[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 109 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5974-H5981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        THIS ADMINISTRATION MUST FIND ITS VOICE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Critz). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. This administration must find its voice on human rights.
  On April 21 the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof authored a 
piece that closed with the following words: ``If President Obama is 
ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.''
  Two weeks after the article ran, I wrote the President, and I submit 
a copy of the letter for the Record, putting forth a number of 
recommendations in the hopes in salvaging the administration's 
languishing Sudan policy. My concerns echoed those voiced by six 
respected NGOs who the week prior had run an ad 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.
  Sadly, Kristof's assessment can be applied elsewhere around the 
world. It seems that President Obama and the administration as a whole 
have struggled to find its voice when it comes to the promotion and 
protection of basic human rights and religious freedom. These most 
cherished ideals, which are at the very heart of the American 
experiment, have time and again been sidelined by this administration's 
foreign policy. This is a grievous mistake which has dire implications 
for the world's dissidents and democrats who yearn for freedom and look 
to America to be their advocate.
  Looking back to Sudan, a nation I first visited in 1989, and most 
recently in 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first 
congressional delegation to go to Darfur where there is genocide, I 
remain deeply concerned

[[Page H5975]]

that the country is headed for a resumption of a civil war if the U.S. 
fails to exert its necessary leadership. While there were certainly 
times that I was critical of the Bush administration's policy, it is 
indisputable that President Bush and former Special Envoy John Danforth 
were instrumental in securing, after 2\1/2\ years of negotiations, the 
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the CPA, which brought about an end to 
the brutal 20-year civil war in which more than 2 million perished, 
most of whom were civilians.
  A recent New York Times column by author David Eggers and Sudan 
activist John Prendergast titled, ``In Sudan, War is Around the 
Corner,'' spoke to this reality. The pair wrote, ``Shortly after George 
W. Bush entered the White House, he decided he would put the full 
diplomatic leverage of the United States to work in ending this war, 
one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century. He succeeded.''
  Eggers and Prendergast rightly noted that when the South is given the 
opportunity to vote for independence in January, as guaranteed by the 
CPA, the conventional wisdom is that they will waste no time in 
severing ties with Khartoum. This shouldn't come as a surprise 
considering that President Bashir remains at the helm of Khartoum. Long 
an indicted war criminal, he was earlier this month also officially 
charged by the International Criminal Court with orchestrating genocide 
in Darfur. Bashir's murderous aims in Darfur are not without precedent.
  With just 6 months to go, Khartoum persists in dragging its feet, 
undermining installing the process at every turn. Furthermore, the 
deeply flawed April elections do not bode well for the fate of a free 
and fair and timely referendum process. Failure to deliver on the long-
awaited promise of a respectable referendum could have grave 
implications.
  While some of the administration's rhetoric has improved of late, 
notably during Vice President Biden's trip to Africa, we have yet to 
see the administration apply real consequences to Khartoum. In fact, 
most Sudan watchers would agree that we have seen little to no evidence 
since the administration's release of their Sudan policy that they have 
any intention of utilizing sticks. Rather, they appear to be relying 
exclusively on carrots.
  A July 14 Associated Press article entitled ``Promises, Promises: 
U.S. Fails to Punish Sudan'' described the administration's track 
record on Sudan this way: ``The words of the Obama administration were 
unequivocal: Sudan must do more to fight terror and improve human 
rights. If it did, it would be rewarded. If not, it would be punished. 
Nine months later, problems with Sudan have grown worse. Yet the 
administration has not clamped down. If anything, it has made small 
conciliatory gestures.''
  Eggers and Prendergast, in their New York Times piece, close with a 
chilling warning as it relates to the months ahead in Sudan: ``This is 
President Obama's Rwanda moment, and it is unfolding now, in slow 
motion. It is not too late to prevent the coming war in Sudan, and 
protect the peace we helped build 5 years ago.''

