was an unfortunate concession to Khartoum, which Khartoum has been foolish enough to reject. It was a flawed concept from the start, since such a hybrid force would prove far less effective in protecting civilians than the planned UN force. It's time to tell Khartoum that it has a simple choice: accept the UN force as envisioned in UNSCR 1706 or face escalating pressure from the U.S.

Step Three: The 110th Congress should swiftly adopt new legislation on Darfur that builds upon a bill introduced by Congressman Payne in the last session as HR 1424, which garnered the bipartisan support of over 100 co-sponsors. The new legislation should:

• Authorize the President to use force to stop the genocide in Darfur, including by imposing a no-fly zone, bombing aircraft, airfields and the regime's other military and intelligence and related assets.

• Authorize funds to upgrade Abeche airfield in Chad, with the agreement of the Government of Chad, in order to support potential NATO air operations, to facilitate a UN deployment to Chad and Darfur, and for humanitarian purposes.

• Urge the Administration to press for the deployment of UN peacekeepers to the borders of Chad and the Central African Republic to protect civilians and serve as advance elements for the UN force in Darfur authorized under UNSCR 1706.

• Impose capital market sanctions on companies investing in Sudan. Urge the President to freeze the assets of the Government of Sudan as well as to freeze the funds and prohibit the travel to the U.S. of key Sudanese military, government and janjaweed leaders and their families.

• Require the Administration to report every 30 days (in unclassified and classified form) on the financial, military, and covert steps it is prepared to take to compel the GOS to accept unconditionally a robust UN force and halt attacks on civilians.

Step Four: If within fifteen days of the issuance of the "Plan B" Executive Order, the Government of Sudan has failed to fulfill the above conditions, the Administration should exert military pressure on Khartoum to achieve the same ends.

What I wrote with Anthony Lake and Donald Payne in the Washington Post on October 2, 2006, still applies:

"History demonstrates there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force. After 9/11, when President Bush warned states that harbor terrorists, Sudan recalling the 1998 U.S. air-strike on Khartoum, suddenly began cooperating on counter-terrorism. It's time again to get tough with Sudan.

This is what's needed: After swift diplomatic consultations, the U.S. should press for a Chapter VII UN resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept the unconditional deployment of the UN force within one week, or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by UN member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relents. The U.S., preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. They could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then, the UN force would deploy-by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the U.S. fails to gain UN support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the U.S. acted without UN blessing in 1999 in Kosovo-to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary. Under NATO auspices, we bombed Serbian targets until Milosevic acquiesced. Not a single American died in combat, and ethnic cleansing ended. Many nations protested that we violated international law but, subsequently, the UN deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO military action retroactively.

Unthinkable in the current context? True, the international climate is less forgiving than in 1999. Iraq and torture scandals have left many abroad doubting our motives and legitimacy. Some will reject any future U.S. military action, especially against an Islamic regime, even if purely to halt genocide against Muslim civilians. Sudan has also threatened that Al Qaeda will attack non-African forces in Darfur-a real possibility since Sudan long hosted bin Laden and his businesses. Yet, to allow another state to deter the U.S. by threatening terrorism would set a terrible precedent. It would also be cowardly and, in the face of genocide, immoral.

Some will argue the U.S. military cannot take on another mission. Our ground forces are stretched thin. But a bombing campaign or a naval blockade would tax the Air Force and Navy, which have relatively more capacity, and could utilize the 1,500 U.S. military personnel in nearby Djibouti.

Others will insist that, without the consent of the UN or a relevant regional body, we would be breaking international law. Perhaps, but the Security Council recently codified a new international norm prescribing "the responsibility to protect." It commits UN members to decisive action, including enforcement, when peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity.

This genocide has lasted [over] three long years. Peaceful measures have failed. The Sudanese government is poised to launch a second round of genocide. The real question is this: will we use force to save Africans in Darfur as we did to save Europeans in Kosovo?"

This proposal has been controversial.

