[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 53 (Monday, May 4, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E748-E749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE LOUDEST VOICE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 4, 1998

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by talking for a moment about 
two groups that aren't widely discussed here on the House floor. The 
first is Mother Jones and the second is USA*Engage. Then I want to 
focus a little bit on how things get done in this town and suggest that 
we, as stewards of government, must take care that we represent the 
American people and not narrowly focused special interests.
  Mother Jones or ``MoJo'' is a national magazine of investigative 
journalism focusing on political reporting. It is named after and in 
the spirit of the legendary Mary Harris (Mother) Jones who was one of 
the most effective organizers of her time. Before passing on at the 
ripe old age of 100, this spirited mother of four effectively led 
fights against child labor, and on behalf of coal miners and other 
labor groups during the early years of this century.
  Ken Silverstein wrote an article in the June 1998 issue of Mother 
Jones detailing the creation of USA*Engage. This group hired Washington 
lobbyist Anne Wexler to try and make sure nothing gets in the way of 
promoting international trade with countries around the world whose 
governments are renown for brutal, fear-based, repression of their own 
people. The human rights records of these countries are made more 
dismal by widespread torture, terror, imprisonment, persecution and 
killing of all who do not walk the line.
  According to MoJo, some of America's largest businesses have given 
their proxy to USA*Engage to deal with these countries having a History 
of repressing their own people. The list of these firms reads like a 
Who's Who of big business. I know these companies are run by good and 
decent people who are probably not aware of the range of activities in 
which the Wexler Group is intensely involved on behalf of USA*Engage. I 
am sure that the stockholders and customers are not aware of them and 
would be shocked and angered if they were.
  Anne Wexler has assembled a daunting army for her assault on 
Washington that includes a former U.S. Trade Representative, former 
Members of Congress, a former close staffer of the President, the 
former law firm of the State Department official who heads up the 
committee charged with reviewing proposed sanctions, and others. And 
look at what they have accomplished:
  Instant access to Congress and the ear of State Department officials 
charged with assessing human rights violations.
  ``Pro-trade'' studies from pricey and prestigious think tanks.
  The matching-up and contact of religious groups and leaders 
interested in human rights around the world by business representatives 
thought to have special sway or influence.
  ``Spin control.'' MoJo says USA*Engage boasts that of 242 newspaper 
editorials, 180 were favorable, 36 neutral and only 26 were hostile.
  MoJo quotes human rights advocate Simon Billenness, talking about the 
important role economic sanctions played in ending South Africa's 
apartheid regime, ``If USA*Engage had succeeded with these tactics 
during the apartheid years, Nelson Mandela might still be in prison.'' 
I recognize that these companies can hire whomever they choose, but 
there are consequences.
  Look at what they are doing. Look at the real issue. We are talking 
about countries which are committing the very worst atrocities on their 
own people for simply believing in God. In Sudan, starvation is the 
weapon of choice, spiced with high altitude bombing, mass murder and 
selling their own people into slavery. In Sudan, over the past decade, 
about 1.1 million people have been killed or allowed to starve.
  In China, Catholic bishops and priests, Protestant lay-ministers, 
Buddhist monks and nuns as well as many Muslims are jailed--for years 
and years. And their jails are not patterned after those in this 
country. Starvation, torture, filth and darkness are the steady diet. 
The fate of the prisoner is up to the whim of the guard. Brutal working 
conditions and brutal hours are the norm. Sometimes death is the only 
friend they can hope for.
  Tibet is in danger of losing its religion, its culture, its language 
and even its identity. It has already lost thousands of Buddhist 
monasteries and too many monks and nuns.
  In Iraq, the Kurds have been used for target practice and guinea pigs 
for toxic killing. MoJo talks about the track record of Burma and 
Nigeria.
  The victims of these outrages and more are Anne Wexler's targets. 
When she and her other well connected friends are successful in 
changing a legislative clause here and writing a Dear Colleague there, 
when they urge another Member to sign on to a ``gutting amendment,'' do 
they think about the Catholic bishop starting his third decade in a 
brutal Chinese

[[Page E749]]

prison? Or the young boys on the slave block in southern Sudan?
  I know these are harsh thoughts. But we are dealing with harsh 
dictators and regimes. What we do here matters. What we say and the 
content of legislation we pass have real consequences. In this case, 
innocent people, clear on the other side of the world, pay an enormous 
price.
  Please think about this. Did these companies mean to give Anne Wexler 
this much power? If you are a government official working on these 
matters, do you think about what your actions mean to those who have no 
one looking out for them? And if you are a Member of Congress, do you 
remember when Anne Wexler and company stops by, that no one is speaking 
for those on the other end--those in Sudan, in Iraq and in China? Just 
because Anne Wexler is the only voice, she shouldn't be the loudest 
voice.
  Perhaps the worse thing they have done with their access is to 
deliberately misstate the moderate nature of the Wolf-Specter Freedom 
from Religious Persecution bill. At its root it calls for withdrawal of 
non-humanitarian taxpayer subsidies to hardcore persecuting countries 
and gives the president total discretion to maintain the subsidies.
  In the end, however, Members will read the bill and understand its 
moderate character and people in the pews will hear that this 
bipartisan effort gives the persecuted people of the world a needed 
voice.

                          ____________________