                              {time}  1850

  President Obama and his advisers need not rely on the warnings of 
those in the advocacy community and on Capitol Hill when it comes to 
the high stakes in Sudan in the days ahead. Rather, they can simply 
look to the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. intelligence 
community, which recently predicted that over the next 5 years, listen 
to this, ``a new mass killing or genocide is most likely to occur in 
southern Sudan,'' more than any other country.
  A welcomed step toward preserving the tenuous peace would be to 
provide Southern Sudan the air defense system that the Government of 
Southern Sudan requested and President Bush reportedly approved in 
2008. This defensive capability would help neutralize Khartoum's major 
tactical advantage, a virtual necessity in light of the scorched earth 
tactics and Antanov bombers that have marked their genocidal campaigns 
of the past and would make peace and stability more likely following 
the referendum vote.
  During the campaign for the Presidency, then-Candidate Obama said, 
``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing 
failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong 
consequences.'' These words still ring true today, and yet, apart from 
a recent National Security Council statement expressing support for 
``international efforts to bring those responsible for genocide and war 
crimes in Darfur to justice,'' we have seen an administration and a 
President struggling to find its voice on this most pressing human 
rights issue. Special Envoy Gration, at a recent event on Capitol Hill, 
reportedly went so far as to say that the genocide charges against 
Bashir will make his job harder.
  What about the people who died as a result of this genocide in Sudan? 
Sudan is not an anomaly. Consider China, a country where human rights, 
religious freedom, and civil society continue to be under fierce attack 
by the country's ruling Communist Party.
  From the outset, this administration chose to marginalize human 
rights in the context of U.S.-China bilateral relations. On the first 
trip to Asia, Secretary of State Clinton was downright dismissive of 
human rights concerns saying that ``those issues can't interfere'' with 
economic, security, or environmental concerns.
  A firestorm of criticism ensued. Human rights organizations were 
rightly dismayed. How had impassioned advocacy for the dignity of every 
person been relegated to a position of mere interference? And this in 
spite of Obama campaign promises to be ``frank with the Chinese'' and 
``press them to respect human rights.''
  In China, we again see an administration which seems unable to find 
its voice on human rights. A glance at the news from the last several 
weeks alone makes it painfully clear that that voice, the voice which 
speaks out on behalf of those enduring tremendous persecution and 
oppression at the hands of their own government, has never been more 
necessary.
  A July 5 Associated Press story reported that Yu Jue, ``A best-
selling author and fierce critic of the Communist Party was taken into 
custody by the police on Monday for reasons that were unclear.''
  The AP reported on July 15 that ``dozens of blogs by some of China's 
most outspoken users have been abruptly shut down while popular Twitter 
services appear to be the newest target in government efforts to 
control social networking.''
  Veteran dissident Liu Xianbin, an original signatory of Charter 08, a 
historic pro-democracy manifesto, was arrested by Chinese authorities 
on June 27 on suspicion of ``inciting subversion of state power.''
  July also marks the 1-year anniversary of the deadly suppression of 
Uighur protestors last summer in the northwest of China. China's 
beleaguered Uighur Muslim community continues to face severe repression 
in the aftermath of the violence. According to multiple independent 
news sources, authorities installed 40,000 security cameras throughout 
the city in anticipation of the 1-year anniversary.
  Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, 
authored a piece in the Washington Post on the occasion of the 
anniversary. He highlighted a report by the Uighur Human Rights Project 
aptly titled, ``Can Anyone Hear Us?'' which documents ``the firing on 
protesters that led to hundreds of deaths, as well as mass beatings, 
the arbitrary detention of thousands, and a 10-month communication 
shutdown that cut off the region from the outside world.''
  Gershman closes his piece with the following charge: ``The United 
States and the international community should also support the Uighurs' 
3-month-old call for an independent international investigation into 
the events of last July and the opening of a meaningful dialogue with 
Chinese authorities. Uighur voices have been crying in the wilderness. 
It's time to listen.''
  It is indeed time to listen. It is also time to add America's voice 
to the chorus of voices within China pressing for greater freedoms and 
basic human rights.

  Just last week, I had the honor of meeting with two courageous 
Chinese human rights lawyers visiting the U.S. for legal training and 
to brief policymakers on the situation facing those defending rule of 
law in China. These

[[Page H5976]]

lawyers often choose to represent, at their own peril, those human 
rights activists, house church leaders, bloggers, et cetera, who face 
persecution in the form of trumped-up charges and the absence of due 
process. The lawyers said quite pointedly that their lives improve, and 
those of their cohorts in prison or facing other pressures by the 
Chinese Government, when the West speaks out for their plight and 
raises their cases by name. Why does not the Obama administration speak 
out for the plight and raise their cases by name?
  This sentiment is nothing new. I remarked that they are China's 
Sakharovs and Solzhenitsyns. Similarly, these giants in the cause of 
freedom time and again recounted how their lives in the gulags improved 
when the West and President Reagan championed their cause and 
challenged the lies that were at the foundation of the Soviet system.
  It seems this administration, the Obama administration, has forgotten 
the lessons of history to the detriment of China's young democrats.
  In their annual Freedom in the World Report, the NGO Freedom House 
documented a litany of abuses perpetrated by the Chinese Government and 
then made the following observation: ``While these acts of repression 
are disturbing, so is the absence of protest from the democratic world. 
When the Soviet Union arrested a dissident or suppressed religious 
expression, it drew widespread condemnation by figures ranging from 
heads of state to trade union leaders, as well as by human rights 
organizations and prominent humanitarians. China's current actions, by 
contrast, elicit little more than boilerplate criticism, and just as 
often they provoke no response whatsoever.''
  Elsewhere in Asia we see an administration seeming to align itself 
with the oppressor over the oppressed. Look at Vietnam. On July 19, AFP 
reported that Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East 
Asian Affairs, said, ``As I look at all the friends in Southeast Asia, 
I think we have the greatest prospects in the future with Vietnam.''
  This is a strange affinity and statement to have with a government 
that our own State Department said ``increased its suppression of 
dissent, arresting and convicting several political activists'' during 
the reporting period of the 2009 Country Report on Human Rights 
Practices.