Some analysts prefer the imposition of a no-fly zone over Darfur to a bombing campaign. Seemingly, they view it as a less aggressive option. It is a fine option, but let's be clear what it entails. Rather than stand-off air strikes against defined targets, to maintain a no-fly zone would require an asset-intensive, 24 hour per day, 7 day per-week open-ended military commitment in a logistically difficult context. To protect the no-fly area, the air cap would have to disable or shoot down any aircraft that took off in the zone. It would require shutting down Sudanese airfields in and near Darfur to all but humanitarian traffic. In short, it would soon require many of the same steps as are necessary to effect the air strikes we recommend, plus much more.

Some humanitarian organizations have expressed concern that air strikes could disrupt humanitarian operations or cause the Government of Sudan to intensify ground attacks against civilians in camps. These are legitimate concerns. The risk is real.

Yet, there are ways to mitigate these risks. The targets for bombing could be selected to avoid those airfields used by humanitarian agencies operating in Darfur. To protect civilians at risk, the U.S., France or other NATO countries could position a light quick reaction force in nearby Chad to deter and, when possible respond to, increased attacks against civilians in Darfur and Chad. While the risks may be mitigated, we know they cannot be eliminated.

Yet, we also know not just the risk but the daily cost of the status quo of bluster and retreat. That cost has been and will continue to be: thousands and thousands and thousands more lives each month. That cost is an emboldened Khartoum government that continues to act with impunity. That cost is a regime that literally has gotten away with murder, while the U.S. merely remonstrates.

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this cost is too high. Too many have already died. Too many more are soon to die. When will the Administration finally determine that enough is enough?

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for convening this critical hearing on the most important humanitarian crisis facing us today.

The current crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan is of paramount importance. Although Americans may differ greatly on many issues, there is a widespread and broad-based consensus among Democrats and Republicans alike that the ongoing genocide in Darfur is intolerable and must be ended. Today we are presented with a great opportunity to work in a bipartisan fashion to achieve a humanitarian result in responding to the overwhelming suffering in Darfur.

Not since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a systematic campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, mass murder, and terror as we are witnessing in Darfur for the last three years. At least 400,000 people have been killed; more than 2 million innocent civilians have been forced to flee their homes and now live in displaced-persons camps in Sudan or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad; and more than 3.5 million men, women, and children are completely reliant on international aid for survival.

Unless the world stirs from its slumber and takes concerted and decisive action to relieve this suffering, the ongoing genocide in Darfur will stand as one of the blackest marks on humankind for centuries to come. The people of Darfur cannot wait. The time has come for decisive leadership from the United States.

It has been more than two years since my colleagues and I in the Congressional Black Caucus Darfur Task Force met with Secretary Colin Powell. We pressed successfully for the Administration to declare that the campaign of ethnic cleansing and atrocities against civilians in Sudan is genocide. The atrocities are committed primarily by the government of Sudan and its allied Janjaweed militias.

It has been more than a year since I flew to Chad, walked across the border to Sudan, and met with African Union troops who pleaded for more peacekeeping authority and the resources to protect the refugees from violence, rather than merely monitor it. After returning from that Congressional delegation, I worked with other Members of Congress to secure increased funding to aid the thousands of Sudanese displaced to refugee camps in Chad and to provide additional funding to assist Chad in responding to the humanitarian crisis.

It has been almost two years since the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1556 demanding that the government of Sudan disarm the Janjaweed. This demand was later followed by Resolution 1706, which authorizes a 20,000 strong UN peacekeeping force.

It has been nine months since the Darfur Peace Agreement was brokered in May 2006 between the government of Sudan and one faction of Darfur rebels.

But still the violence continues; indeed, the violence is escalating. This violence is making it even more dangerous, if not impossible, for most of the millions of displaced persons to return to their homes and for humanitarian relief agencies to bring food and medical aid. According to Jan Egeland, the UN's top humanitarian official, the situation in Darfur is "going from real bad to catastrophic."

We have come full circle. Violence is increasing, peace treaties are falling apart, and action must be taken. I recently co-sponsored the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, introduced by my friend and colleague, Ms. Barbara Lee, and I believe that the passage of this bill is one valuable step we can take as Americans toward the peacemaking process in the region.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to update and extend my knowledge of Darfur with the help of U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, Mr. Natsios. I hope that these efforts will continue into the weeks ahead, and that we may intensify our dialogue with representatives of the Arab League, humanitarian groups, and various African public policy groups to discuss ways and means of future peacemaking efforts.

