Honest Leadership And Open Government Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 24, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

But let me ask your side. I had an amendment to say that CIA station chiefs and people who were ambassadors cannot go out and work for the Khartoum government. Many on your side talk about the genocide in Darfur. I have been before the Rules Committee three times, and I have never had an amendment made in order. Now you give him an amendment, which may be a good amendment or maybe not, but I don't get any opportunity to offer my amendment.

Many on your side say, we are concerned about Darfur. This would have done more. There was a CIA station chief who left the CIA, working for the Khartoum government, and you would not even allow us to offer an amendment. Yet you go to the rallies and you speak out against Darfur.

I rise in opposition this amendment, and I rise against the activity of the Rules Committee. You all are pushing too much. And you are pushing people on this side.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WOLF. I am pointing at the Rules Committee. I am pointing at everybody on this side who would not give me an amendment to stop the genocide in Darfur.

* [Begin Insert]

Madam Chairman, I continue to grow more and more frustrated that my side of the aisle is not being heard.

I have been to the Rules Committee no less than three times this year--most recently last night--seeking amendments to bills coming before the House. Each time I have offered substantive changes, aimed at improving legislation. I have not been offering partisan amendments that would gut bills.

The amendment I sought to have debated as part of this bill would have closed the revolving door on former ambassadors and CIA station chiefs from representing countries in which they served for five years. Currently, an ambassador can leave the service of the United States one day and be hired the very next as an agent of foreign nation where they had served. These officials see every decision the United States makes in relation to that country. They have access to intelligence, policy documents and other confidential information. But under today's rules, the day they leave they have every legal right to use that same information on behalf of a foreign nation. These are people who have been entrusted with great responsibility. And they don't always work in the most friendliest of countries, or countries who have the United States best interests at heart.

My amendment would have ended this practice. Regrettably, it wasn't ruled in order, yet Mr. Abercrombie's amendment, which aimed at closing the revolving door for flag and general officers from going to work for huge defense companies, was. I don't understand. Your side talks about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion. I don't see it. My amendment drives at the same thing as Mr. Abercrombie's, yet was roundly dismissed. This issue has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It has to do with what is right.

Last year I learned that a former State Department official and former CIA station chief, trained at the expense of the American taxpayer, were lobbying on behalf of Sudan, the same government that is playing a role in the genocide in Darfur.

No other government is a more established enemy of human dignity. Not only is the government widely linked to organizing and arming militias who have raped and killed innocent women, men and children, pillaged villages and displaced millions in Darfur, the Khartoum government gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996 and allows the terrorist group Hamas to operate within its borders.

We all say we want to end the genocide yet we have no problem with rogue govermnents hiring Washington-based lobbyists. Yet the Rules Committee won't allow an amendment barring former high ranking diplomats and CIA station chiefs from representing country's like Sudan.

Don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia, where not just one, but several former ambassadors to Saudi Arabia have been on the Kingdom's payroll.

Severe human rights abuses and religious persecution are status quo in Saudi Arabia. Our own State Department has flatly said religious freedom does not exist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi doctrine, which is at the root of our global war on terror, is taught and encouraged by Saudi Arabia.

Read the attached piece from CQ that ran in February of 2006 about former U.S. Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia--the home to 15 of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers--who have or are presently on retainer by the Saudi government. It is extremely troubling.

During the Reagan Administration no lobbyist would have dared to even suggest representing a country like the Soviet Union. The clients signed up by some in the lobbying business today are among the world's most unsavory governments, including major human rights abusers and direct threats like China.

It saddens me to learn that reputable Washington lobbying firms take up the mantle of a Chinese state-run entity in their efforts to ``merge'' with a private American company. Is there no consideration given to the fact that the Chinese government poses a national security threat to the United States, including an organized spy network, which I have heard described in great detail in FBI briefings?

China blatantly disrespects free trade norms and intellectual property law. It persistently violates human rights, imprisoning and torturing Catholic priests, Protestant house church leaders, Tibetan Buddhists, Uyghur Muslims, and Falun Gong practitioners. China consistently stifles political dissent and free expression. Yet, big K Street firms don't think twice about representing them.

Nor do they think twice about the fact that China is providing guns and ammunition to the government of Sudan, which is complicit in the genocide that is taking place in Dafur. More than 450,000 people have died and China has done nothing to stop the violence. The PRC, in fact, is helping fuel the violence.

Sadly, we didn't get to debate this today. I hope in the future that the Rules Committee, and your side, will look at the aim of the amendment before just dismissing them out of hand.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source