[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10382-10386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            TRAGEDY IN SUDAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Grucci). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is 
recognized for the time remaining before midnight.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to bring attention to the 
worst tragedy ongoing and occurring in the world today; and that is the 
tragedy in the Sudan. As my colleagues well recall and are aware, Sudan 
is the largest country in Africa, becoming the first independent 
country in sub-Saharan Africa in 1956.
  For almost four decades, the African giant with the population of 
32.6 million people have been the scene of intermittent conflict. But 
how many people have really paid careful attention to these numbers? An 
estimated 2 million people have died in war-related causes and famine 
in southern Sudan, and 4 million people have been displaced.
  Why did these many people have to die? Could we have done something 
to prevent the massive loss of life in Sudan? Indeed the answer is a 
resounding yes. But we chose to ignore or to engage only marginally.
  We are the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the Sudan, 
yet many continue to die. In 1998 alone, an estimated 100,000 people 
died due to the government's refusal to allow the United Nations relief 
aid from going into that country.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, some have written and others have talked about 
the tragedy as a religious conflict or a tribal conflict. The Sudanese 
conflict, Africa's longest running civil war, is deeper and more 
complicated than the claims of political leaders and some observers. 
Religion, indeed, is a major factor because of the Islamic 
fundamentalist agenda of the current government dominated by the 
northern-based National Islamic Front, the NIF government. Southerners 
who are Christians and animists reject the Islamization of the country 
in favor of secular agreement.
  Social and economic disparities are major contributing factors to the 
Sudanese conflict. But the regime is not merely opposed by Christians 
or southerners. The NIF regime is a minority government led by 
extremist clique in Khartoum headed by Al Bashir. Muslim leaders have 
also been victims of the NIF government over the years.
  The NIF government is clearly opposed by a majority of notherners 
inside and outside of the country. The National Democratic Alliance, a 
coalition of northern or southern opposition groups, have been actively 
challenging the NIF government's hold on power since it ousted the 
democratically elected civilian government in June 1989. In fact, the 
NIF government came to power precisely to abort a peace agreement 
between Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, the SPLM, and the 
majority northern parties in 1989.
  But the NIF government is just one of the many obstacles of lasting 
peace in Sudan, and the second phase of the civil war erupted under the 
military dictatorship of Nimeiri. In fact, the abrogation of the 1972 
Addis Ababa agreement in 1983, which ended the first phase of the civil 
war in the south by former President Nimeiri, is considered a major 
triggering factor for the current civil war.
  Although, the NIF government has persuaded and pursued the war in 
southern Sudan with vigor, previous governments, both civilian and 
military, have rejected southern demands for autonomy and equality. 
This has gone on for the over 40 years that there has been a push for 
equality, now approaching 50 years.
  Mr. Speaker, northern political leaders for decades treated 
southerners as second-class citizens and did not see the south as an 
integral part of the country. Southern political leaders argued that, 
under successive civilian and military governments, political elites in 
the north have made only superficial attempts to address the grievances 
of the south without compensating the north's dominant economic 
political and social issues and status.
  In recent years, most political leaders in the north, now in 
opposition to the current government, say that mistakes were made and 
that they are prepared to correct them. But the political mood among 
southerners has sharply shifted in favor of separation from the north.
  Mr. Speaker, slavery has reemerged with a vengeance in Sudan. The 
inhumane practice is directly tied to the civil war in southern Sudan 
that has raged intermittently for over 40 years. The slaving of 
innocent southern Sudanese citizens have intensified since the National 
Islamic Front usurped power in 1989. It is now being condoned, if not 
orchestrated, by the NIF government and perpetrated by Arab militia 
allies.
  Slavery in this time is wrong, but enough is not being done to stop 
it. The international community as a matter of fact has done very 
little, if anything, to prevent this terrible practice. Some 
organizations have resorted to freeing slaves or buying them back. But 
buying back freedom of slaves by these groups have raised some other 
questions, and some have said it has increased the trafficking in 
slaves.
  But no one can question the yearning of families to free their loved 
ones from bondage almost at any price. If in fact one had a child in 
slavery, would not one want that child to be bought back? Nor can 
anyone question the moral impetus to provide assistance to these 
families by means of buying back their relatives from slavery.
  The generous response, for example, by school children in Colorado 
have raised large sums of money for the purpose; and in many parts of 
the United States, it dramatizes the compelling case for buying back 
the freedom.
  Sudan's human hunters are members of Arab militias and the popular 
defense forces which the government of Sudan has mobilized, trained, 
armed and unleashed on the civilian population in their racial and 
religious war against the southern Sudanese. Unlike the Arabized Muslim 
north, southern Sudanese are black Africans who mostly adhere to 
traditional beliefs but whose leadership is overwhelmingly Christian.
  Mr. Speaker, the war in Sudan is certainly a major factor 
contributing to the slavery in Sudan. The war is essentially one of the 
southerners resistance in fighting against the domination of the north. 
But it is the government, the NIF government, which is perpetrating 
this terrible sin.

