been adversely affected is the Village of Hope orphanage in Morocco's Atlas Mountains. Time Magazine reported that: ``The Village of Hope deportations are part of what appears to be a widespread crackdown on Christian workers in Morocco.''

A New Zealand native and staff of the orphanage, Chris Broadbent, told Time that ``most of the couples were there as foster parents and had raised these children since infancy.''

Colorado couple Eddie and Lynn Padilla were amongst those expelled from the Village of Hope, forced to leave their two Moroccan sons behind. Mr. Padilla told 9 News Colorado that his 2-year-old son, Samir, ``didn't understand what was happening but knew it wasn't good.'' He went on to describe the heart-wrenching story of their sudden separation and how Samir jumped into his father's arms and cried, ``I want to go with you, Daddy.''

The harsh nature of these expulsions call into question the longstanding friendship and mutual cooperation between the United States and Morocco dating back to the letter the Sultan of Morocco sent to George Washington at Valley Forge declaring that American vessels were permitted to enter Moroccan ports to ``take refreshments and enjoy in them the same privileges and immunities as those of the other nations.'' This letter signified the first official recognition of our fledgling Nation.

I have worked with Moroccan and U.S. officials over the last 2 months in an attempt to find a satisfactory solution to this matter. Unfortunately, the Moroccan Government seems to be unwilling to compromise, as evidenced by a recent letter I received from a representative of the King.

Earlier this week, 10 additional foreign nationals were asked to leave the country. It is our responsibility to speak out on behalf of human rights abuses which have been perpetrated by the Moroccan Government.

President Reagan modeled this approach by consistently speaking out on behalf of the persecuted and tirelessly defending human rights and religious freedom.

Today I sent Secretary of State Clinton a letter asking her to issue a travel advisory for Morocco so all U.S. citizens are aware of the potential risks. Additionally, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I cochair, will hold a hearing on June 17 to further explore the issues of human rights and religious freedom in Morocco.

I call on the Government of Morocco again to uphold its commitment to the principles of religious tolerance and freedom that for so long made it a model of tolerance and modernity in the Arab world.

Again, I call on our Embassy, and I think our ambassador should be speaking out, the State Department should be speaking out, and the White House should be speaking out to raise this issue with Moroccan authorities at the highest levels in defending the rights and interests of these American citizens whose lives have been shattered by these events.

[From Time, Mar. 21, 2010]

In Morocco, a Crackdown on Christian Aid Workers

(By Lisa Abend)

March 8 is not a day that Chris Broadbent will soon forget.

The preceding weekend, gendarmes entered the Village of Hope,

a Christian-run orphanage in Morocco's Atlas Mountains where

Broadbent, a New Zealand native, worked as a human resources

manager, and began questioning children and staff. At first,

he and the other foreign workers were assured that the

interrogation was routine. But as it dragged on, the

questions turned to subjects like `How do you pray?' and the

police began searching homes on the compound for children's

Bibles. On Monday morning, after being held in a separate

room from the orphanage's 33 children, Broadbent and his 15

colleagues were summarily deported from Morocco, accused of

illegally proselytizing for their faith.

``Most of the couples were there as foster parents and had

raised these children since infancy,'' Broadbent says. ``When

they were told that their parents had to leave, it was

chaos--the kids were running after any adult they could find,

and just holding on. It was the most devastating thing I've

ever seen.''

The Village of Hope deportations are part of what appears

to be a widespread crackdown on Christian aid workers in

Morocco. An estimated 40 foreigners--including Dutch,

British, American and Korean citizens--have been deported

this month, including Broadbent and his colleagues. Among

them were an Egyptian Catholic priest in the northern city of

Larache and a Korean-born Protestant pastor in Marrakesh who

was arrested as he led services in his church. And this past

week, authorities searched an orphanage founded by American

missionaries in the town of Azrou called The Children's

Haven. Salim Sefiane, a Moroccan who was raised at the

orphanage and is still in touch with workers there, said the

officials interrogated the orphanage staff and asked children

as young as 8 years old to demonstrate how they pray. No

action has been taken yet against the orphanage's workers,

Sefiane said.