We must increase pressure on Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan to allow in UN peacekeepers, or alternatively, a peacekeeping force of similar size comprised of Arab and Muslim troops under the auspices of the Arab League. As with any government, dialogue is the best way to attempt a solution to the issue at hand. However, previous engagements have yielded poor results-the government of Sudan has been all too willing to cooperate on the surface level by signing agreements and the like and all too willing to fail to implement them.

In 1997, the Clinton Administration imposed trade and economic sanctions on Sudan, an approach which I feel is likely to yield the best results. However, sanctions imposed by a limited number of countries do not pressure the government of Sudan adequately enough. It must be noted that no just and lasting peace in Sudan can be achieved without the responsible intervention of China.

For too long, China, which is Sudan's biggest oil consumer, has also served as Khartoum's enabler and protector by preventing the U.N. Security Council from imposing more serious sanctions on Sudan in response to the genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur. As former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick stated in a major policy speech on China a year ago: "China should take more than oil from Sudan-it should take some responsibility for resolving Sudan's human crisis." It is my hope that China may be persuaded to provide the type of constructive leadership in Sudan befitting a great power.

These are the kind of constructive efforts that I feel will best represent the interests of the people of Darfur to bring an end to this horrible crisis. I am in favor of deploying UN peacekeeping troops to the region, and the UN needs to move swiftly. In addition, any options regarding United States military intervention should be carefully considered and not ruled out.

As we consider these options, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind you that it is not too early to begin the planning efforts needed to transform the Darfur region from a killing field to an economically, politically, and socially viable community. This work will, of course, require the active and purposeful engagement of the United States and other key stakeholders, such as China, and the Arab League.

In this regard, I have been engaged in an on-going dialogue with government representatives of Egypt, a dialogue that has already yielded significant dividends. For example, Egypt has implemented several fast track projects in southern Sudan in different sectors involving health, agriculture, electricity, irrigation, infrastructure,

and education in order to make unity an even more attractive option to the people of south Sudan.

Finally, we must be bold and imaginative in fashioning a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. The way to do that is to develop a Marshall Plan for the Sudan. But the United Nations, and the international community, must draw a line in the sand and act to stop the genocide in Darfur. The words of President Lincoln speak to us from the ages:

"[W]e cannot escape history. We, of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

As you and others have said, Mr. Chairman, the killing in Darfur goes on and on. When I visited Darfur two years ago, with my Committee colleague Diane Watson, 200,000 were dead. Today the Sudanese airforce is still bombing civilians, and that number has doubled. What are we doing?

I read in the Washington Post yesterday about a "Plan B" being developed by the Administration. Essentially, more sanctions, primarily financial. They are to be implemented if Khartoum fails to meet "benchmarks."

My reaction is why are we just now looking at these options? And why the mechanistic approach diplomacy-do this or we'll do that. Genocide demands and urgent and frankly rather un-nuanced response. There are no sure solutions; and it's clear that much of the world could care less about the slaughter; but it's also clear that we haven't been doing enough.

This conflict highlights the profound shortcomings of the UN. We'd be further down the road of acting decisively if it were not for the restrictions we allow the Security Council to impose upon us. With the UN, we're guaranteed the lowest common denominator approach to genocide.

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE ANDREW NATSIOS, SPECIAL ENVOY TO SUDAN AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR FOR USAID, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Question:

I would like to reference a letter then-Chairman Hyde and I wrote to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2004. Commenting on a pending UN draft resolution on Sudan, we wrote, “We believe that genocide requires exceptional responses by the United States and the international community. We also believe that these responses should be taken with or without concurrence by the Government of Sudan. In short, the Government's complicity and participation in genocide in Darfur has forfeited the 'sovereignty' and 'territorial integrity' reaffirmed by this draft resolution. The reaffirmation of these principles, though perhaps stock language for the United Nations, will be consequential in shaping the international community's response to the Darfur crisis. The United States should not be bolstering the Government of Sudan's ability to frustrate current and potential interventions in Darfur." That is a key point, as the Sudanese government has been asserting sovereignty in an attempt to frustrate peacekeeping efforts. Any thoughts?