                              {time}  2310

  And until we change the NIF government in the north, this problem 
will exist. And so what we see in the Sudan in general is that innocent 
civilians are victims of this war.
  In many wars that have been fought, armies fight each other. It is 
the military against the military. But in Sudan, it is the military 
against the people, the children, the women. This

[[Page 10383]]

is wrong. Just the other day the NIF government announced that it had 
resumed its aerial bombing of the south, after claims of suspension of 
these bombings. Who are those being bombed? Of course, children, women, 
the helpless, the poor, the hungry.
  According to a report by the United States Committee on Refugees, the 
government bombed civilian targets last year 167 times. The NIF 
government uses the old Russian Antonovs and drops bombs on communities 
trying to hit schools and hospitals, disrupting the community. All day 
the community waits and listens to hear whether the planes will come 
over. And this is a continuous disruption of the community.
  Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the number of people killed and maimed 
and displaced and enslaved; yet we as the international community have 
really failed to do anything significant to end the suffering. Over the 
years, I have visited southern Sudan on numerous occasions. I have been 
to Yei,to Labone, to Kukuma, to Loki, and on each trip I see the 
suffering. I must say with all sincerity that I can no longer see these 
innocent civilians and promise to end their suffering because I must 
admit that despite all of the efforts that I have done over the years, 
we have failed the people of Sudan.
  But we have also failed other people. We have failed the people of 
Rwanda in 1994, when the world turned their back as close to a million 
people were victims of genocide. We cannot say we did not know this was 
happening. We did know, as we do know what is happening in Sudan. As I 
speak here before you this evening, more and more people will die. 
Dozens will be forced out of their homes. Many will be enslaved. 
Imagine waking up one morning and losing everything you have, your 
property, your dignity, your family, and, most importantly, your 
freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to wait any longer. The people of Nuba 
have become an endangered species. A few years from now, there will be 
no one left except the barren land. In the past several weeks, 
government forces burned, looted, and destroyed a number of villages, 
displacing tens of thousands of civilians. In fact, they attempted to 
destroy and capture the burial place of the recently deceased leader of 
Nuba, Commander Yusuf Kowa.
  The people of southern Sudan are also being exterminated 
systematically. The handful of educated southern Sudanese are aging and 
many have died. This generation of southern Sudanese is growing up in 
an environment of war and suffering. And unless this situation is 
quickly reversed, there can be no peace in Sudan. Those who beat the 
drums of reconciliation must remember the sacrifices paid by millions 
of Sudanese. There can be no peace if there is not a just and lasting 
peace. Indeed, ending the war must be a priority, but we must address 
the root causes of the war if we are going to achieve a lasting peace. 
The NIF government is the obstacle to peace, as was the case with 
Hitler during World War II. They must be eliminated from Khartoum.
  Since the development of Sudan's oil sector, hundreds of thousands of 
people have been displaced and thousands have been killed. Revenues 
from oil, blood oil, are being used to buy deadly weapons to kill 
innocent civilians. Foreign oil companies, like Talisman and 
PetroChina, are collaborating with the genocidal regime in Khartoum. We 
must put an end to the killing fields in the oil fields of Sudan.
  The United States Government cannot ignore or look with indifference 
on the destructive role of oil development. The extraordinary nature of 
human destruction and suffering in Sudan and the deep complexity of the 
publicly traded oil companies in Sudan's ongoing catastrophe mark this 
as a singular moment, one in which America's moral outrage is 
appropriately reflected in actions which deny market listings to NIF's 
willing corporate accomplice. We must finally put an end to allowing 
these companies to have access to capital markets.
  Yesterday, The Washington Post printed a front page story about the 
devastation being caused by the oil development and the exploration in 
southern Sudan. It is called, ``Oil Money Is Fueling Sudan's War. New 
Arms Used to Drive Southerners From Land,'' by Karl Vick, Washington 
Post Foreign Service. And in the article it says, ``Today, four oil 
companies are producing more than 200,000 barrels of oil a day and more 
firms are exploring other reserves. Export revenues have doubled the 
government's defense budget over the last 2 years, and a multitude of 
eyewitness reporters say that new guns are being used to drive tens of 
thousands of Sudanese like Veronica and her family off their land to 
secure the oil underneath it.''
  ``The fighting follows the oil,'' says John Ryle, an independent 
investigator, who recently released a report that documented a broad 
government effort to clear the petroleum concession, sometimes using 
helicopter gun boats stationed at oil field airports. They all say the 
same thing, an aide worker said. People came and destroyed their homes 
and they had to flee. Time after time we hear that from the people, 
because it is the grab for the oil by this brutal government and these 
companies that are looking the other way to make a profit from the 
blood of the people as they drill the oil for wealth.
  The fighting follows the oil, as we said. They all say the same 
thing. They have to flee. The situation has further stoked Western 
outrage over the Sudanese government's human rights record. While no 
American companies are involved, fortunately U.S. law prohibits them 
from doing business in Sudan, the involvement of Canadian and European 
firms in extracting Sudanese oil has prompted disinvestment campaigns. 
And that is what we must do. The same way that we did with firms in 
South Africa, we must urge our people to disinvest from the Talismans 
and other companies that are drilling oil in the Sudan.
  ``These are war crimes,'' said Eric Reeves, a Smith College professor 
who works against companies doing business in Sudan. The criticism has 
fallen hardest on Talisman Oil, as I mentioned a Calgary-based firm 
that was little known outside of Canada until it bought a 25 percent 
stake in Sudan's most promising oil field. The Muglad Basin is 
classical geography for oil, a sedimentary plain exposed by two plates 
being pulled apart. Unfortunately, the same area roughly defines the 
boundaries between Sudan's north and the south.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent report by the British based NGO Christian Aid 
stated the following: ``In the oil fields of Sudan, civilians are being 
killed, being raped. The villages are being burned to the ground. They 
are caught in a war for oil. Part of the wider civil war between the 
north and the south has been waged for decades, but now oil is a key 
factor.