The large-scale deportations came as a surprise in a nation

that is among the most liberal of Muslim countries. Although

trying to convert Muslims to other faiths is illegal, Morocco

tolerates the presence of other religions and is home to a

number of churches and synagogues. ``There are several things

about this that are really striking,'' says Spanish

journalist Ignacio Cembrero, who has written several books

about the country. ``There have been occasional deportations

of people accused of proselytizing before, but never so many

at once, and they've never expelled a Catholic before. And

for the police to enter a church on Sunday, during services,

to arrest people? Absolutely unprecedented.''

According to the Moroccan government, the deportees all

broke the law, using their status as aid workers to cover

their proselytizing. ``They are guilty of trying to undermine

the faith of Muslims,'' Interior Minister Tayeb Cherkaoui

said in a press release.

But were they? Broadbent denies the charges. Part of his

job at the Village of Hope was to ensure that staff members

understood the rules prohibiting proselytizing, and he notes

that all the orphanage's children received instruction in

Islam. ``We weren't teaching Christianity in any formal

way,'' he says. But asked if reading the Bible to Muslim

children constitutes proselytizing, he said, ``We understood

that it wasn't. And in any case, the authorities have always

known that these children were being raised in Christian

families.'' In fact, Village of Hope had been operating for

10 years and had received ``institutional'' status from the

Moroccan government this year--a designation meaning it meets

government standards. Many of the other deported Christians

had also been in Morocco for extended periods of time. So why

were they evicted now?

Christopher Martin, a pastor since 2004 at the Casablanca

International Protestant Church, says he's talked to three

different people with connections ``high up in the Moroccan

government'' and heard three different explanations for the

action. But one common thread, he points out, is that the

officials leading the crackdown--the Justice and Interior

ministers--were both appointed in January. That suggests to

many Christians in Morocco that the officials were eager to

quickly make a mark on the political landscape with an

initiative likely to have broad popular support.

Although the Moroccan government has in recent years

dramatically reformed its family law to better protect the

rights of women and has even sponsored programs to train

women as Muslim preachers, it has also proven responsive to

an increasingly religious public. In recent years, alcohol

licenses have become much more difficult to obtain, and last

September, for the first time, police in various cities

arrested Moroccans who were eating in public during the fast

period of Ramadan. The action prompted a formal complaint

from the international organization Human Rights Watch.

Aaron Schwoebel, the information officer at the U.S.

embassy in Rabat, says that the Moroccan government has told

the embassy there will be more deportations, including other

Americans. He said the government did not indicate when. ``We

urge the Moroccan government to act in accordance with its

highest traditions of tolerance,'' Schwoebel says, ``and

respect the human rights of the members of these religious

minority communities, including those of our own citizens.''

Now living in Spain after the gendarmes escorted him and

his family to a departing ferry in Tangier, Broadbent hopes

for the same thing. The last he heard, the Village of Hope

children were still living at the orphanage, but he suspects

they may soon be sent to other homes. ``We'd like to open a

dialogue that would lead to reuniting these families,'' he

says. But in the meantime, he can only wonder about the

meaning of it all. ``Is this an isolated incident?'' he asks.

``Or is Morocco steering away from its tolerant past?''

Madam Speaker, I want to share the following letters that I have sent to President Obama, National Security Advisor General Jones, FBI Director Mueller, and CIA Director Panetta last week urging the implementation four bipartisan proposals to strengthen our national security.

Following the failed attack on Times Square in New York City, it is more important than ever that we implement these proposals that would make our country safer.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

May 5, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President, The White House,

Washington DC.

Dear Mr. President: In light of the attempted terrorist

bombing in Times Square in New York City, I urge you again to

implement four bipartisan steps that would help make our

country safer. If we fail to learn the lessons of the

attempted attacks on Christmas Day and Times Square, we will

continue to repeat the same mistakes that compromised our

preparation for and response to these two incidents. The

latest attack underscores the need for the rapid adoption of

bipartisan solutions that strengthen our national security.

As you know, I have repeatedly urged the administration to

bring back the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission--Lee Hamilton

and Thomas Kean--for a six-month review of the progress that

has been made in implementing the commission's

recommendations. To date, I have seen no effort by the

administration on this front.