                              {time}  1900

  The State Department report continues: ``Several editors and 
reporters from prominent newspapers were fired for reporting on 
official corruption and outside blogging on political topics. Bloggers 
were detained and arrested under vague national security provisions for 
criticizing the government and were prohibited from posting material 
the government saw as sensitive or critical. The government also 
monitored email and regulated or suppressed Internet content. The 
government utilized or tolerated the use of force to resolve disputes 
with a Buddhist order in Lam Dong and Catholic groups with unresolved 
property claims.''
  Today, Secretary Clinton is in Vietnam for the ASEAN meetings. 
Initial news reports indicate that she raised human rights concerns in 
a meeting with the foreign minister and afterwards with journalists, 
and I appreciate that. However, a new New York Times story today 
pointed out that the timing of her comments on the sensitive issues 
``suggested that she wanted to make her point and move on.'' If the 
administration is truly concerned about human rights and religious 
freedom in Vietnam, they would take the concrete step of placing 
Vietnam back on the Countries of Particular Concern, the CPC list, as 
has been recommended by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Leonard Leo, chairman of the commission, rightly points out that 
Vietnam's human rights record has only improved when its ``feet were 
held to the fire.'' Leo continued: ``But once Vietnam, with U.S. help, 
joined the World Trade Organization in 2007, religious freedom and 
human rights advocates have experienced waves of arrest,'' Leo said. 
Waves of arrests from our ``friend'' in Southeast Asia? Are the 
Vietnamese, who are persecuting the Catholic Church, the Montagnards, 
the bishops, and killing people our friends?
  Or consider North Korea. Without question, this country is one of the 
darkest places on the globe. More than 200,000 North Koreans, including 
children, are being held in political prison camps. It is estimated 
that between 400,000 and 1 million people, 400,000 and 1 million 
people, have died in these camps, having been worked to death or 
starved to death. Is anyone in this administration going to speak out 
or say anything or do anything about that?
  Last summer an op ed in The Wall Street Journal featured a quote from 
a North Korean refugee woman who said: ``If I had a chance to meet with 
President Obama, I would first like to tell him how North Korean women 
are being sold like livestock in China and, second, to know that North 
Korean labor camps are hell on Earth.'' Let me just repeat what she 
said again. She said: ``If I had a chance to meet with President Obama, 
I would first like to tell him how North Korean women are being sold 
like livestock in China and, second, to know that North Korean labor 
camps are hell on Earth.''
  However, because North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and threatens 
not only to use them against neighboring countries, but also to share 
nuclear weapon technology with such rogue states as Burma and Syria, 
the international community, the U.S. included, has tended to downplay 
or outright ignore the horrendous human rights abuses in North Korea in 
the interest of trying to negotiate, through the so-called six-party 
talks, an end to its nuclear program. When North Korea falls and 
freedom comes, a lot of people in the West, and this administration, I 
think, will really feel guilty for not having spoken out and advocated 
for these people.
  But nothing has been achieved by these negotiations, and the recent 
sinking of the South Korean ship has stalled efforts to revive the six-
nation talks. Even in the face of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, it 
is inexcusable that its abhorrent human rights record is relegated to 
the back burner and that the North Korea Freedom Act, passed by 
Congress, has not even been fully implemented. Why has the Obama 
administration had so little to say about those trapped in ``hell on 
Earth''?
  Now, looking to the Middle East, we again see an administration whose 
advocacy on behalf of persecuted peoples has been sorely lacking. A 
February 6 ABC news story opened with the following observations: 
``Across the Middle East, where Christianity was born and its followers 
once made up a sizeable portion of the population, Christians are now 
tiny minorities.''
  This is perhaps no more true than in Iraq. With the exception of 
Israel, the Bible contains more references to the cities, regions and 
nations of ancient Iraq than any other country. Abraham came from Iraq.
  Tragically, Iraq's ancient Christian community is facing extinction. 
The U.N. High Commission for Refugees estimated that some 250,000 to 
500,000 Christians have left the country since 2003 and about half the 
Christian population and a large number also have been killed.
  While I have appreciated and am very grateful for Ambassador Chris 
Hill's commitment to this issue during his time as U.S. Ambassador, and 
while I believe that Michael Corbin, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
State who is in charge with working on Iraqi minority issues, cares 
deeply about the issue, and both are good men, I see a continued 
unwillingness, unwillingness, at the highest levels of the State 
Department to acknowledge and ultimately address the challenges facing 
these ancient-faith communities.

  A 2009 column in The Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger summed it 
up this way: ``Candidate Obama last fall sent a letter to Condoleezza 
Rice expressing `my concern about the safety and well-being of Iraq's 
Christian and other non-Muslim religious minorities.' He asked what 
steps the U.S. was taking to protect `these communities of religious 
freedom.' Candidate Obama said he wanted these groups represented in 
Iraq's governing institutions. Does President Obama believe these 
things?''
  I long advocated, both during the previous administration and in the 
current administration, for the U.S. to

[[Page H5977]]