                              {time}  2320

  This makes it different. Since large-scale productions began 2 years 
ago, oil has moved the war into a new league. Across the oil-rich 
regions of Sudan, the government is pursuing a scorched-Earth policy to 
clear the land of civilians and to make way for exploration of oil by 
foreign oil companies. The Christian Aid report, ``The Scorched 
Earth,'' shows how the presence of international oil companies is 
fueling the war.
  Companies from Asia, from the west, including the U.K., have helped 
to build Sudan's oil industry offering finance, technology, expertise, 
and supplies to create a strong and growing oil industry in the center 
of the country. In the name of oil, government forces and government-
supported militias are entering the land of civilians, killing and 
displacing hundreds and thousands of southern Sudanese.
  The fact that this is continuing is an outrage. We must focus our 
attention to that, and in that regard the involvement of Talisman 
Energy Company has prompted me to introduce legislation, H. Con. Res. 
113, which calls for divestment in Sudan's oil companies. It also calls 
on the President to deny oil companies the ability to raise capital or 
trade equities in the United States capital markets, and calls on oil 
companies to freeze oil production. Talisman

[[Page 10384]]

Energy's role in scorched-Earth warfare against civilians in southern 
Sudan has been documented clearly.
  A Canadian-British team just back from Sudan has established clearly 
and authoritativly that Talisman's concession at its air strips, that 
they are allowing offensive military missions, including attack 
helicopters to be used from their air strips, gun boats, helicopter gun 
ships, and it was confirmed by information held by the Canadian Foreign 
Ministry for over 2 months and leaves only one question: When will the 
foreign minister, John Manley, halt clearly and start to really 
pressure this Canadian corporation in its behavior in the Sudan. We 
cannot allow this to continue. For the most part in the 1990s, the 
United States and its European allies worked together to contain and 
isolate the National Islamic Front government in the Sudan, considered 
by Washington to be a threat to regional stability.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. policy objectives have long been forged in three 
main areas: the massive destruction to end the civil war; to attempt to 
stop terrorism which was being conducted in Sudan; and to improve the 
human rights issues in that country.
  In early 1990, the United States attempted unsuccessfully to achieve 
its policy objectives through diplomatic means. By the mid-1990s, in 
response to the NIF's defiant attitude and intransigence, the U.S. 
diplomatic efforts were replaced by a policy of containment and 
pressures.
  This evolution in approach culminated in November 1997 when the 
Clinton administration imposed comprehensive sanctions on the NIF 
government after really reviewing its policy.
  The sanctions restrict imports and exports from Sudan, financial 
transactions, and prohibit U.S. investment. This was done by the 
Clinton administration, and it was a bold move in the right direction.
  On August 20, 1998, U.S. Naval forces struck a suspected chemical 
weapons facility in Khartoum in a terrorist training camp in 
Afghanistan in retaliation for the U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi, 
Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 250 people were killed in 
the embassy attacks, including 12 Americans. The bombing of Khartoum 
was seen by observers as a message to the NIF regime to stop supporting 
terrorist groups.
  In December 1999, hardliners within the ruling NIF government ousted 
the founder of the party, Hassan el-Turabi, and his allies from the 
party and the government in Khartoum. This well-planned move by the NIF 
leadership was designed to pave the way for rapprochement with the 
international community and to escape the consequences of U.S. 
sanctions. Government, eager to reestablish relations with Khartoum, 
allowed themselves to see the current NIF leadership as having become 
more moderate, a very cleverly orchestrated plan on the part of the NIF 
government to give way to allow European governments to say there is a 
change in Khartoum, but there was no real change in Khartoum.
  In contrast, many observers saw the rift within the NIF as a struggle 
between the old generation and the younger, highly ambitious Islamists. 
It appeared that there is little ideological difference between el-
Turabi and the current crowd that are running Khartoum.
  In fact, those now in power have taken a tougher, more strident 
ideological stance than the reckless fundamentalists of the el-Turabi 