I have spoken with Lee Hamilton and he believes this is a

good idea. In fact, Mr. Hamilton underscored the need for

this when he told ABC News yesterday that, ``the 9/11

commission recommended that you had to have biometric

evidence, documentarian evidence of people coming in and

exiting [the country.] We've done a pretty good job on the

first part of it people entering the country. But with regard

to those exiting the country we simply have not been able to

set up a system to deal with that and it showed in this

case.''

Given our failure to prevent both alleged terrorists--

Faisal Shahzad and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab--from boarding

their flights, it is critically important that our

transportation security structure have strong leadership and

coordination. In both cases, the alleged terrorists slipped

through security despite appearing on the ``no fly'' list.

I have repeatedly urged the administration to support

legislation to establish a more professional and independent

administrator of the Transportation Security Administration

(TSA), by setting a 10-year term, akin to the appointment

process for the director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI). In fact, I introduced legislation, H.R.

4459, in early January to do this. After two withdrawn

nominations, the position remains vacant and the

administration continues to oppose efforts to professionalize

this position.

In the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing, there

were many serious questions regarding the administration's

deployment of the new High Value Detainee Interrogation Group

(HIG). Five months later, these same questions surround the

administration's response to the Times Square attack. The

Washington Post noted in its editorial today, ``Nor has [the

administration] said whether its High Value Interrogation

Group (HIG)--a group of law enforcement and intelligence

experts specially trained for terrorism cases--was up and

running and deployed in the Shahzad case.''

I have repeatedly urged the administration to collocate the

HIG at the National Counterterrorism Center to facilitate

information sharing anc cooperation among intelligence

agencies. Again, I have seen no effort by the administration

to do so.

Perhaps most importantly, I have repeatedly urged the

administration to create a ``Team B'' opf outside advisors to

bring ``fresh eyes'' to U.S. counterterrorism strategy. The

team would represent a ``new approach to counterterrorism''

which focuses not just on connecting the dots of

intelligence, but which seeks to stay a step ahead in

understanding how to break the radicalization and recruitment

cycle that sustains our enemy, how to disrupt their network

globally and how to strategically isolate them. This would

help us better anticipate the type of threats that occured on

Christmas Day and in Times Square.

Counterterrorism experts, including respected Georgetown

University professor Bruce Hoffman, have publicly endorsed

this proposal. They understand the need for a group of

outside experts to challenge assumptions across the

intelligance community to help us better prepare for future

attacks. In liight of the increasing pace in attempted

attacks on U.S. soil, I believe this should be implemented as

quickly as possible.

I cannot understand why the administration continues to

refuse to adopt these proposals. In light of the latest

attempted attack, I urge your action on these proposals--each

of which would receive broad bipartisan support from the

American people.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I call to the attention of the House the passing on January 25 of Michael Robert Spak, 62, a resident of Leesburg, Virginia, who was the founder and chairman of the nonprofit Loudoun Crime Commission.

Mr. Spak enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at age 18 and completed two tours of combat duty in Vietnam from 1966-1969. Following his honorable discharge in 1969, he joined the Los Angeles Police Department, where he served on the Bomb Squad/Criminal Conspiracy Section for several years, becoming an expert on bomb detection, disposal and investigation. In 1974, he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, where he served for 23 years, first as an officer in the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology and then in the Directorate of Operations. In the context of his work, he traveled the world from the Middle East to Africa and Asia. He also served in multiple long-term overseas assignments in Europe and Latin America. After retiring from government service in 1996, he started his own company, Virtual Defense & Development International, Inc. (VDI), an international consulting and professional services company specializing in matters of defense, law enforcement, security and intelligence, and post-conflict economic development. He served as president and chairman of VDI until the time of his death.

He was the founder and chairman of the non-profit Loudoun Crime Commission; he was a founder of the newly-constructed National Museum of the Marine Corps at Quantico, and was active in the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation; and he served in the Loudoun County Marine Corps League Detachment, where he most recently held the position of judge advocate and was involved in its annual Toys for Tots campaign. In addition, he owned and operated Amber Creek Vineyard in Leesburg and was a member of the Loudoun Winegrowers Association. He was a lifelong member of the Masonic Lodge. He held two bachelor's degrees from George Mason University and American University, respectively, and at the time of his death was working towards his master's degree at American University. Mr. Spak was vigilant in his efforts to fight crime and support law enforcement agencies. He is commended for his life of service to his country and his community. Mr. Spak was willing to put his own life at risk for the protection of our country and our communities. Michael Robert Spak was very much appreciated throughout the Marine, Intelligence and law enforcement communities and his energy, ideas and enthusiasm will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, we extend our sympathies to Mr. Spak's family, including his wife, Kristin Rickard Spak of Leesburg, Virginia; three children, Jessica Lynn White of Ashburn, Brian Thomas Spak of Boulder, CO, and Nicholas Michael Spak, of Boulder, CO; two grandchildren: Kelsey Lynn White and Austin Ray White, both of Ashburn; and a sister Janis Lee Bradley of Carson City, NV.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues an article which ran last week reporting that Sudan's leader, the internationally indicted war criminal, Bashir, declared martial law inside El-Fasher, Darfur.