adopt a comprehensive policy to address the unique situation of these 
defenseless minorities. I have also pressed for a high-level human 
rights representative at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Such a U.S. 
presence is critical with a U.S. presence in Iraq drawing down and our 
bilateral relations now governed by the Strategic Framework Agreement.
  Among other things, we must be actively engaging the Government of 
Iraq to press for adequate security at places of worship and ensure 
minority representation in local police units. These are just some of 
the steps that could be taken to assist in the preservation of these 
ancient-faith communities. We have a moral obligation to do so. The 
Obama administration has a moral obligation to do so.
  I was reminded of this again last week while meeting with a visiting 
high-level delegation of Iraqi bishops. Their impassioned pleas must 
not be ignored. We do not want to see the eradication and the 
elimination of the Christian community, the Assyrian, Chaldean Catholic 
community, in Iraq. We need to protect them.
  Turning now to Egypt. Eli Lake pointed out in a July 18, Washington 
Times piece: ``The Obama administration ended support for a small fund 
operated by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that supported groups promoting 
Egyptian democracy and that bypassed any clearance from the Egyptian 
Government.'' They ended it.
  Ellen Bork, director of democracy and human rights at the Foreign 
Policy Initiative, summarized the situation well in a recent Weekly 
Standard piece. She said: ``Doing something for democracy in Egypt 
would require a policy reversal in Washington. Since the end of the 
Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration, 
there has been a retreat,'' and let me say I was critical during the 
Bush administration. More should have been done then, but equally now 
under the Obama administration. ``There has been a retreat, including a 
cut in funding for democracy programs and acquiescence to an Egyptian 
veto over which groups may receive U.S. funds.'' They are going to let 
the Egyptian Government that is doing the persecution decide which 
group gets the funds.
  Ironically, U.S. support for democracy promotion in Egypt is 
dwindling at a time when the people of Egypt are increasingly 
dissatisfied with the current regime. A Washington Post story yesterday 
reported that ``a protest in Alexandria last month was attended by 
4,000 people, a high number in Egypt, where many people are afraid to 
join demonstrations.''
  Lorne Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, 
who has a history of caring deeply about human rights and religious 
freedom, echoed these sentiments about the administration's human 
rights and democracy promotion policy in Egypt and elsewhere around the 
world, in recent testimony before the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.

                              {time}  1910

  He said, ``A lack of strong, consistent leadership from the top of 
the administration has become apparent to the bureaucracy. One result 
is the cutting or slowing of funding for democracy programs in 
countries like Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and 
Zimbabwe. Another consequence is that our embassies abroad''--and this 
is painful to hear--``are providing less diplomatic support on human 
rights and democracy. Asked about the U.S. position on democracy in 
Egypt, our Ambassador to Cairo praises the country's press freedoms.'' 
The American Embassy in Cairo should be an island of freedom. The 
American embassy in every country should be an island of freedom.
  Those yearning for greater freedoms in Egypt are not alone in facing 
the ire of their government. So, too, Egypt's Coptic Christian 
community faces increasing hardship. USCIRF, the commission, in its 
recently released report, described a deteriorating situation for this 
community. USCIRF found that ``the reporting period marked a 
significant upsurge in violence targeting Coptic Orthodox Christians. 
The Egyptian Government has not taken sufficient steps to halt 
repression of and discrimination against Christians and other religious 
believers, or in many cases to punish those responsible for violence or 
other severe violations of religious freedom. This increase in violence 
and the failure to prosecute those responsible forces a growing climate 
of impunity. And even though our own State Department has concluded 
that the last 3 years have been marked by a decline of religious 
freedom conditions in Egypt, there has not been a significant change in 
U.S. policy.
  Elsewhere in the region, Morocco is actually an example where 
American citizens, many of whom are people of faith, are receiving 
hostile treatment by the Moroccan Government. Over the last 4 months, 
dozens of American citizens and scores of other foreign nationals have 
been deported and denied reentry into the Kingdom of Morocco for 
allegedly proselytizing. 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, 
humanitarians, and social workers, many of whom had resided in Morocco 
for over a decade in full compliance with the law. Additionally, those 
deported were forced to leave the country within 2 hours of being 
questioned by the authorities, having to leave everything behind.
  Over the past several weeks I have met with and heard from scores of 
Moroccan Christians. Many feel their voices have long been silenced, 
and these events highlight some of these pressures they experience. On 
March 19, I wrote to the U.S. Ambassador to Morocco, Sam Kaplan, 
sharing my intent to meet the Moroccan Ambassador to the U.S. and 
urging Ambassador Kaplan to ``convey to the Government of Morocco that 
Members of Congress are watching these events closely and the outcome 
could negatively affect our bilateral relations.''
  I've also spoken with Ambassador Kaplan on several occasions and 
shared with him my deep disappointment that the U.S. Embassy and the 
State Department have not been more publicly outspoken on behalf of 
these American citizens. It is the primary responsibility of the United 
States Embassy to defend and advocate for U.S. citizens and interests 
abroad. Unfortunately, the Moroccan Government has been utterly 
unwilling to compromise. Perhaps they think they don't need to, given 
the number of high-powered lobbyists, including several former Members 
of Congress, that the Moroccan Government has on retainer. I don't know 
how a former Member of Congress could ever go out and represent the 
Moroccan Government knowing what they're doing to American citizens and 
feel very, very comfortable. And do the American people know about 
this?
  And the American people should understand not only are they expelling 
Americans from Morocco, but they should also know that I have urged the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the MCC, to suspend the 5-year 
compact with Morocco, which is worth $697.5 million. That's right, you, 
the American taxpayer, are giving the Moroccan Government $697 million. 
They're expelling Christians from Morocco--although they've hired a 
couple of former Congressmen that, unfortunately, used to serve in this 
body. I mean, can you believe it? They're expelling Americans, and yet 
the Moroccan Government expects that we will give them $697.5 million?
  I will offer an amendment on this floor when the foreign operations 
bill comes up to suspend or cut this program, and I urge any Member who 
wants to vote the other way to go home to wherever you're from, whether 
it be the north, south, east or west, and tell your constituents, 
that's right, I understand; I voted to continue to send all this money 
to Morocco, $697 million. Yes, I understand we have a deficit. Yes, I 
understand we have great debt. Yes, I understand they're expelling 
Christians, Americans from the country, but I'm still going to give 
them that money.
  The MCC awards compacts on the basis of 17 key indicators of 
eligibility, six of which fall under the category of ``ruling justly.'' 
However, recent events raise serious questions regarding the Moroccan 
Government's willingness to abide by the principles outlined in the MCC 
indicators. And--and I am very appreciative of this--a recent Wall 
Street Journal op-ed rightly pointed out that during a time of economic 
hardship, the unemployment rate at 9.5