faction. Indeed, a closer look at the leadership reveals that this 
group was the author of the NIF's extremist policies in the 1990s, so 
there is no change. Only a change to the worse.
  Mr. Speaker, the desire of some governments in Europe and the Middle 
East to embrace the National Islamic Front government under the guise 
of the changing of the guard in Khartoum is driven in large part by 
commercial interests, and it is clear European oil companies have large 
stakes in Southern Sudan and are now operational and on the verge of 
becoming even more prosperous as they go and explore oil.
  Unsurprisingly, officials in the NIF government have given a red 
carpet treatment to European governments. Despite U.N. sanctions, the 
U.N. Security Council sanctions which intended to restrict the travel 
of senior Sudanese officials, members of the European Union began this 
critical dialogue, as they call it, with the National Islamic Front 
government regime several years ago, rejecting the U.S. policy of 
containment of the NIF regime. They saw an opportunity to move ahead 
commercially, and we have to appeal to our allies that they must also 
have a standard of dignity and not to allow themselves to be corrupted 
by these pariah regimes.
  This new approach, according to EU officials, seek to achieve reform 
through dialogue and quiet persuasions without pressure, they say. 
Supporters of this policy argue that the policy of containment and 
isolation has failed to achieve its desired objectives. But many 
observers see the European approach as a synonym for a policy of 
appeasement, one that too obviously serves the commercial interests in 
Sudan, once again simply because of the potential lucrative oil sector.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this so-called critical dialogue is empty 
rhetoric designed to cover those wishing simply to do business with the 
NIF government. It is ironic and frustrating to many of us in 
Washington that America's allies in Europe continue to turn a blind eye 
to the abuses of the NIF government. Certainly if the objectives of the 
so-called critical dialogue were to moderate the behavior of the NIF 
government to improve human rights conditions, to stop the bombing, to 
end the government controlling the food supply, then we would say fine, 
let us move in that direction; but it has not done that, and the policy 
followed by the Europeans has failed miserably.

                              {time}  2330

  The government continues to bomb civilian targets in the south. The 
NIF militia continues to enslave women and children at alarming rates. 
And the government has become increasingly intransigent in the peace 
process. They really do not want peace, and they feel the new strength 
provided to them by the oil revenues.
  There were high level contacts between Washington and Khartoum in 
late 2000, just last year, intended to test and verify Khartoum's 
seriousness about reform. The United States delivered a road map for 
the regime to follow if it sought improvements with relations to the 
United States. Special envoy, former Congressman and former chairman of 
the Africa Subcommittee from Florida Harry Johnston became that special 
envoy and visited Khartoum twice to engage the government in 
discussions on human rights, humanitarian issues, the IGAD process led 
by Mr. Moi from Kenya, and other areas to try to see whether the 
government had new ideas, whether they were really interested in having 
a relationship with the U.S. by ending some of these horrible 
situations that they have engaged in through the years. The NIF regime 
balked at any kind of change. And the United States said that enough 
was enough. There was an attempt to have a lifting of the U.N. 
sanctions and to get Sudan into the U.N. Security Council as an 
alternative member, but an aggressive push by the U.S. prevented it in 
late 2000. That was a victory for us.
  What has become clear, though, is that the U.S. and its European 
allies differ fundamentally on the proper approach to Sudan and basic 
principles for engagement. We must try to be in sync with our European 
allies because together we can make a difference in this world, but we 
have to attempt to get on the same page. Advocates of a tough policy 
believe that without pressure and support for the democratic forces in 
Sudan, change is unlikely to come in the near future. Some of our 
allies in Europe and the Middle East believe that the NIF has changed 
and further reforms will come through critical dialogue and expanded 
economic interactions.
  The Bush administration undoubtedly will have to weigh both 
approaches in formulating its new policy toward the NIF regime. Indeed, 
there are those who are advocating the European line here in 
Washington, that we