What's remarkable is the headline: Al-Bashir Executes Martial Law to Silence El Fasher Unity: US and UN Unspoken.

Silence in the face of martial law?

Once again, I urge this administration to find its voice on Sudan.

[From Salem-News.com, May 4, 2010]

Al-Bashir Executes Martial Law to Silence El Fasher Unity: US and UN

Unspoken

(By Alysha Atma)

``I know there are many good, compassionate people in this

world, who will listen to us and help us''--Mohammed Yahya

(EL FASHER/PORTLAND)--``Martial Law has been declared

inside El Fasher, Darfur. We have to stay in our homes; the

Police and Government Army are searching house to house

looking for people, cell phones, cameras and pictures,'' a

source on the ground there tells Salem-News.com.

All communications have been severed, ``They are going to

cut the network, no email or cell phones. We will not be able

to communicate with anyone. We don't know how long this will

last.''

The International Superpowers--US Government and China,

have all given their silent approval in support of the

Genocidal President of Sudan. Omar Al-Bashir is a wanted war

criminal who ran, and won the recent, rigged and fraudulent

elections. By standing silent the US Government has allowed a

continued reign of terror to besiege the people of Sudan. The

US government has chosen its path, to stand with the Sudanese

President while he targets the people and strips them from

their land, families and often their lives.

The last several days have seen the tensions and terror

increase inside the state of Darfur; bombings, clashes and

protests have left many dead, injured or displaced.

According to sources on the ground, this was to be

expected, with information beginning to leak its way out of

Darfur and their voices coming together in unity. The

government (GoS) is trouncing hard on the people of El

Fasher. Those inside report that the government is not only

stopping all communication they are confiscating cell phones,

cameras and computers in an effort to ebb the flow of

information leaving the state.

Sources say to brace for more to happen, there have been

too many to count, arrested and beaten. Many of those being

taken are the same that stood in strength and protested

against the government's horror and deception.

2 May 2010 in El Fasher, also known as Al Fashir

The GoS Ponzi scam that was earlier reported not only stole

money from the hard working Darfuri's but also allowed the

GoS to compile a list of names and addresses. This list is

not being used not to repay those that the government owes

money, but to target with violence and harassment. Many on

this list have already been taken away or arrested; reports

Indicate they are being sent to Shalla prison.

``Shalla is a very bad, terrible place''.

We previously reported over 300 people were arrested in the

two days following the protest.

Our source says, ``Over 100 arrested today and still

arresting more based on the governor's order this evening.''

Sources indicate this may be a very long lockdown; they

cannot leave their homes and the market has been shut down. A

majority of people inside El Fasher do not have running water

and rely on every day trips to the market to feed their

families.

``How are we going to survive if we can't get food and

water, we can't last a week? If we leave our homes we are

arrested or killed.''

Omar Al-Bashir has been known in the past to use starvation

as a weapon of war. The goal and ideology has been consistent

within this government; to clear Darfur of its people.

``They can do anything that they want and get away with it,

anything beyond your imagination, that is what they can do,''

Reporter Mohammed Yahya said.

Oil, gold, copper and uranium are all found in ground of

Darfur. Omar Al-Bashir's actions suggest that the Sudanese

people are dispensable; wipe out the people and the land is

his, this equals money. He has successfully managed to wipe

out over 80% of the villages. El Fasher is one of the largest

towns in Darfur with a population of over 250,000, how many

will survive?