[[Page H5978]]

percent, ``U.S. taxpayers won't tolerate financing governments that 
mistreat Americans solely because of their religion.'' I appreciate the 
Wall Street Journal doing that editorial.
  Can the administration not find its voice when it comes to the rights 
of U.S. citizens being trampled abroad? I've been assured that the 
State Department is raising the matter privately with the Moroccan 
Government. Frankly, this is insufficient. The manner and the means by 
which we raise concerns of this nature with foreign governments 
communicate a whole host of unspoken messages. I hope the lobbyists for 
Morocco--particularly those who have been former Members of Congress--
are not influencing the State Department and are not influencing the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
  Do we simply have a private meeting with the ambassador and ask him 
to look into the matter, or does the Department's press secretary issue 
a statement expressing deep concern? Or better yet, does President 
Obama call the King of Morocco and make it clear that treating American 
citizens this way will not be tolerated? The President should pick up 
the phone and say to the head of the Moroccan Government, we will not 
give you $697 million in the Millennium Challenge grant as you're 
expelling Americans from your country. Each approach has distinct 
undertones which highlight the level of priority and seriousness that 
the U.S. Government places on a particular issue. Privately raising the 
issue with Moroccan Government officials is a far cry from what we used 
to see by doing it publicly.
  Even as the administration is struggling to find its voice on human 
rights, changes within the State Department threatens to 
institutionalize the marginalization of these core issues. The State 
Department's International Religious Freedom Office, IRF, has been 
without ambassadorial leadership, as is required by law, for more than 
18 months. After increasing pressure from Congress and religious 
advocacy groups, Obama named Suzan Johnson Cook to this post in June. 
She has not been confirmed. Eighteen months, nobody's there.

                              {time}  1920

  With a void in senior leadership at the IRF office, I have been 
increasingly alarmed by reports that the office is being subsumed into 
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
  Tom Farr, the first Director of the U.S. State Department Office of 
International Religious Freedom, described what is happening this way 
in a Washington Post online column: ``The ambassador will not report 
directly to the Secretary of State as do other ambassadors at large, 
all of whom are experts in their fields. The staffers who reported to 
predecessors will not report to Johnson Cook should she be confirmed. 
The position will be emasculated, in direct contravention of the 
legislation that created it.''
  In a May 25 letter to Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor Michael Posner, I raised these concerns in detail.
  I submit a copy of the letter for the Record.
  If the changes described by Farr move forward, this could potentially 
violate U.S. law and break with 10 years of established practice under 
previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican. The 
Ambassador-at-Large position was established under the International 
Religious Freedom Act of 1998, of which I was the primary author, to 
promote religious freedom abroad. The legislation specifically states, 
``There is established within the Department of State an Office on 
International Religious Freedom that shall be headed by the Ambassador-
at-Large for International Religious Freedom.''
  Considering the importance of religious freedom to U.S. foreign 
policy and human rights promotion, I am alarmed by the possibility that 
DRL could be removing supervisory control from the Ambassador-at-Large 
over the Office of International Religious Freedom.
  These reported changes, combined with the long ambassadorial vacancy, 
do not bode well for the Baha'i leader imprisoned in Iran's notorious 
prisons or for the Ahmadi Muslim in Pakistan, subject to officially 
sanctioned discrimination and persecution. Who will be their advocates? 
Who will advocate for the Baha'is? Who will advocate for the Ahmadi 
Muslims in Pakistan? Who will be their advocates?
  The IRF office is but one example of internal changes at the State 
Department. Not many people know this, but the congressionally mandated 
Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, headed by a special envoy, 
only has a single dedicated staff person. During the Bush 
administration, there were three to five employees at various points. 
An April 2010 CNN story featured the findings of a study released on 
the eve of the Holocaust Remembrance Day, which found that the number 
of anti-Semitic incidents more than doubled from 2008 to 2009. At a 
time when anti-Semitism is on the rise globally, the special envoy is 
relying almost exclusively on the already stretched thin IRF office for 
her staffing needs, therefore making it more difficult for the IRF 
office to fulfill its congressional mandate.
  If the old adage ``personnel is policy'' is true, then you could 
surmise that the absence of necessary personnel is itself a shift in 
policy priorities.
  There are staff vacancies also at the State Department that are 
deeply troubling. On June 24, I wrote Secretary of State Clinton about 
the Office of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.
  I submit the letter for the Record.
  I was prompted to write the letter, in part, because it had come to 
my attention that there was only one person working in the office. Have 
you seen how China has plundered Tibet, and there is one person working 
in the office?
  Congress codified the position of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan 
Issues as part of the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002. Not long after the 
establishment of the office, Congress approved language directing that 
the office ``consist of three professional, full-time staff members and 
additional support staff, as needed, in addition to the special 
coordinator.'' Their current inadequate staffing levels, at that point 
17 months into the administration, were troubling and at odds with 
congressional intent.
  Further, the congressionally mandated Report on Tibet Negotiations, 
which is due to Congress by March 31 of each year--and we are in July--
has not yet been submitted. These developments, or lack thereof, send a 
message about the priority this administration is placing on Tibet. 
Does this administration care about the plundering and the persecution 
in Tibet?
  I have visited Tibet. I have been there. I have seen what has taken 
place in Drapchi prison. I have seen and talked to Buddhist monks who 
have told me about their times. I have seen the cameras on all of the 
buildings. I have seen the areas that they have bulldozed and large 
areas of loss. They have taken away the Tibetan culture. I have seen 
that. So does not this administration care about that?