[[Page 10385]]

should abandon the tough policy toward the NIF government. They say it 
has not worked in the past, so we ought to just start to have 
engagement like the Europeans. President Bush courageously spoke out 
about the issue in the Sudan on several occasions since he took office. 
Secretary of State Colin Powell has spoken on this issue more than any 
other issue in Africa to date. He said in his confirmation hearings 
that this was an area that they were going to concentrate on. And as I 
have indicated, he has spoken out against what has happened there.
  There are encouraging signs, but the administration must now move 
forth and needs to articulate its policy clearly. It must do so soon.
  I recently read an article about the possible appointment of Chester 
Crocker, former assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under 
the Reagan administration as the special envoy to Sudan. I know Dr. 
Crocker. He is well known in the African circles. He is extremely 
familiar with Africa, its issues, its problems. He has studied and 
taught about the continent for many, many years. And he has a good 
grasp of the continent.
  However, I think it is not the person, it is the policy; and I 
believe that the policy that we saw as it related to the apartheid 
government in South Africa, the policy of constructive engagement 
during those horrible years, lead me to have some questions about 
whether constructive engagement is the policy at hand today. I fiercely 
disagreed with the policy, as did the majority of the American people 
during the South Africa regime.
  The constructive engagement policy that Dr. Crocker authored in my 
view was a policy that did not serve the American people well, and it 
was really a policy that finally, with the leadership of Ron Dellums, 
the CAAA legislation was passed, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, 
in 1986, where many people in the House pushed this bill through. It 
went through both Houses, but was vetoed by the President. Dr. Crocker, 
of course, opposed the legislation. And it was the courageous vote of 
Senator Lugar of Indiana that cast the 67th vote to override the first 
overridden law of President Reagan, and the good Republican Senator 
from Indiana said that it was the only right thing to do to end this 
apartheid government in South Africa.
  We also have people in the White House who felt that Nelson Mandela 
should remain in prison. Vice President Cheney was one of only five 
Members of the House who voted that Mr. Mandela after 23 years in 
prison at that time should not be allowed to be released from prison. 
It said nothing about the sanctions; it said nothing about the 
government of South Africa, just that Mr. Mandela should be freed. Mr. 
Cheney voted no. Twenty-three years was not long enough for a person to 
be imprisoned only because he wanted the right to vote.
  And so the sensitivity of the envoy to Sudan is going to be very 
important, and it is going to be the way that people view the envoy. 
When a person was selected to do the negotiations in Northern Ireland, 
it was a very carefully done process. Senate leader Mitchell was 
selected to do the negotiations. Senator Mitchell was respected by both 
the Protestant majority and the Catholic minority. He was embraced by 
the Ulster regime and the Sinn Fein, the Gerry Adamses and the Trimbles 
and the Blair government and the Taoisech government in Ireland. He was 
a person that did not have any dislike from any group.
  I would hope that when we select an envoy for Sudan, it would be the 
same type of person that Senator Mitchell is. As a matter of fact, it 
does not have to be anyone who favors the south over the north. I have 
had the privilege of traveling with a Republican colleague of mine who 
served in the House, Republican Representative Tom Campbell from 
California. Mr. Campbell was a person who visited southern Sudan and 
visited other parts of Arab Northern Africa. He is a person who in my 
opinion would be the type of person that you would want to possibly be 
the envoy. He is a person who speaks foreign languages. He is a person 
who understands both views. He is a person that is not prejudiced to 
one side or the other.