The citizens of El Fasher no longer having anything to

lose; with no other direction and with many facing death or

imprisonment, the U.S. and UN still stand silent. Their hope

is for world to hear them and not allow another hundred

people to disappear into

Shalla prison today and thousands to starve while Al-Bashir

smiles for the camera during his re-election photos.

Mohammed Yahya said, ``I know there are many good,

compassionate people in this world, who will listen to us and

help us.''

Madam Speaker, Sudan--genocide--killing. Many of the household names once engaged on Sudan have moved on to the next cause while the refrain ``never again'' echoes faintly, but the desperation in Darfur's camps is still a reality.

The CPA which ended Khartoum's brutal 20-year civil war with the south where 2.1 million perished--and where mainly Christians died-- hangs in the balance. Against this backdrop, the administration's policy is languishing.

There is an immediate need for renewed, principled leadership on Sudan at the highest levels--leadership which is clear-eyed about the history of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum. These are the people who gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996.

President Obama must empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of this faltering policy. Time is running out. Lives hang in the balance. A stalemate policy in Sudan is not an option. President Obama must act.

Madam Speaker, ``If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' These were the closing words two weeks ago of columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Having first travelled to Sudan in 1989, my interest in this country has spanned the better part of 20 years. I've been most recently in July 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur.

We saw the same scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year civil war with the South where 2.1 million perished.

I remain grateful for President Bush's leadership in bringing about an end to the bloodshed with the historic signing of the CPA. But that peace is now in jeopardy.

Fast forward to 2009. I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who called for the appointment of a special envoy shortly after President Obama was elected. What was once a successful model for Sudan policy is not having the desired effect today. I am not alone in this belief.

Last week, six respected NGOs ran ads in the Washington Post calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated policy.''

Today I join the chorus of voices in calling on the President to empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of the languishing Sudan policy.

They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to ensure options for consequences are on the table. In fact, I call on the President himself to exercise leadership in this regard, consistent with the explicit campaign promises he made about Sudan, promises which to date ring hollow.

There is a pressing need for renewed, principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership which is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum.

In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the country's leader, Bashir, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to bin Laden in the early 1990's.

I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan, under the leadership of General Gration, and with the apparent blessing of the President, has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Sarbanes for his leadership on this issue. Most of the issues have been covered, but I would just say that there is nothing magic about strapping yourself into a metal box and driving 25 or 30 miles when you can telework. I think the important part of this legislation is the fact that Mr. Sarbanes will have someone in each agency, a senior person responsible. Some agencies do a great job, and others do not do very well. But also, it is important for the American people to know the productivity, the studies have shown that the productivity of people who are teleworking is very, very high. So you are really getting a lot for the government and for whoever is the employer.

Secondly, with regard to the environment and the traffic and the congestion in this region and other regions, it is very important.

Lastly, with the American family under such attack, the opportunity for moms and dads to spend more time with their families, singing in a church choir, or coaching Little League is very beneficial.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act, and thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I also want to thank Congressman John Sarbanes for introducing this important and necessary legislation, and the committee for moving this legislation to the floor.

I am an original cosponsor and strong proponent of this bill.

I have been a long-time and staunch supporter of telework, also referred to as telecommuting.

Last Congress, Congressman Sarbanes and I teamed to introduce legislation to establish a National Telework Week.

Last year, this House in a unanimous voice vote approved Representative Danny Davis's Telework Improvements Act of 2008, of which I was an original cosponsor.

I was disappointed that the Senate did not act on that legislation, and am hopeful that the bill we will pass today will be given priority by the other body.

My legislation, enacted in 2001, mandated a phased-in program to expand the number of federal employees who telework with the goal of giving every eligible federal worker this workplace option by the end of 2005.

While annual surveys by the Office of Personnel Management on telework by federal employees have shown some progress in meeting the law's mandate, there is much more that agencies can do to expand telework.

This legislation is an important next step in making the federal government a model telework employer. The federal government should be leading the way in developing an ``e-workforce'' and enhancing the use of the technologies of the 21st century to seamlessly link employees and employers.

To emphasize the importance of telework in the federal workplace, when I chaired the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, I included provisions in the FY 2005, FY 2006 and FY 2007 spending bills for the departments of Commerce, Justice, and State and related agencies to withhold $5 million from the agencies which failed to meet the 2001 law.