  That message is not inconsistent with the message the White House 
sent last fall in declining to meet with the Dalai Lama when he was 
visiting Washington--the first time since 1991 that the Nobel Prize 
recipient and spiritual leader was not afforded a meeting with the 
President of the United States.
  In closing, the complexities of foreign policy do not escape me. I am 
well aware that there are multiple dimensions to our bilateral 
relations with countries around the globe, but if the United States of 
America cannot be relied upon to speak out on behalf of those whose 
voices have been silenced, then it is, indeed, a dark day for millions 
around the world who are yearning to breathe the sweet air of freedom.
  Where the administration fails to find its voice, Congress must stand 
in the gap. For decades, human rights enjoyed bipartisan support in 
this body. Now I fear these issues have fallen victim to bipartisan 
apathy. Too often, we underestimate the power of our words or, worse 
yet, the power of our silence.
  The late Robert Kennedy, speaking in 1966 Cape Town, South Africa, to 
a gathering of students committed to challenging the injustice of 
apartheid, famously said, ``Each time a man stands up for an ideal or 
acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he 
sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a 
million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a

[[Page H5979]]

current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and 
resistance.''
  America must stand up for the ideals upon which our own experiment in 
self-governance was founded. America must strike out against injustice, 
whatever form it takes. America must believe that even the mightiest 
walls of oppression can tumble and work toward that end.
  The hour is late and the stakes are high. Will the administration 
accept this charge? Will the Obama administration accept this charge? 
Can President Obama find his voice? Will the ``ripples of hope,'' of 
which Bobby Kennedy spoke, once again infuse America's foreign policy? 
We'll see.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                                      May 5, 2010.
     Hon. Barack H. Obama,
     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.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                                     May 25, 2010.
     Hon. Michael Posner,
     Assistant Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Assistant Secretary Posner: I write regarding a matter 
     of great concern--namely the reported plans by the Bureau of 
     Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) to reorganize the 
     Office of International Religious Freedom. It has come to my 
     attention that structural changes may be implemented that 
     could result in the Ambassador-at-Large for International 
     Religious Freedom losing direct supervisory control over the 
     staff of the Office of International Religious Freedom. Such 
     changes could potentially violate U.S. law and break with 10 
     years of established practice under previous administrations, 
     both Democratic and Republican.
       As you know, the Ambassador-at-Large position was 
     established under the International Religious Freedom Act of 
     1998 (IRFA), of which I was the primary author, to promote 
     religious freedom abroad. The ambassador is charged with 
     making policy recommendations for the U.S. Government toward 
     ``governments that violate freedom of religion or that fail 
     to ensure the individual's right to religious belief and 
     practice . . .'' The ambassador also serves as the 
     ``principal adviser to the President and the Secretary of 
     State regarding matters affecting religious freedom abroad . 
     . .'' IRFA created the Office of International Religious 
     Freedom to support the Ambassador-at-Large in his or her 
     work. Section 101(a) under Title I of IRFA specifically 
     states that ``there is established within the Department of 
     State an Office on International Religious Freedom that shall 
     be headed by the Ambassador-at-Large for International 
     Religious Freedom.'' [Emphasis added]
       Considering the importance of religious freedom to U.S. 
     foreign policy and human rights promotion, I am alarmed by 
     the possibility that DRL could be removing supervisory 
     control from the Ambassador-at-Large over the Office of 
     International Religious Freedom. Given my intimate 
     involvement in IRFA's passage, I can say with assurance that 
     such a decision would directly contradict the intent of the 
     act and undermine the critical role of the position. The U.S. 
     Commission on International Religious Freedom shares this 
     concern, and in its 2010 annual report urged the 
     administration to ensure the ambassador's direct oversight of 
     the office.