                              {time}  2340

  He is a capable, caring, friend of Africa, who I think would make a 
difference.
  Finally, I would say that tomorrow the House will consider H.R. 20, 
the Sudanese Peace Act, which I strongly support, one of the original 
cosponsors. The Sudan Peace Act will reassert the findings from the 
106th Congress that the government of Sudan is committing genocide 
against its people of southern Sudan; that they are employing divide 
and conquer techniques to further fracture southern opposition to 
northern governance; that it is helping to allow paramilitary groups to 
conduct raids and enslave its population.
  In the bill, we talk about the way that the government of Sudan is 
inflicting an ongoing campaign of aerial bombing its citizens, a 
scorched earth policy designed to drive out people from the land so 
they can then take the oil revenues.
  In this legislation, it expresses a sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of State should use the State Department personnel to pursue 
multilateral and bilateral peace processes in Sudan and seek 
multilateral pressure on all combatants in the civil war and urges the 
President to use $10 million appropriated in fiscal year 2001 to assist 
the Sudanese opposition, the National Democratic Alliance, the NDA, for 
funding for office space and equipment and radio and vehicles and 
computers and staff and political effectiveness training.
  It asks for continued support for humanitarian food distribution 
through OLS, the Operation Lifeline Sudan. But it also urges the 
President to develop contingency plans should the government of Sudan 
obstruct food delivery as it has done in the past; that we should have 
other ways to get food to people who are in need. It requires all 
businesses trading securities in the U.S. capital markets and operating 
in the Sudan to fully disclose the extent and nature of their 
operations, particularly oil operations, and requires the Secretary of 
State to collect information about the war to keep updated information, 
including slavery and rape and aerial bombings of the citizens.
  So we are hoping that tomorrow this bill will come to the floor and 
be passed. We hope that this tragedy in Sudan will finally come to an 
end.
  I am encouraged by the number of people now who have gotten on board. 
I am encouraged by the number of people who have said enough is enough. 
I am encouraged by the Congressional Black Caucus who have come back to 
support this whole question of a change in the Sudan.
  I commend Kweisi Mfume and the NAACP who has said this practice must 
end. I commend Joe Madison, a radio talk host, who has done an 
extraordinary job in bringing to his listening audience the tragedy of 
Sudan. I applaud Reverend Sharpton who has gone to Sudan with Mr. 
Madison, and Reverend Faunteroy and Reverend Jesse Jackson who intends 
to visit Sudan in the near future, and to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) who for many, many years has been in Sudan, probably the 
leading person dealing with this tragedy. He has done an outstanding 
job, and I have a great deal of respect for what he has done; and my 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) in the House and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Houghton), and Senator Brownback in the U.S. Senate, Senator 
Frist, so many who have said enough is enough.
  The newspapers are finally putting in its newspapers the truth about 
what is going on there. It has taken a long time. It has taken 50 years 
to get the attention it should get but it is getting that attention 
now.
  Ebony Magazine will have an article in its August edition. We have 
schools. I went to a school in Bergen County, New Jersey, where they 
have a curriculum on the Sudan and it is attempting to get the board of 
education in that town to adopt a policy of teaching about the tragedy 
of the Sudan.

[[Page 10386]]

  So they say if you start me with 10 who are stout-hearted men, I will 
soon give you 10,000 more. If I start you with 10 who are stout-hearted 
men or women, we should say today I will give you 10,000 more, and a 
trip of a thousand miles must begin with the first step.
  There have been many steps but they have been quiet steps. The steps 
that we are hearing now are louder steps. They are more steps. They are 
bigger steps. They are steps that are making noise. They are people in 
high places who are now saying this place in the Sudan we have 
overlooked for so long now it is time for us to focus on it.
  We have people who are saying that we cannot allow in this new 
millennium to have people still enslaved and children starving to 
death. We can no longer allow in this time and place that we should 
look the other way as we did when the tragedy was going on in Somalia 
and when the terrible situation was going on in Sierra Leone and when 
we saw civil war in Liberia, and when we watched dictators in Nigeria 
we looked the other way in many of these instances, but finally we are 
coming together on this question of Sudan.
  I will continue to fight for the right of the people of that nation. 
I will continue to fight for those voices, people who have no voice, 
those who suffer daily. We all should be concerned. We all have a 
responsibility. We all must get involved. We all must call our Congress 
people and senators, talk to our church people and school friends to 
have our civic organizations and League of Women Voters put this on 
their agendas. The women's clubs and the sororities and the 
fraternities all must take this battle on. We must win. We will win. We 
are on the right side. No longer can the world run and hide. The world 
must now decide that enough is enough; that this country needs to be 
brought into the 21st Century.
  I hope that tomorrow will be another step in that direction.

                          ____________________