Telework offers a 21st century workplace option that can reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, as well as cut gasoline consumption and dependency on foreign oil. Study after study has shown that telework is a win-win for both employees and employers.

It gives employees the flexibility they need to meet daily demands.

Employers--both government and private businesses--get the benefit of increased productivity, improved morale, fewer sick leave days used, better worker retention, and reduced costs for office space.

As we face the realities of the post 9/11 world, ensuring continuity of operations of the federal government is one more reason to support federal telework policies.

The need for this legislation also was crystallized during the historic February blizzard, which paralyzed the Nation's capital and shut down the federal government for four days.

The estimated cost in lost productivity was some $70 million a day, but that cost was cut dramatically from earlier estimates of $100 million when the some 30 percent of the federal workforce who teleworked during the shutdown was factored in.

That's a huge savings with telework, which is why it is so important to ensure that more employees are eligible to work from home or at alternate worksites.

Our legislation builds on past actions to require each government agency to establish a telework policy and its provisions will:

Instruct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to develop a uniform, government-wide telework policy for federal employees.

Create a Telework Managing Officer within every agency and department to oversee telework within that agency or department.

The designation of a senior employee at each agency as a telework managing officer responsible for implementing the bill's requirements is a key provision to allow eligible employees to telework to the maximum extent possible.

Again, I thank my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for his leadership on this important legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

``If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it better be soon.'' These were the closing words 2 weeks ago of columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Having first traveled to Sudan in 1989, my interest in this country has spanned the better part of 20 years. I've been most recently there in July of 2004, with Senator Brownback. We were the first congressional delegation to visit Darfur, where genocide has taken place. We saw the same scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year civil war with the South where 2.1 million people perished. I remain grateful for President Bush's leadership in bringing about an end to the bloodshed with the historic signing of the CPA. But that peace is now in jeopardy.

Fast forward to 2009. I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who called for the appointment of a special envoy shortly after President Obama was elected. What was once a successful model for Sudan is not having the desired effect today. And I'm not alone in that belief. Last week, six respected NGOs ran ads in the Washington Post calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated policy.''

Today, I join the chorus of voices in calling on the President to empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of this languishing policy in Sudan. They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to ensure options for consequences are on the table. In fact, I call on the President himself to exercise leadership in this regard, consistent with the explicit campaign promises he made about Sudan-- promises which, to date, ring hollow. There is a pressing need for renewed and principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership which is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum.

In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the country's leader, Bashir, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to bin Laden. Bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan, under the leadership of General Gration, and with the apparent blessing of the President, has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the NCP. While the hour is late, the administration can still chart a new course.

Today, I sent a letter to the President, which I submit for the Record, outlining seven policy recommendations and calling for urgent action.

When the administration released its Sudan policy, Secretary Clinton indicated that benchmarks would be applied to Sudan, that progress would be assessed, and that ``backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government.'' But in the face of national elections that were neither free nor fair, and in the face of continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo, in the face of Bashir's failure to cooperate in any way with the International Criminal Court, there are no disincentives. This is a worst case scenario and guaranteed, if history is a guide, to fail. More than 6 months have passed since the release of the administration's Sudan strategy, and implementation has been insufficient at best and altogether absent at worst.

During the campaign, then-candidate Obama said regarding Sudan, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' These words ring truer today than ever before. But the burden for action, the weight of leadership, now rests with this President and this administration alone--and there are lives at risk. The stakes could not be higher.

I close, Mr. Speaker, with a slight variation on the words of Nicholas Kristof: If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be now.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 5, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President, The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: ``If President Obama is ever going to

find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' These were

the closing words of New York Times columnist Nicholas

Kristof two weeks ago. I could not agree more with his

assessment of Sudan today. Time is running short. Lives hang

in the balance. Real leadership is needed.

Having first travelled to Sudan in 1989, my interest and

involvement in this country has spanned the better part of 20

years. I've been there five times, most recently in July 2004

when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional

delegation to go to Darfur.

Tragically, Darfur is hardly an anomaly. We saw the same

scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year

civil war with the South where more than 2 million perished,

most of whom were civilians. In September 2001, President

Bush appointed former Senator John Danforth as special envoy

and his leadership was in fact instrumental in securing,

after two and a half years of negotiations, the Comprehensive

Peace Agreement (CPA), thereby bringing about an end to the

war. I was at the 2005 signing of this historic accord in

Kenya, as was then Secretary of State Colin Powell and

Congressman Donald Payne, among others. Hopes were high for a

new Sudan. Sadly, what remains of that peace is in jeopardy

today. What remains of that hope is quickly fading.