[[Page H5980]]

       I have been concerned for some time at the priority, or 
     lack there of, that this administration places on religious 
     freedom. For 16 months now, the president has failed to 
     appoint an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious 
     Freedom. This persistent vacancy, and these reported changes 
     within the State Department are alarming and do not bode well 
     for the Tibetan Buddhist monk forbidden from having a picture 
     of the Dalai Lama or for the Iraqi Christian who has 
     helplessly watched their ancient community be decimated by 
     violence.
       In light of these concerns, I urge you to ensure that the 
     Ambassador-at-Large maintain direct oversight of the Office 
     of International Religious Freedom, and only those DRL 
     officials reporting directly to the Ambassador-at-Large be 
     given managerial authority over the office staff. IRFA was 
     clear in creating direct lines of authority from the office 
     staff to the ambassador. It is critical that the Ambassador-
     at-Large continue to head the office, consistent with IRFA.
       As these concerns directly relate to the inner-workings of 
     DRL and the IRF office, I respectfully request that any reply 
     to my letter come from you rather than the assistant 
     secretary for Legislative Affairs. Thank you for your 
     assistance. I look forward to hearing from you.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                                    June 24, 2010.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Clinton: I am writing about some areas of 
     concern related to the Office of the Special Coordinator for 
     Tibetan Issues that I believe merit attention. Specifically, 
     I am concerned that the Office of the Special Coordinator is 
     understaffed. It has come to my attention that there is only 
     one person currently working in the office, and that another 
     position has been unfilled since January 2009. It is my 
     understanding that a third position has never been filled.
       After years of congressional advocacy for the creation of a 
     special office in the Department of State on Tibet, the 
     Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues was established by 
     Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1997 and charged 
     with protecting the human rights of Tibetans, preserving 
     their religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage, and 
     promoting substantive dialogue between the Chinese government 
     and the Dalai Lama or his representatives.
       As you know, Congress codified the position of the Special 
     Coordinator for Tibetan Issues as part of the Tibetan Policy 
     Act of 2002. Both you and I were cosponsors of the original 
     stand-alone bills in the House and the Senate respectively. 
     The legislation detailed the duties and responsibilities of 
     the special coordinator which included coordinating ``United 
     States Government policies, programs, and projects concerning 
     Tibet'' and maintaining ``close contact with religious, 
     cultural, and political leaders of the Tibetan people, 
     including regular travel to Tibetan areas of the People's 
     Republic of China, and to Tibetan refugee settlements in 
     India and Nepal.''
       Not long after the establishment of the office, Congress 
     identified that the special coordinator needed additional 
     resources in order to effectively carry out its mission. In 
     fiscal year 2006, the House and Senate Appropriations 
     committees approved language directing $1 million for the 
     Office of the Special Coordinator to carry out its statutory 
     responsibilities. The committees also directed that the 
     office ``consist of three professional full-time staff 
     members and additional support staff, as needed, in addition 
     to the special coordinator.'' Congress's interest in these 
     funding and staffing levels has been reaffirmed in subsequent 
     appropriations bills. Given this history, the current 
     inadequate staffing levels, 17 months into the 
     administration, are troubling and are at odds with 
     congressional intent.
       Further, I have also learned that the one staffer in the 
     special coordinator's Office was pulled back from a 
     previously scheduled visit to Dharamsala, India, in early May 
     2010. I understand that one of the goals of this staffer's 
     trip was to participate in a selection process for students 
     under the Tibetan Fulbright program, and that the meeting was 
     cancelled. I expect that she was also scheduled to meet with 
     officials of the Central Tibetan Administration as part of 
     routine oversight of the U.S. government programs that 
     benefit the Tibetan refugee communities in India. Staff 
     members from the special coordinator's Office have been 
     travelling to Dharamsala ever since the creation of the 
     office. Such trips, which include engagement with the leaders 
     of the Tibetan exile community, are essential for the 
     fulfillment of the responsibilities of the office and are 
     explicitly authorized by the Tibetan Policy Act. The 
     oversight provided by these trips is vital to ensuring that 
     taxpayer investments in these communities and programs are 
     sound.
       Additionally, I understand that the Report on Tibet 
     Negotiations, which is required by section 613(b) of the 
     Tibetan Policy Act and is to due to Congress by March 31 of 
     each year, has not yet been submitted. These developments or 
     lack thereof send a troubling message about the priority this 
     administration is placing on Tibet.
       A recently released report by the International Campaign 
     for Tibet makes clear that the need for this office is as 
     pressing as it has ever been. The report titled, ``A 'Raging 
     Storm': The Crackdown on Tibetan Writers and Artists after 
     Tibet's Spring 2008 Protests,'' found that over 50 Tibetans, 
     including 13 writers, have ``disappeared'' or have faced 
     torture or harassment as a result of expressing their views. 
     The Chinese government's deplorable human rights record, 
     specifically in Tibet, necessitates the department's 
     immediate and unwavering attention.
       Given these concerns, I respectfully request that you 
     provide my office with the following information:
       A report on the department's efforts to fill expeditiously 
     the two vacant positions in the Office of the Special 
     Coordinator for Tibetan Affairs;
       An explanation for the cancellation of the scheduled May 
     trip to Dharamsala by the staffer from the special 
     coordinator's Office; and
       The status of the Tibet Negotiations report and any 
     explanation for why it has not been submitted to Congress by 
     the required date.
       Best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert).