Response:

Responses to genocide in Darfur should not be dependent upon the concurrence of the Government of Sudan (GOS). We argued this point in our negotiations to secure passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1706 authorizing a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to use all necessary means to protect civilians under threat of physical violence. This authority allows the force to act without the consent of the GOS. The challenge in implementing resolution 1706 has not been a lack of legal authority to act without the consent of the GOS. The challenge has been the lack of countries willing to contribute forces to a non-permissive environment in Darfur. The USG continues to engage diplomatically with key international partners and the Sudanese government to resolve the crisis in Darfur. We made clear to the Sudanese government that we will use

stronger measures in the event that the Government of Sudan continues to defy the will of the international community.

Question:

During the Rwanda genocide, State Department lawyers made the ruling, which was followed, that we couldn't disable the hate radio broadcasts that were fueling the killing. It was a freedom of broadcasting issue, they maintained. Bad ruling. I want to know what legal impediments you have confronted in trying to forge an aggressive policy against genocide in Darfur?

Response:

The most significant impediments we have confronted have been political and practical, rather than legal, in nature. We have faced resistance in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on several Darfur-related items and had great difficulty achieving a UNSC resolution (UNSCR) authorizing a UN peacekeeping force for Darfur with a robust civilian protection mandate. We finally obtained a resolution, and the Government of Sudan adamantly opposed the process of organizing and deploying a force. In consequence, troop contributing countries have been unwilling to commit troops to an actively hostile environment.

We have also faced resistance in the Security Council to the effective use of sanctions to address the situation in Darfur. While the Security Council expressed its intention in resolution 1564 to consider actions to affect Sudan's petroleum sector in the event that the GOS failed to take specified steps with regard to Darfur, opposition among some members of the Security Council has prevented adoption of any such measures. We have also faced opposition to the imposition of sanctions against individuals who obstruct the peace process or commit atrocities in Darfur pursuant to UNSCR 1591. In addition, significant biographic and other supporting information necessary to designate individuals is sometimes difficult to obtain in the case of individuals who operate in Darfur. We were ultimately able to designate only four individuals under UNSCR 1591 sanctions in UNSCR 1672. We are working to get agreement from our international partners on more designations at the UN. Question:

Why are we just now considering imposing a range of financial sanctions, years after our government declared this killing to be genocide?

Response:

Economic sanctions have been in place against Sudan since 1997, the same year the United States designated the Government of Sudan (GOS) as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Executive Order 13067 imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Sudan, including an asset freeze against the GOS. The practical impact of the existing sanctions regime against Sudan means that U.S. persons (i.e. companies or individuals) are prohibited from engaging in commerce with the GOS at any point without a license from the U.S. Department of Treasury and transactions in U.S. dollars are generally blocked from transiting through Sudan.

As a result of Sudan's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, there are, among other things, restrictions on foreign assistance; a ban on exports of defense articles and services; special reporting obligations for certain exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

In 2006, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (DPAA) lifted the sanctions imposed by EO 13067 on southern Sudan, Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains State, Blue Nile State, Abyei, Darfur, and marginalized areas in and around Khartoum. Executive Order 13412 implemented this statute while maintaining all economic sanctions with respect to all petroleum or petrochemical industry related transactions wherever found, direct transactions with the GOS, transshipments of goods through northern Sudan, and financial transactions transiting Khartoum.

Sudan is also listed on Tier 3 of the 2006 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, which brings additional sanctions. Specifically, TIP sanctions apply to all non-trade and non-humanitarian assistance, though a Presidential waiver was sought in order to continue such U.S. assistance. Sudan is also listed as a Country of Particular Concern on the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Report.

Our current discussions involve enhancing the already strong U.S. sanctions regime on Sudan. "Plan B" refers to a series of additional robust measures that we are prepared to employ against the Government of Sudan (GOS) in the face of its continued intransigence on Darfur. The Plan would use more aggressive mechanisms to enforce existing sanctions in addition to expanding the list with new companies not covered by the old sanctions.