I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who urged you

to appoint a special envoy shortly after you came into

office, in the hope of elevating the issue of Sudan. But what

was once a successful model for Sudan policy is not having

the desired effect today. I am not alone in this belief.

Just last week, six respected NGOs ran compelling ads in

the Washington Post and Politico calling for Secretary

Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and

sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated

policy'' and waning U.S. credibility as a mediator.

In that same vein, today I join that growing chorus of

voices in urging you to empower Secretary Clinton and

Ambassador Rice to take control of the languishing Sudan

policy. They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to

ensure options for consequences are on the table.

There is a pressing and immediate need for renewed,

principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership

which, while recognizing the reality of the challenges facing

Sudan, is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the

internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in

Khartoum. We must not forget who we are dealing with in

Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP). In addition to

the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese

government against its own people, Sudan remains on the State

Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is well

known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum

gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s.

I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan

to date, under the leadership of General Gration, and with

your apparent blessing, has failed to recognize the true

nature of Bashir and the NCP. Any long-time Sudan follower

will tell you that Bashir never keeps his promises.

The Washington Post editorial page echoed this sentiment

this past weekend saying of Bashir: ``He has frequently told

Western governments what they wanted to hear, only to reverse

himself when their attention drifted or it was time to

deliver. . . . the United States should refrain from

prematurely recognizing Mr. Bashir's new claim to legitimacy.

And it should be ready to respond when he breaks his word.''

Note that the word was ``when'' not ``if'' he breaks his

word. While the hour is late, the administration can still

chart a new course.

In addition to recommending that Secretary Clinton and

Ambassador Rice take the helm in implementing your

administration's Sudan policy, I propose the following policy

recommendations:

Move forward with the administration's stated aim of

strengthening the capacity of the security sector in the

South. A good starting point would be to provide the air

defense system that the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS)

requested and President Bush approved in 2008. This defensive

capability would help neutralize Khartoum's major tactical

advantage and make peace and stability more likely following

the referendum vote.

Do not recognize the outcome of the recent presidential

elections. While the elections were a necessary part of the

implementation of the CPA and an important step before the

referendum, they were inherently flawed and Bashir is

attempting to use them to lend an air of legitimacy to his

genocidal rule.

Clearly and unequivocally state at the highest levels that

the United States will honor the outcome of the referendum

and will ensure its implementation.

Begin assisting the South in building support for the

outcome of the referendum.

Appoint an ambassador or senior political appointee with

the necessary experience in conflict and post-conflict

settings to the U.S. consulate in Juba.

Prioritize the need for a cessation of attacks in Darfur,

complete restoration of humanitarian aid including ``non-

essential services,'' unfettered access for aid organizations

to all vulnerable populations and increased diplomatic

attention to a comprehensive peace process including a viable

plan for the safe return of millions of internally displaced

persons (IDPs).

When the administration released its Sudan policy last

fall, Secretary Clinton indicated that benchmarks would be

applied to Sudan and that progress would be assessed ``based

on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground.

Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure

in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and

our international partners.'' But in the face of national

elections that were neither free nor fair, in the face of

continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo, in the face of

Bashir's failure to cooperate in any way with the

International Criminal Court, we've seen no ``disincentives''

or ``sticks'' applied. This is a worst case scenario and

guaranteed, if history is to be our guide, to fail.

Many in the NGO community and in Congress cautiously

expressed support for the new policy when it was released, at

the same time stressing that a policy on paper is only as

effective as its implementation on the ground. More than six

months have passed since the release of the strategy and

implementation has been insufficient at best and altogether

absent at worst.

During the campaign for the presidency, you said, regarding

Sudan, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and

the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and

strong consequences.'' These words ring true still today.

Accountability is imperative. But the burden for action, the

weight of leadership, now rests with you and with this

administration alone. With the referendum in the South

quickly approaching, the stakes could not be higher.

The marginalized people of Sudan yearn for your

administration to find its voice on Sudan--and to find it

now.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.