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Virginia, truly a conscience in 
this body, for those profound words of challenge, bringing us back to 
the roots from which this great Nation has grown.
  And I realize the time grows late, and it is the last hour that we 
will be in session this week. And if the gentleman would indulge me, I 
know that we have a President who has said we're not a Christian 
Nation, and I will not debate that.
  But it is so critical to look at our roots. And so I would like to 
direct, Mr. Speaker, back to the words of Roger Williams when he said: 
``That forced worship stinks in God's nostrils, that it denies Christ 
Jesus yet to come; that in these flames about religion, there is no 
other prudent, Christian way of preserving peace in the world, but by 
permission of different consciences.''
  These are the words of our Founders that set this Nation in motion, 
that pointed us in the direction of religious tolerance.
  1701, William Penn drafted the Charter of Privileges and said: 
``First because no people can truly be happy, though under the greatest 
enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their 
consciences, as to their religious profession and worship: And Almighty 
God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, 
and the Author as well as Object of all divine knowledge, faith and 
worship, who only can enlighten the mind, and persuade and convince the 
understandings of people, I do hereby grant and declare that no person 
or persons inhabiting this province or territories, shall confess and 
acknowledge one Almighty God, the Creator, upholder and ruler of the 
world; and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the 
civil government, shall be in any case molested or prejudiced in his or 
their person or estate, because of his or their conscientious 
persuasion or practice.''
  Going back to our heritage, that this country was based on these 
principles, taught in the Bible, discussed by our Founders, and made 
the basis of our beliefs in religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson said: 
``God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a 
nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a 
conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift 
of God? That they are not to be violated, but with His wrath? Indeed, I 
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His 
justice cannot sleep forever.''
  And it ought to cause every American to tremble when they think of 
the injustice we're allowing to be perpetuated on our citizens around 
the world. It ought to break the hearts and minds and consciences of 
everyone.
  A United States President said these words, referred to a Mr. Levi, a 
Galveston, Texas lawyer and a president of the National B'nai Brith, 
drafted President Theodore Roosevelt a telegram denouncing a Russian 
pogrom in 1903. The Czar of Russia was so stung by Roosevelt's message 
that he formally refused to accept it. Some Americans complained that 
Roosevelt had gone too far. He replied that there were crimes so 
monstrous that the American conscience had to assert itself. And there 
still are.

[[Page H5981]]

  ``No one is a better witness to the transience of tyranny than the 
children of Abraham. Forty centuries ago, the Jewish people were 
entrusted with a truth more enduring than any power of man. In the 
words of the prophet Isaiah, `This shall be my covenant with them, said 
the Lord: My spirit which is upon you, and the words which I have 
placed in your mouth, shall not be absent from your mouth, nor from the 
mouth of your children, nor from the mouth of your children's children, 
said the Lord from now for all time.'
  ``It is not an accident that freedom of religion is one of the 
central freedoms in our Bill of Rights. It is the first freedom of the 
human soul: the right to speak the words that God places in our mouths. 
We must stand for that freedom in our country. We must speak for that 
freedom in the world.''
  Could the current administration and President dare to do any less 
than this President that is so reviled in this administration, 
President George W. Bush?
  I would like to just finish with one other thought, and that was what 
was related to have happened in Iraq after United States troops 
liberated Iraq, not for any purpose other than to liberate and to free 
the people there, and to assure us that they would not be a threat to 
their neighbors or the rest of the world.
  President Bush appointed a retired general named Jay Garner. I had 
heard the story relayed before and I called him this evening to ask if 
I could retell it here.
  He was in charge of looking about, talking to people all around Iraq, 
and seeing what kind of government would be best suited for Iraq so 
that we could help the Iraqi people establish a nation of strength and 
a representative, hopefully, a representative government. And he talked 
to people around the country. And over and over, people kept referring 
him to this huge man, a Shiia, a cleric, who wore the black turban, the 
black robes, and was a descendant, apparently, of Mohammed. And 
everyone kept telling him he had to talk to this man because everyone 
looked to him for insight, for words of wisdom.

  And so eventually General Garner went, made an appointment, visited 
with him. He had a number of people with him, including a reporter. He 
was often a freelance report, but at this point a reporter for Time 
magazine.
  And apparently this cleric spoke very good English, but he said he'd 
like to tell in his own language what should be done. And he talked for 
quite some time in his language. Everything was recorded.
  And then he said, let me tell you in a nutshell what I've said. We 
need a constitutional process, perhaps like yours in the United States, 
where we create a constitution. But it must be written by Iraqis. The 
government must be of Iraqis. And it must be based on the lessons of 
Jesus Christ and bring all the nation together.
  General Garner said when he left that interview with the people in 
the entourage, he asked the others, did everybody hear what I just 
think I heard? And they said, yes. Could you believe he said you needed 
a constitution based on the teachings of Jesus Christ?
  And he asked the reporter from Time, are you going to put that in the 
story? He said, no one would believe that.
  But when you think about the wisdom of this great Shiia cleric, 
apparently, Shari'ah law does not allow for freedom of religion and 
worship when it's considered in context too often. That's the way it's 
interpreted. It's only the teachings of Jesus that allow for a 
constitution that allow for freedom of worship. Whether you're Muslim, 
whether you're following the teachings of Mohammed or Jesus or Moses, 
it's only those teachings that give us the kind of Constitution we 
have.
  But since we have that Constitution, and we have been given the 
foresight by our Founders of what is required to do justice, to love 
mercy, we can do nothing less than what my friend from Virginia has 
indicated. We must stand for those who seek to worship as the 
directives of their heart lead them.
  And I thank my friend so much for the very touching time he has spent 
here on the floor. And I hope and pray that this administration will 
take those words to heart. I thank my friend.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________